Rogers has liver cancer, and so the council needs to discuss the future mayoralship

(It was almost six months ago that we broke this story about Rogers, and so we thought we’d pin it to the top here for a while. It’s not news. Clearly, if the parties involved were truly concerned about “openness” and “transparency,” as was mentioned several times at today’s press conference, they (he) wouldn’t have waited so long to bring it up.)


From April 5th:

We thought long and hard about whether or not we should break this story, and then we kept thinking about whát he had once done to Ted McConkey. Even after he was dead. And so we thought “fuck it.”

Although we don’t wish this diagnosis on anyone, apparently Will’s suffering from liver cancer. This might explain his recent absences, as well as his “I really don’t care” attitude that we all heard last week from the dais. But it presents a problem.

Is he up to taking on the mayoralship? It’s a fair question, and Columnist Rogers would have certainly been asking it of a McConkey or a Gordon. And probably not as nicely.




Filed under Uncategorized

51 responses to “Rogers has liver cancer, and so the council needs to discuss the future mayoralship

  1. Anonymous

    Where or what is you proof of this allegation of Rogers having liver cancer?

  2. 91505

    Not wishing illness on anyone here however the job of mayor or councilmember is a serious and an important one. The public relies on good judgement and the ability to do the job. An illness like this brings into serious question the mental and physical ability of Mr Rogers to do the job in the public interest. I feel that the public must be put first which means Mr Rogers should resign for the public good.

  3. Kurt

    Rogers has never asked anyone anything nicely. You are right Rogers has long had the if you don’t like it I don’t care attitude while at the same time saying others offend him. He is a weasle

  4. Obviously, I wish him the best but I have the same questions. What does this mean for the Council? Was the public going to find out after the election or would they keep it quiet as long as possible? I’m not going to call for him to step down, as that’s his decision to make, but it’s an issue that should be discussed. If he steps down is there a special election or does the Council appoint someone to complete his term?

    I’m going to read up on the McConkey era – I was here but not paying attention to politics at the time.

    • semichorus

      They’d appoint a replacement.

      It used to be that if the term had more than half to go there’d be a special election for the replacement. That’s how Gordon got in after Stacy Murphy resigned. He was elected.

      When that happened the rest of the council was pissed. Especially Golonski. They wanted to appoint the successor. They wanted Bill “collegial at any cost” Wiggins instead. So what did they do?

      They immediately changed the law and got it into the Charter. Seriously. It was because of Gordon’s election success.

      Yes, this town really IS that bad.

      • Al in SoCal

        If by “They immediately changed the law and got it into the Charter.” you mean the Charter Review Committee added it to the Charter THEN the people of Burbank voted on it and approved it – then yes you’re right.

        The reason was purely about cost – nothing more. Had we agreed to cut out useless primaries and institute a preferential voting system which encourages lesser known candidates and actually helps others remove incumbents – then we could have used the argument that the savings should be used to keep special elections intact …. but nope – no compromise with the always and forever no crowd.

        • semichorus

          That may have been your reason. It wasn’t the reason for the staff members and council people who originated the idea and then pushed it on you.

          For years and years nobody had a problem with the emergency election idea UNTIL it resulted in the dreaded “Dr. Gordon.”

          And, it was only one of the many power play/consolidation tactics on that Charter “amendment.”

          For instance, so what was the idea behind APPOINTED city clerk and treasurer positions? Saving money?

          No excuse for any of them. You guys were being played bigtime.

        • Jeff

          Cut cost ??? What a joke while they claimed to be trying to cut cost they were not paying into the retirement fund and spending the money like drunken sailors on luxury items instead. Worried about costs at city hall ? What a joke look at where we are now.

        • JRF

          Dear in So Cal

          Do not make it appear that the charter review cabal, which you were on, was any independent voice with any independent ideas. I had it on good authority that you were a group dedicated to staff and Golonski and got a list of what they wanted you to do and you did it. You did not want to be televised and you really did a moon or something. Charter review was a rubber stamp for Golonski who wanted the things that you rubber stamped with a smile.

          • semichorus

            That group was astoundingly into consolidating power away from the voters. They came up with a laundry list of bad ideas. And nothing at all populist.

            — council appointed city clerk

            — council appointed city treasurer

            — council appointed replacement

            — big new utility tax

            Gee, I wonder where those ideas came from? Not from someone who trusted the voters.

          • Al in SoCal

            Because you came to give your views during the meetings … how many times? Let me guess: ZERO

            If it mattered so much to you, perhaps you could have visited us once or twice in our months of meetings? Apparently it’s not that important – right?

            As for not being televised – we didn’t want the Tuesday night crew coming for open mic night without any goal other than seeing themselves on tv.

            • semichorus

              That’s always been a great reason to censor things. Those critics are just so pesky and annoying, yes.

              Btw … why was it the COMMITTEE’s decision? It kind of violates city policy as well.

              • Al in SoCal

                Constructive (keyword) criticism is always appreciated … endless complaining is not. As I remember it, it was not the committee’s decision, but the city’s. I’ve always thought it interesting that most of the people who complain about this, that, that might make it to the Tuesday night show with the live feed, but ever so rarely make it to the monthly sub-committee meetings where most of these decisions get made. You can write letters, emails, etc – but oh so rarely do they appear. Serving your community as a volunteer in committees and commissions isn’t as glamorous as anxiously awaiting your 5 minute spotlight to bash everyone and everything – every single Tuesday night.

                • Burbank Bill

                  Los Angeles Daily News

                  Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn
                  LA City Council proposes trespassing citations amid complaints about ‘gadflies’

                  By: Elizabeth Chou (

                  POSTED: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 – 7:50 p.m.
                  UPDATED: A DAY AGO

                  On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, the L.A. City Council approved a motion requesting the City Attorney prepare an ordinance in which “failure to abide by the public safety, use and access rules at all city buildings and facilities, including proprietary departments, may be deemed a trespass.” (Photos by John McCoy, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG/File)
                  People who cause “disturbances” or fail to follow certain rules at Los Angeles City Hall and other city facilities could be cited for trespassing, including in the hallways, under an ordinance proposed Wednesday.

                  The City Council approved a motion requesting the City Attorney prepare an ordinance in which “failure to abide by the public safety, use and access rules at all city buildings and facilities, including proprietary departments, may be deemed a trespass.”

                  The city’s proprietary departments include the Los Angeles World Airports and the Department of Water and Power.

                  • RELATED STORY: Wayne Spindler, frequent LA City Hall critic, faces gun charge

                  An aide to Council President Herb Wesson, who authored the motion, said the proposed rules are meant to beef up the city’s ability to keep order in places other than the City Council chamber or other sites for holding public meetings.


                  “It’s the council president’s intention to provide the teeth needed to enforce existing rules of decorum for non-public-gathering disturbances,” Wesson spokeswoman Vanessa Rodriguez said.

                  “This trespassing ordinance would provide the teeth needed to eject the visitors from public spaces for disturbing the normal course of work,” she said.

                  Such “disturbances” could occur in the City Hall rotunda or the interior works paces of a City Council office, but not at a public meeting, Rodriguez said.

                  She also pointed to a 2014 instance, in which a transient hopped over the reception desk in City Councilman Mike Bonin’s office, as an example of the types of public safety concerns the ordinance is meant to address.

                  • RELATED STORY: LA City Hall gadfly won’t face charges for racist comments directed at councilman

                  Rob Wilcox, spokesman for the City Attorney’s Office, said the “rules will allow for greater screening at building access points and tangentially prevent dangerous items from being taken everywhere, including Council Chambers.”

                  He added that “if someone causes a disruption in the Council Chambers, he or she will be ejected, but not charged with trespass, unless the disruptive conduct continues after the ejection.”

                  Rodriguez said the aim of the ordinance is safety. But the motion comes as council members have been expressing displeasure at “gadflies” who frequently disrupt meetings by shouting, walking along the aisles or making conspicuous motions.

                  “They often yell, they curse, and when they’re asked to leave, they refuse to leave,” said Councilman Mitchell Englander, who seconded the motion.

                  Even when they leave, “often times, now, what they’re doing is they’re standing in the hall right outside the door, continuing to disrupt the meeting and yelling,” he said.

                  But some raised concerns that the potential ordinance could trample on the public’s rights and silence those who disagree with city officials.

                  “City Hall is the public’s building,” said Stephen Rohde, a constitutional law attorney. “It’s not the private property of the mayor or a council member.

                  “I’m worried that armed with the new ordinance … that if a City Council member feels that someone is peppering them with questions as they walk down the hallway, they’re going to tell them to leave, and if they don’t leave, they’re going to charge them with trespass,” he said.

                  Eric Ares is an activist who works for the Los Angeles Community Action Network on issues affecting people experiencing poverty. He said the ordinance could “disproportionately” affect the people they advocate for, since public hallways and council meetings are often the only places for people with fewer means to access political officials.

                  Ares said city officials seem to already discourage public participation, especially with recent changes that have shortened the amount of time the public can give comment at City Council meetings.

                  “The idea that this is to stop gadflies from gadflying or to stop serious assaulters from assaulting – that doesn’t seem to add up, given this motion,” Ares said. “It seems overly vague in that they can use that behavior as an excuse to push this through, and then enforce it against groups who use public meetings because there are very few other avenues to interact with L.A. public officials.”

                  • semichorus

                    The reason why the “gadflies” yell at them in LA is because most of the time the council people there are out to lunch. Both physically and physically.

                    Yes, this will be used to punish dissent. Laws already exist to go after threats and assault. But this lack of decorum = trespass idea will never hold up in court.

    • Res

      It is not his decision it is our decision as voters. He needs to resign now

  5. Ron

    I want to respond to David Spell here. David Spell says ” I’m not going to call for him to step down, as that’s his decision to make, but it’s an issue ”

    I could not disagree more. To begin with it is not a personal decision to take a seat on the council and that is because it is not a personal thing to begin with it is at the service of the community. I am sorry but if someone is ill and heavily medicated they do not have some right to make a personal decision to hang in there. Impaired judgement affects the general public in the position and the individual should either step down or be removed for the greater public good.

  6. Eileen

    This is terrible news. It does however explain his absences and his irrational behavior.

    • Anonymous

      ” Eileen
      April 5, 2017 at 10:38 am
      This is terrible news. It does however explain his absences and his irrational behavior.

      Will has always had irrational behavior, look at his public track record.

  7. Eric

    I for one was starting to think that Mr Rogers has some sort of mental illness but wow on this because serious medications have a serious effect on a persons mental judgements so maybe what I was seeing was really medication induced ?

    • semichorus

      That’s one reason why I brought it up. I was going to be reticent on the situation, but his absences are continuing.

      It’s obvious that he’s not been feeling well, and like I said last week I was going to lay off him for a while when he first began talking. But after he baited the crowd as he did I thought wow, this can’t continue either.

  8. Anonymous

    What proof do you have? I’m taking your word for it that you have thought long and hard about it before publishing, so what was it that gave you confidence this is true? With so many valid critiques of Rogers to use against him, a terminal illness is a nuclear bomb to be throwing. His family may read this blog and you could have just devastated them with fake or deeply personal news. You are opening a pandora’s box without proof. Is it now fair game to question EGL absences and if they are health related?

    I’m sure that Dr Gordon’s cholesterol is through the roof. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say he is likely a type 2 diabetic and a slice of pizza away from a heart attack. Did Jess suffer lung damage though possible smoke inhalation as a firefighter? He too is a little over weight. Bob Frutos has a sick mother. Is there something running in his family the city of Burbank should be aware of? Who declares what medical information should be released? Definitely not me and probably not an anonymous blogger. I’ve enjoyed your blog for years and often disagree but really appreciate you allowing dissenting opinions and most of the time you seem pretty well researched. So, I’d like to see you keep your credibility. So I sincerely ask, what proof do you have?

    • Anonymous

      ” Anonymous
      April 5, 2017 at 12:21 pm
      What proof do you have?”

      Oh shut up, any moron can counter with hyperbole like you’ve spewed.

    • semichorus

      I never said it was terminal. It’s been discussed, too. It’s really no secret any more.

      His absences have become a problem, for one. And considering his history with others, no one should worry about his sensibilities, or that he’s being put on the spot about something. He’d be the very FIRST person screaming about McConkey or Gordon in a similar situation. And I’d agree with him.

      You ever seen what he did to Susan Spanos and her problems? I factored that in to this decision. He was vicious.

      EGL’s absences? If they are related to her identical problem when back on the planning board, “medical reasons” is the nice way to put it.

      These are not nice people.

      • JD

        From what I have heard Luddy absences have to do with lots of vacations oh and a trip to China to bring a dog back to the USA. LMAO Who else remembers her trip to China to bring a dog back, I am serious.

      • Stan

        You are right Semichorus they are vile and vicious people. Now I add old lady Springer to the vicious crowd.

  9. Anonymous

    Holy shit. A fellow human has a life threatening disease and you all gloat over how it is going to push him off council and void his chance at the mayorality.

    Just sickening. You all suck.

    • semichorus

      No one’s gloating. So cut the sanctimoniousness.

      I actually want him to be mayor, if only for the spectacle. But not this way.

      It’s difficult to overstate to people now what a huge issue this would have been in 1998 or 1999 if someone else on the council was in the same situation, and especially if they had been displaying similar symptoms or behaviors however unfortunate. Rogers would have been THE FIRST PERSON to go at it.

      Susan Spanos, anyone? She had emotional issues and he was unsparing.

      You oh-so-moral ones have short memories. Or else you’re generally clueless. Perhaps dishonest?

      • Anonymous

        Everybody is gloating, asshole. Read what you are publishing.

      • Al in SoCal

        Some are … you maybe not … but there is some gloating going on …

        Especially that begin “Just awful news … HOWEVER…” – reminds of the people who must first let you know they like a particular ethnicity – race before bashing them “some of my closest friends are …., but they are …. “

    • Anonymous

      ” Anonymous
      April 5, 2017 at 5:01 pm
      Holy shit. A fellow human has a life threatening disease and you all gloat over how it is going to push him off council and void his chance at the mayorality.”
      Oh shut up you lying POS. Nobody is”gloating”.

    • semichorus

      Yeah that was disgusting. The Leader pieces from 98-99 were even worse. Continual hits. His little narrative about that crowd was also totally fraudulent. Gordon of course is one of the heirs, bla bla bla.

      I think he cut the worst from that Earthlink thing, actually. In the original he went into wacky personal tales about McConkey and his wife, reciting claims from a (supposedly) old relative about salacious family matters not possible after about 1920 or so. It was like something out of a bad film noir, McConkey’s alleged life…

  10. Doug

    April 5, 2017 at 7:51 pm

    Your little trolling is amusing Anonymous. Can you tell us which PAC you work for we don’t need to know how much you are paid because you are so bad at it that the pay is more than likely very high

  11. Roy Simison

    I must comment on this for very painful reasons. I lost my wife of 43 years to liver cancer and my daughter to breast cancer I do not care much about Burbank politics only that it is devastating to any family going through it . I pray for Mr Rogers and his or any family that must live that hell.

    • Al in SoCal

      I lost my aunt / 2nd Mom who helped raise me to liver cancer as well. Not that this is turning into a repository for memories re: cancer, but I’m sure your words are appreciated.

      It’s unbelievable to me that the powers that be are still clueless how you get it, how to test for it via a simple blood sample (for all kinds of Cancer) and what to do other than wreck your body with the ‘treatment’.

      Rather than spending $60 Billion more on “defense” – it could have been divvied up to cure the big 3: Alzheimers, Cancer & HIV (they seem big to me anyway – but the list goes on and on)

  12. another Anonymous

    Roy you are correct on a personal level but on the public level I question having an ill man on heavy medication making decisions for a whole community so while you are right about the family in this case must an entire community suffer with impaired judgement from an impaired official ?

    • Al in SoCal

      We don’t – it takes a vote to get something passed from the council. This appears for people who dislike his politics to have an excuse to get rid of him. The only caveat would be if he broke this from the Charter (voted & approved by Burbank voters):
      “(c) A vacancy on the Council shall occur if any member of the Council shall fail to attend any regular meeting of the Council for sixty (60) consecutive days without the permission of the Council, or shall fail to qualify, or shall move their place of residence outside the City, or shall cease to be an elector of the City, or shall resign, or be convicted of a felony, or be adjudged mentally incompetent.”
      Could it be the reason everyone here wants a special election is that is the only way that Dr. Gordon got elected. With 38% of the vote. Now with incumbency behind him – and now the longest serving councilperson I don’t doubt he will win a 5th term is it?

      • semichorus

        Under the old “pre Gordon” rule, if Rogers resigned with more than half his term to go there’d be a replacement election. Now it’s an appointment.

        That rule was passed (and then memorialized in a Charter lump vote!) by a council majority displeased at Gordon’s victory.

        Under the new rule, they all would have APPOINTED Wiggins instead.

        If Rogers knows he’s sick and might not finish for some reason, he should have resigned to allow a real election for his replacement. Anyone with a sense of integrity would do so.

        Instead — if the situation is bleak — he’s trying to manipulate the process by deliberately setting it up for an appointment. What a legacy.

        I wasn’t born yesterday. Apparently you were

  13. Anonymous

    Semi, I have the “original” where “he went into wacky personal tales about McConkey and his wife,” I will be happy to send it to you. Just let me know how? Also, the hit piece is disgusting….but the irony of both pieces is it was as if he was talking / describing himself for the most part. Please, let me know.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s