Unfortunately, it’s not accepted everywhere.
Does anyone honestly believe that when Tom Angel was working for the Burbank Police Department he never “forwarded” any of those ethnic jokes to people within the City of Burbank’s email system?
He only sent them to outside parties? He never wanted to share the fun with his fellow employees?
Of course not.
It’s highly suspect that the only such internal email that Albano did release was the one to Denis Cremins about the “72 virgins” question. You mean there was never anything else in a similar vein, even if only sent to Cremins?
No jokes at all, eh. How could that possibly be?
No, Albano and the city manager are sitting on a number of other such city related emails from Angel. But to release them to the public would immediately raise the question about why those other city folks never bothered to report this discriminatory behavior to their superiors or city council members. Or even to a federal agency or two, considering the ongoing outside investigation and lawsuits over Portos and Pavelka.
Raising other names would also call into question these fellow employees’ own possible participation in the fun. Like they would never send anything back? She’d have to release those, too.
Albano and the city manager are clearly hiding more derogatory evidence of employee misconduct and discriminatory behavior, and possibly on a large scale while the Portos police mess was still ongoing. Think our city council cares?
We also still want to know where Councilman Rogers was during that same time period. Does anyone remember him speaking out about this mega-controversy publicly?
We recall him being conspicuously silent and absent from the scene. And when almost no one else was.
Will doesn’t like it when we ask these questions, because it gives credence to our long-held suspicion that he was quietly working on behalf of the city in an opposition research/PR role. Years ago Bud Ovrom wanted him to do so on behalf of the city’s then-airport issues, and then hide him under Peter Kirsch’s attorney budget. So it’s not that odd an idea.
So what else was it? Was he out of town during that entire time period?
But not any more.
Here’s to the continuing decline of our community. The latest retread today of the police mess is the least of it around here.
But hey, if they get the money in for that new Central Branch they all want to replace the old one with, maybe they can put in a couple of MakerSpaces and IdeaLabs.
Or even a WeCREATE Center!
— Tom Angel, Sheriff Jim McDonnell’s chief of staff
They weren’t all forwarded emails. There was one he wrote himself. And it defies credibility that most of the only ones that he ever sent on these topics were supposedly “forwarded” from somewhere else.
No, those are just the ones that Albano chose to release under pressure from the Times.
The only one by his hand (as referenced in their news article) was pretty innocuous. And so you mean that that was it? The guy sends all these “jokes” around and nothing more?
Come on. When you do that kind of thing you do it alot. We already know by the article itself that Albano initially tried to hide them all from the Times. All of his.
“Anybody in the workplace unfortunately forwards emails from time to time that they probably shouldn’t have forwarded,” Angel said. “I apologize if I offended anybody, but the intent was not for the public to have seen these jokes.”
Like that was the problem.
This guy’s not apologetic. He got caught, that’s all. Even worse, he was stupid enough to send these emails through a city system right smack dab during the middle of a politically challenging time period when this very same employer was being investigated for the very same behavior in its people.
By the frigging FBI !!!
They really don’t give a damn, do they? And then LaChasse goes out of his way to defend him to the Leader?
Somebody in the comments section in the Times had a great point.
He says these are just forwarded emails from elsewhere, but who in the world gets such things, let alone hangs around with the kind of personality types who send them?
Then of course, uses work email to help spread them around?
Remember, this is a guy who was hired to help rid the Department of such impulses.
Does this really surprise anyone?
Who else laughed along?
Angel’s Burbank emails were first released in 2014 in response to records requests filed by a Los Angeles attorney on behalf of a client. The Times recently learned of the requests, which sought various records, including four years’ worth of emails to and from top-ranking Burbank police officials containing derogatory language about Islam, African Americans, Latinos and others. The attorney, Travis Poteat, did not return calls for comment.
The Times asked for the same records he obtained. In its response to the newspaper, the city did not initially include the emails forwarded by Angel until a reporter asked why they were missing. City officials said the emails were in a batch of records that were inadvertently overlooked.
In all but one case, the city redacted the names and addresses of Angel’s email correspondents. A city spokesman said the redactions applied to anyone who did not work for the city because making their identities public would amount to an invasion of privacy.
Bullshit. Even worse, you know damn well that the city is lying here. There has to have been more then one City of Burbank recipient.
Albano and Company just don’t want you to know who they were. They released the one name to make it look like they were complying with the legal request. Releasing none at all would have made it perfectly obvious that they were being willfully dishonest and non-compliant.
[The one city email they did release was apparently that fairly innocuous question to Cremins about the “72 virgins.” What a coincidence that the one Albano finally decided to let go of was also the least offensive of the bunch.]
If this idiotic stuff had been known to be floating around the city’s email system back then — which it was — it would have added fuel to the fire to those 2007-2014 legal cases against the city, including that of the Justice Department. And so the Burbank city attorney and city manager don’t want anyone to know the full extent of it.
So where’s our intrepid “investigative reporter” Will Rogers on this one, eh? Does he approve of this blatant lack of transparency on the part of his charges?
You know, he himself can release those city names if he wants to. Will he?
As to Angel — didn’t it matter to him or the Burbank Police Department that he was sending this crap around during the FBI mess? How stupid can you be.
“They were not right, not to be condoned,” LaChasse said. “There’s nobody more contrite about it than Tom Angel. That’s not a part of his DNA.”
Angel declined to comment on whether he was disciplined but said he has never been the subject of an internal investigation for his conduct.
“Ask if there has ever been any kind of issue with my dealing with any minority communities in the history of my association with law enforcement, and you’ll find there’s been none,” Angel said.
Not in Burbank. Of course not. That’s why all this stuff kept happening and happening.
Oh, we’ll amend that second-to-last statement. There is if the management people deem you to be insubordinate in nature. Like, if you levy or file a complaint or lawsuit against them. Then they’ll go after you! Then there’s an “issue.” And lots of internal investigations in your name.
We saw that over and over again in Burbank. If a police employee raised hell about something the uniformed and civilian management people always found a reason for discipline.
Also … don’t these rediscovered emails contradict that very last utterance of his?
Of course they do. There’s an obvious issue there with this guy, and it doesn’t take much to “find” it. Unless management helps him out by trying to hide his bigoted smartass emails for as long as possible.
As to Councilman Rogers, here’s a great opportunity to re-ask an old question of ours. It’s something we’ve always wondered about:
Rogers was all over the place politically in this town right before the Portos story went wild. And he was all over the place after everything had eventually settled down, beginning about a couple of years ago.
But where was Rogers during that years long Portos/BPD/discrimination controversy itself?
Portos and its fallout was national news everywhere, and yet Rogers the investigative journalist didn’t seem to be interested enough to even come out and lend a word or two about it to the public? For the biggest Burbank news story of the last 50 or 60 years?
This was very odd, and we noticed his absence at the time. He of all people you’d think would be out there talking about things, no?
Why the years-long disappearing act?
Wouldn’t it be nice if this town could give an honored recognition to — let’s say — an art teacher or something similar?
Former Burbank High swimmer, water polo player and coach David Nelson was honored during the Burroughs versus Burbank High swim meet Tuesday.
Nelson, a 2007 graduate, was killed last summer while serving in the line of duty as a Bakersfield Police Officer. He was 26.
A plaque was placed on the wall inside the pool area of the school to honor Nelson.
Principal Dr. Michael Bertram, former principal Bruce Osgood, former Burbank swim coach Adam Wright , Bakersfield Police Chief Greg Williams and Nelson’s brother Erik were among those that came out to honor the officer who had spent two years working Bakersfield.
“He was offered a full-time job in Washington D.C., but he said ‘I don’t think I can sit behind a desk,’” recalled his father Larry Nelson of his son’s choosing to go into law enforcement. “He said ‘I feel it is my duty to serve and protect.’ It’s hard that he’s not here, but he said ‘That’s what I want to do the rest of my life.’”
Like Larry Maxam, this is a guy who no one had ever heard of until the other authority figures and tough guys in town got a hold of him to exploit and sentimentalize.
So how about a plaque for Regnal Hall (for example), who actually did something for Burbank High? It was like pulling teeth to get this school district to put their old one back on the wall for Deane Wolfson.
And even then they still won’t freely call the BHS auditorium what it actually is, the Wolfson Auditorium. We’ve been documenting this slam for years.
You know, it never used to be this way. Nowadays they’d name the same auditorium after a cop or a soldier if they could.
Talk about a deliberate attempt to tread on Passover:
Within Burbank schools, April will now be recognized as the Armenian Genocide of 1915 Commemoration Month, following a resolution that school board member Armond Aghakhanian introduced last Thursday.
The Burbank school board passed the item with a 3-2 vote, after hearing multiple students and adults encourage its passage on April 21, a few days ahead of April 24, which marked 101 years since the beginning of the genocide.
A genocide that will apparently never end.
Why April, why this event and not others (like Germany 1933-1945), and why the whole entire month?
We congratulate the two board members who abstained from voting for this silly, discriminatory idea. They should have shown some balls though and voted against it.
We can, together, recognize these atrocities and recognize the lives of the people killed systematically by the Turkish government,” [student] Dermendjian said, adding that the resolution’s passage would entail “a courageous step taken by our board” to help Burbank residents understand the history of the genocide and empower educators and students to learn more about it.
“Through this, we can stop the denial of the Armenian Genocide,” he said.
Who’s denying it? We’re just sick of hearing about it all the time. Get a frigging life.
It’s interesting that you never hear Jews carrying on about the extermination of those six million in Europe. Just why is that?
The sick, morbid jealousy and competition going on here is appalling. It’s also terrifically creepy and unhealthy for these kids’ heads to be constantly filled with the tribal hatreds of a century ago and more.
And yes, the timing of it all is indeed a deliberate attempt to step on the Jewish recognitions of the same season — including that of the German Holocaust.
Look, if the City of Burbank wants to adopt anti-drone regulations tonight then so be it. But to act like they’re doing it in response to a fear of commercial espionage is disingenuous.
It also suggests that the City of Burbank is once again in thrall to “the studios.”
What a crock.
How much exterior filming is being done in Burbank these days? It’s almost all indoors. Everyone knows what these big budget films are about anyway. And how many incidents have there even been of such nefarious activity?
Staff fails to cite any such alarming references in this obvious suck-up job above, which means that it most likely rarely happens. Or that it never has.
It’s also ridiculous for anyone to claim that what’s going on over off of West Olive or Alameda is some kind of issue of national security. Who is Burbank to to be so concerned about these billion dollar businesses?
Isn’t that their problem, and not ours?
Staff certainly has no problem admitting how much they shill for their commercial friends in town, do they? They’re completely unashamed of the fact, and even — such as here, tonight — when it extends to the point of total ridiculousness.
The council members tonight should ask to see the full police reports of such overhead spying efforts. Else-wise they should come to the clear conclusion that their staff people are constantly full of crap. Think they will?
No. They’ll just adopt the following preferential rules anyway:
Why single out the studios for special benefits and privileges? Most of these “safety requirements” will also end up getting tossed out of court if and when challenged.
Notice too how staff can’t even be honest about what these 11 things are? They’re rules and regulations. So why don’t they just call them that?
How is this…
…any better than this?
Hint: it’s not.
Which means that Burroughs and the BUSD need to get rid of the whole thing. This mascot is still racist and demeaning, and even more so with those stupid muscles. The old one at least had some wit to it.
Btw, remember what a great-looking school this used to be?
Such clean and simple mid-century lines. Very relaxing to the eye. Now it looks like total crap. What a busy, cluttered, ugly, and cumbersome learning environment this school has become.
Exactly whose idea was that?
Whatever, Burroughs needs to stop compounding this idiocy by getting rid of both its Indian team name and mascot entirely. The selection process as described here does not make things any better. If this same crowd had also voted to install an electric chair down in the counselor’s office and tie it to the power pole outside would that have been OK for the district as well?
As long as it was their decision, yes. Democracy in action. Notice too that this school “committee” in the article was not given the choice of dumping the team-name entirely. Just the mascot on the wall. So it was your typical phony, BUSD choice.
Burroughs, get rid of the Indian. And not just the picture.
This is from tomorrow night’s agenda as well.
And it’s insane:
Direct Staff to return with a program whereby residents have the opportunity to be honored and/or memorialized at a designated public facility.
As a result of naming a facility after a resident and due to the circumstances surrounding the name change request, Council discussed at length the criteria in warranting a name change for a public facility. Subsequently, at the March 31, 2015 Council meeting, Mayor Frutos requested that staff pursue opportunities, in addition to naming public facilities, for residents to be honored or memorialized.
Currently, the Naming of Public Facilities Ordinance, Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) Section 2.1.1801 through 1805, states any resident of the City may initiate requests or proposals for the dedication, naming or renaming of a City facility by completing and submitting an application/nomination form to the City Clerk’s Office. Nominations from a resident are only accepted between the period of January 1 and March 31 of any year. However, a request or nomination initiated by the City Council or any City Board or Commission may be submitted anytime.
Due to the complex and restrictive requirements of naming a facility after a resident, Mayor Frutos suggested that some residents may instead prefer an alternative to honor or memorialize a loved one and requested that staff explore such options.
How is the following an alternative?
In response to the Mayor’s request, staff identified existing and possible opportunities for residents of the community to honor and memorialize their loved ones. Existing opportunities include the following landmarks or programs: Burbank Unified School District Memorial Field at John Burroughs High School, Military Service Banner Recognition Program, and the Plant- a-Tree Program. Also through the Parks and Recreation Department, residents may purchase benches and install placards on respective benches to honor or memorialize individuals. In addition, the Naming of Public Facilities Ordinance also authorizes dedication or naming/renaming of public structures, buildings, parks, park features, reservoirs, overpasses, streets, walls, murals, plants, lawns, gardens, plaques, statues, or historical documents. (BMC 2.1.1802.E).
Remember that breathing bush over near Victory? What ever happened to it? That’s the one we want.
In addition to existing opportunities, other possibilities to be explored could include a memorial wall tribute for families to purchase plaques at either an indoor or outdoor City park/public facility. Possible indoor locations can include recreation centers, libraries, City Hall, or other public buildings. Outdoor locations could include hiking trails, parks, and other outdoor public sites, such as the Stough Canyon Nature Center.
Yeah, that Stough guy only donated his land for their old park way back when. So fuck ’em.
Grandma would be a much better honoree, wouldn’t she? Especially Grandma Rudell.
Or how about Uncle Golonski?
Years ago we were only joking around here when we talked about how great it would be to make it easy to rename our city facilities for someone much newer and better connected in town (like, who the hell is that Bret Harte guy anyway?)
But we were only being sarcastic. It’s an awful, awful idea to be proffering sentimental bids for city rename privileges. This alive v dead distinction is also bogus as hell, and doesn’t make such a bad idea come across any better.
Because Staff is seeking direction and input from Council regarding potential memorial tribute opportunities, Council is not limited to the aforementioned memorial tribute suggestions and Staff welcomes any other ideas Council may propose. If approved to move forward, Staff will present the Parks and Recreation Board (Board) with options for potential indoor or outdoor public facilities and/or locations, costs, and administration associated with honoring or memorializing loved ones. Staff will then return to Council with the options provided to the Board, along with their recommendation, for Council consideration.
How about shelving the idea for good.
Staff’s also pulling a fast one in the actual written ordinance. Has the council actually read the whole thing yet?
They just talked about all the problems involved with renaming for a “resident,” but then they turn around and sneak language into the ordinance which specifically allows a living person to still receive such an honor.
Remember this from the staff report above?
Due to the complex and restrictive requirements of naming a facility after a resident, Mayor Frutos suggested that some residents may instead prefer an alternative to honor or memorialize a loved one and requested that staff explore such options.
So what is this “alternative”? The staff report plays it all off like a memorialization opportunity, when in fact it still allows the city to name things for anyone they want to, dead or alive. They’ve actually made it easier to rename a “facility” for almost anyone now, as long as “the public” has an input process available.
And the main question still exists: who gets chosen over someone else? Naming rights are such a problematical area that the best alternative is to have no alternative at all.
Which is to make it nearly impossible to do.
In support of their renewal effort tomorrow night on that hotel/motel TBID lobbying organization, staff cites Universal Studios as a reason for the Burbank City Council to keep on supporting it:
Perhaps, but for Universal it’s just a one-way street — a big win-win.
This purpose of this city-run TBID is to lobby outsiders to come and visit Burbank. But as a result of this wholly Burbank effort, Universal gets a totally free source of promotion and advertising. They never have to put any money into the till — because the visiting guests do. The Burbank ones.
That’s some working “together.”
Is Universal now a part of Burbank — or does staff now see it that way?
Anyone else ever noticed too what’s weird about this tourism lobbying group, and the supposed need for it?
Burbank lets all these hotels build all these new hotel rooms here, and then it has to set up a special city-funded lobbying group (through patron assessments) just to get people to come to town and use them.
Wouldn’t it have been easier (and more sensible) not to have built them all in the first place? You know, in the spirit of sustainability and the like.
It’s kind of ass-backwards, isn’t it?
They obviously weren’t all needed. And who does this benefit anyway?
The Burbank residents, who have to deal with all the new traffic on the streets? Who does the City of Burbank work for?
No, not that one. If only.
The annual CDBG decisions are up for grabs again tomorrow night, and although the specific entry/application below is for a federal program that must be dealt with according to federal rules, there’s no way in hell that anyone worthy is going to be able to benefit from this idea in Burbank.
Although well intended, how is this going to help folks with no money? Increasing local rental subsidies will of course, if they’re even able to find anything in town. Good luck on that one.
Using these funds to buy up old apartment houses just to tear them down and build smaller and more expensive ones won’t do the trick either. That’s the old, discredited Burbank Redevelopment Agency way.
Traditionally, staff has always favored “Home Ownership!” in Burbank over its measly, apartment-dwelling cousin — at least until their friends in the development business want to build another huge apartment house somewhere, in which case they wildly promote the project by calling it “mixed use.” But the myth that Burbank is the same wonderful “Community of Homeowners!” that it used to be continues. It’s not any more.
And unless you happen to think in that traditionalist a way — or, you want to invest in local condo building for big profit — it’s not even an ideal.
Students began taking state standardized exams in Burbank earlier this month, but about 40% of Burbank High’s junior class chose to opt out of the process, according to Burbank Unified Supt. Matt Hill.
There were 269 out of 656 juniors at Burbank High who opted out of taking the exam after getting a parent to sign off on the request…
It’s a good article, and it was written from the interesting point of view of the students being the ones who choose to opt out. And for good reason — the tests are perversely anti-intellectual.
There’s obviously a movement going on over there at BHS — are they passing around Paul Goodman again? Better tell Ham Lloyd and Mike Kosteva.
Actually, it’s the parents who have to sign and make the choice for under 18, and this is the first time we’ve ever seen this issue framed from the kids’ perspective/opinion, like they’re the ones making the decision. Usually the opt-outers are pictured as angry parents who are almost always right-wing Obama haters.
They love to think this testing is a perfect example of governmental intrusion and control. To most of this crowd it’s not what they’re about, just that they are. So whatever anti-testing movements you hear about in the news are almost always reactionary and lamebrain.
This statistic is equally astounding, although no surprise if you grew up here:
Meanwhile, only four students opted out at Burbank High’s rival school, John Burroughs High.
Among Glendale’s four high schools, 18 students opted out of the state exam, according to Lynn Marso, assistant superintendent of Glendale Unified.
Glendale’s always been full of and apathetic and dipshit parents. What social critics used to call “convergent” personalities, back before that became everyone in the country.
Or worse. Most of the kids are awful too. They always were– it’s nothing new.
In light of the big trouble that Burbank got into a few years ago about charging illegal fees for its “extra-curricular” high school activities — as also mentioned in the following news article — did they ever in fact reform their practices in this area, as also described?
We’re getting word from parents about how expensive the high school music programs are in Burbank. How could this still be but that the district is using their 501(c)(3) Vocal Music Association “booster group” to set up participation activities on the outside so as to avoid the legal restrictions on charging fees?
Was that the BUSD’s solution here? Other school districts around the country have done so, and to much debate. Many people feel that allowing outside organizations to operate for a fee what used to be a regular public school program is both unwise and unfair. We agree.
Legal settlement bars public schools from charging student fees, and proposed legislation would require all materials and equipment to be provided free. Some schools say they’ll have to scrap programs.
May 10, 2011|By Megan O’Neil, Los Angeles Times
Local education officials this week said they are bracing for a dramatic shift in how extracurricular activities are funded, the result of a lawsuit settlement that bars schools and their affiliates from charging students fees for such programs as sports teams, musical ensembles and cheer squads.
California education officials in December settled a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against dozens of campuses, including John Burroughs High in Burbank, alleging that charging students for educational materials and activities violates a constitutional mandate that public school districts provide free and equitable education to all students.
The Legislature is now considering a law to impose penalties on districts where fees have been charged illegally. It also mandates that all educational and extracurricular supplies, materials and equipment be provided free of charge.
The new rules would also apply to booster clubs, foundations and community organizations that provide support to a school.
If approved, the rules would be disastrous for districts already strapped for cash, local officials said.
“Our district and our schools will need to rely more heavily on voluntary donations to preserve the same level of educational opportunities that students have enjoyed in the past,” said Glendale Unified Deputy Supt. John Garcia. “There are a lot of practices now — not just in our district, but in districts all throughout the state — that are going to have to be changed as a result of this legislation when and if it passes.”
Districts will be audited on student fees in the next school year, Garcia said.
Burbank Unified, which was named in the original ACLU lawsuit, has already set in motion an effort to bring its funding of extracurricular activities in line with new policies.
Brendan Jennings, choir director at Burroughs High, said his program dropped student fees about 18 months ago. Voluntary parent contributions and parent- and student-led fundraising now cover the costs, he said, which vary widely student to student but can sometimes run as a high as $3,000.
His program has long had a safety net that ensures all students can participate, regardless of their socioeconomic status, Jennings said.
But others said the ACLU lawsuit would cause more long-term harm than good, and threatens programs that some families are happy to pay for.
Glendale Unified has tried to sustain its music and visual and performing arts programs despite years of budget cuts, said school board member Mary Boger.
“We are going to have to give them up because they are going to be become cost-prohibitive,” she said. “That to me is an absolutely chilling effect.”
Officials at Los Angeles Unified, which was not named in the lawsuit, have said the district already prohibits supplementary charges, including voluntary participation fees for extracurricular activities. But some parents have complained that individual schools and programs have stretched the boundaries of that policy.
Times staff writer Howard Blume contributed to this report.
As we pointed out yesterday, one problem with this outsider shell-thing is that the school district loses much of its control over the operation. Need we reference a recent consequence?
Btw, looking back, we notice that we kind of predicted this sort of trickiness-for-profit.
Here’s the rules about fees in general. But school districts can still allow outsiders to offer their own enrichment programs, even on campus. So what’s happening in Burbank, and why are local parents claiming that these arts activities are often a great expense?
This is the basic question and problem here, the takeover. Because if they had not, none of this copyright infringement stuff today would have happened. Or, it would have been less likely to occur. According to the plaintiffs, our town’s other less slick, less pretentious school groups have all complied with the standard rights requirements for K-12 song use.
In other words, we doubt Luther’s been incorporated [update– or handed its vocal music operations over to a 501(c)(3), which apparently the VMA is).
Incorporation of this BHS vocal arts activity allowed control to be wrest away from the regular school board members and BHS administrators to a small group of unaccountable small-time “directors.” That’s really the underlying problem. So incorporating a huge segment of the BHS vocal music arts program was such a good idea, eh people?
Exactly what kind of money/support angle was going on there to warrant doing this? It sounds like it was a definite racket/manipulation move to be able to charge money for what should be a free arts program — and then to go on and exploit it.
A shortcut to oblivion is what it really sounds like. That’s what it’s obviously turned into. There’s your “21st-century” school/business/community partnerships in action, Burbank. Consider yourself warned — such troubles and turmoil are always baked into this kind of poisoned apple.
Still like your Broadian ideologists, you school board members? Here’s where going business world always gets you. And don’t even try to weasel out of this latest one by claiming that it’s not really the school district that’s in trouble here, or at fault. Because yes it is, and this time via a sleazily-run third party.
We can hear Applebaum now.
Are we imaging this tonight? He such’s a douchebag. What, was he dating Apollonia or something and we didn’t know it?
The globe’s reversed itself, hasn’t it? The magnetic pole’s shifted south, right?