Is Gabel-Luddy still drinking?

 
We’ve always had pretty good radar when it comes to detecting older female alcoholics, and so we’re wondering if this current mayor is still going on her occasional binges. Some of her mannerisms and aggressive hesitancies and hostilities last night suggest to us that she’s still hitting the bottle.

It’s probably been staff’s worst kept secret over the years that Gabel-Luddy’s serious absentee problem as a board and commission member — and early on in her current job — was due to her drinking problem.

Whatever’s been going on with her lately, someone who knows what they’re doing needs to keep her in line. She’s obviously on some kind of reckless warpath. What a smug character she indeed is.

And btw. If they’re going to pick Carolyn Jackson for Rogers’ slot — an absolutely odious choice — then what’s the point of taking applications?

Jackson is by far the worst applicant on the list. She’s a shameless booster of the establishment; a crony among cronies; a pro-development zealot intolerant of active criticism and dissent; and she has a long history of using sexist name-calling and innuendo as a substitute for debate.

Though this may make her perfect company for Emily Gabel-Luddy, she’s a disaster for Burbank. Talk about “haters.” Rizzotti for instance would be 10,000 times better than Jackson if only because he has a demonstrated sensitivity towards protecting the neighborhoods.

By comparison, Jackson is a company boy through and through. She’s not just a credulous nincompoop like several of the others, she’s willfully arrogant and destructive. Talk about obstinate.
 
 
 

Advertisements

85 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

85 responses to “Is Gabel-Luddy still drinking?

  1. GF

    That we trust the council that’s why we voted for you lady last night was a complete idiot. From what she said let’s take a look. In a city of over one hundred thousand here are the results for Springer. Something tells me 90% of Burbank do not even know or care who Springer even is.
    election results:
    Sharon Springer
    5,666

    • Anonymous

      Still more than Gordon got, yes?

      • Anony

        BUT HARDLY ANY STANDING OVATION

      • Gretch the Wretch

        Can’t tell “which” Anonymous this is.
        However, this post has Anonymous sprinkled all around.
        Most are snarky and stupid.
        Just a little darling of the Council majority.

      • Anonymous

        She illegally used kids from BHS to distribute her flyers to homes on the hillside.

        The kids were promised service hours after one of Sharons lackeys pitched it to a civics class. This was exposed at a city council meeting,and she made some lame excuse after it came to light. True test of character is what you do when no one is watching. Not her proudest moment.

        • semichorus

          That WAS illegal, too. You can’t use school kids like that for politics. Not in a school/credit setting.

          It wasn’t one of those “cute, but too bad it’s technically illegal” ideas, either. It was trying to use neutral non-supporter students for political purposes. And for pay of a sort.

      • Anonymous

        Anonymous
        May 11, 2018 at 6:17 pm
        Still more than Gordon got, yes?

        Yep, due to her funding from developers and lies from herself and her puppetmaster Dave Golonski. Now, you know the rest of the story.

  2. Ron

    Luddy ? Remember this one ?

    • semichorus

      Which she then ended up promoting (!)

      She’s such a phony stuffed-shirt. She’s also a liar about this blog, as was her “truth-telling” Will.

  3. Anonymous

    She actually violated free speech rights last night.
    She denied 3 minutes to one of the dudes from the Mike and Roy show.
    Someone else had introduced one of their videos,but she said then that because you were IN the video you can’t speak.

    • semichorus

      That’s a clear violation of the rules.

      Other people promoting or citing you during regular orals does NOT waive your own right to have the stipulated three minutes. Albano agrees with this?

      Such hamfisted behavior. And to what purpose? Just to be a jerk? What was accomplished by doing denying them their time?

      Guess this is war. I’m always curious what “collegiality” means to this sort of personality type.

      • Anonymous

        Violations is what this group of rogue council members do best, remember the $50,000 misspent on the measure B election. The people who did that are still sitting there spending money right ?

  4. Burbank Voter and Taxpayer

    Just got my Ballot in the mail and I’m voting no on Measure T, especially after Luddy’s shenanigans last night. Not going to give this Council any more money. Only recourse is a Vote of NO Confidence. Vote NO on all the Ballot Measures – that will get their attention!

    • Eileen

      Unless you want to pay even higher electric bills do what I am doing and vote NO. I do not trust anybody at City Hall anymore.

      • semichorus

        Do you know that if Jackson gets on there it’ll be FOUR retired public employees earning six-figure pensions?

        That’s some range of experience. And ALL of them are from management.

  5. Make Burbank Great Again

    So they ignore the voters and diss Guillen but Rizzotti gets through? This whole thing looks like a Dog and Pony Show. Luddy and Staff want Jackson. They’d like to appoint her like they did Vander Borght but are going through this public charade wasting everyone’s time. Just do it in the back room like you did with Jef and get on with it.

    Gotta feel sorry for all the young idealistic gullible souls who actually thought they had a shot at this. They discriminate against dissenters, they discriminate against minorities, they discriminate against LGBTQ and short people. Go ahead appoint another uber white establishment, Hillary flag-waving limousine liberal, cause we don’t have enough of them up there already. RIP Will and RIP Burbank.

    • semichorus

      Everyone else just wasted their time, didn’t they. Disgusting.

      Jackson is such a chicken choice. Totally old-school establishment, and who’s also receiving a huge government pension, just like three of them already. The Organization Woman.

      Remember too how much trouble those old “collegial” city councils got Burbank into because of their neglect and insensitivity. In at least one area, over $13 million worth.

    • Incognito

      So if Jackson gets on council we will have 5 retired Former city employee’s, be it LA or Burbank, so how does that represent the city of Burbank? They indeed wasted everyone’s time and energy they absolutely had NO intention of having anyone but their selective few be the finalist and at the end, I would be surprised if it is Not CJ, that is seated!!! What a shame that they truly believe the residents are this stupid Not to see the BS they just pulled. Frutos retired, LAPD, Talamantes retires BFD, Springer retired city employee, Luddy retired LA and Jackson retired LA , yup that about sums it up.

      Not to mention 3 of the 3 finalist are realtors!!!!! If CJ make CR look good, that let’s you know how truly bad she is, however, it’s another secured Yes vote for whatever they want.

      A very SAD day in the political record of Burbank. So people wake up and the best way to get back at them is to Vote NO to everything they propose, this is the only way, beside that wonderful recommendation of a Vote of NO Confidence…

  6. Anony Miss

    The professed new and improved city council is exactly the opposite. A panel who think that half of Burbank is their opposition, is not my idea of an effective City Council. They need to closely listen to people’s concerns. A great politician is for all the people not just those who agree with them.

  7. Terry

    This Burbanker is disgusted by this council. I watched the replay today and first to the dim lighted brain mayor why did you have so much trouble playing the man’s video to begin with. Why was there no apology or explanation regarding that ?

    Then why would someone not be allowed to speak ? You have rules but they are very dumb and confusing and only designed to try and control free speech. Stuff your rules mayor we all have to listen to your utter stupidity you can at least listen to people who wish to speak for 3 minutes.

    • semichorus

      I love this idea that you automatically lose your three minutes if someone else supported you during orals.

      I didn’t see that in the staff report. Nor I believe would a judge in a court of law if this candidate insisted on the council enforcing their own stipulated rules.

      Will certainly wouldn’t have gone along with that, nor would he want Jackson as his replacement. He’d want Tim Murphy.

      So much for the tearful sentiment. It just proves how totally full of crap they are up there. No one else objected to this blocking?

      Gabel-Luddy wants to be an arrogant hard ass? It’ll be to her own detriment. Start warming up those video machines.

      • DL

        Come on Semichorus the new Truth Teller is Luddy and all her platitudes are about raising her own power and status. Looking at Frutos and Talamantes on their knees in front of Luddy says it all.

  8. C

    Is this true ? If it is you mean we have 4 boobs running Burbank and the boobs are all lead by the drunk ? No wonder things are so messed up.

  9. Susan

    The angry blog the only source of non-city hall control filtered news that can be found in Burbank. I love this blog more and more as Burbank fades away under the lack of leadership we now have. When Carolyn Jackson joins the gang things will turn even more dark , sneaky and dirty.

    • Don

      Goolonski always hated the public being able to comment on things so he hated the blog they think they can control what people can say and how long they have to say it at their meetings, but this blog gets more comments and participation that any of their facebook pages or anything else they have ever will.

      Luddy is the same and Springer has chocked me with all her dismissive attitude she now shows for the publics right to speak. Watching the meetings it is very clear that public participation has declined with the addition of Springer and her madness

      • semichorus

        I don’t know if he hated public comment. He just had contempt for the people he thought were beneath him.

  10. Greg

    Watching that joke of a meeting from last night I want to say it was very symbolic that they didn’t start with a prayer, instead they started with the pledge of allegiance and then later that Constantine guy reminds everybody he was the driving force to get rid of Columbus Day in Burbank.

    Since then he has gone after one nation under God in the pledge so my guess is prayer gone last night and pledge gone very soon. This group is just unbelievable.

    • lsemichorus

      Hilarious. When did Burbank ever celebrate “Columbus Day”?

      1963?

      California long ago deprecated this old holiday. I’m not even sure Arizona celebrates it any more. NYC does because of the Italian population.

      Because that ‘s what it is. A celebration of Italian Americans.

  11. Matilda

    So if I get your point semi….EGL is a boozer. If you take away the spirits does she become any less of a pompous ass queen B sitting on her throne ruling her peeps….not in the least! Once a character flaw always a character flaw…just a different day. But I do like the courage in a bottle deal!

    • semichorus

      The shaky hostility is a giveaway. Nastiness is also a byproduct of booze in many people. Even in the off hours.

      If I didn’t know her history of absenteeism I wouldn’t be sure. But I’ve seen this before. It tends to be cyclical.

  12. Burbank News

    Semichorus REALLY ?

    You obviously know nothing and did not watch the indigenous day discussion during the council meeting. Burbank did give employees Columbus Day off for years and no not in 1963 according to what was said they changed it not that far back in order to give employees two days off for it.

  13. Oscar A Merlo

    On Thursday’s meeting I witnessed some disturbing Orwellian behavior from the City Council. As Mr. Roy Wiegand was stepping up to speak, he was denied the podium on the pretense that he already spoke because another citizen had used their public speaking time to play a video clip in which Roy was featured.

    The mayor has argued that when Citizen A (not Mike or Roy) uses his/her public speaking minutes to show a media clip of the Mike and Roy Show, that clip counts not for Citizen A who filled out the yellow card, but instead for Mike or Roy, since they are the ones featured on the clip that Citizen A presented to council.

    This argument raises some serious questions.

    Question 1: If the media clip is being counted as Mike and/or Roy’s speaking time, does it also count as Citizen’s A’s speaking time? Can Citizen A still use his/her 3 minutes? Last Thursday, Mayor Gabel-Luddy, unilaterally decided that what counts is not the name of the person on the card requesting the speaking time, but the person who is featured on the media clip presented by that person.

    Question 2: If Citizen A, not knowing Mike or Roy, decides to play a video of the Mike and Roy Show without Mike or Roy’s knowledge or consent; does Citizen A’s decision eliminate Mike and Roy’s right to address the Council during the same meeting? The mayor’s argument says that it does. Her new rule will allow one citizen to take away another’s citizen’s right to free speech. Is this really what City Council is advocating? While City Council may be comfortable diminishing and negating Mike and Roy’s right to free speech, are they prepared to apply this new rule equitably for all Burbank citizens? It seems to me that there is a constitutional dilemma here that needs to be addressed.

    Question 3: If Citizen A shows a video of the Mike and Roy Show during public comment and then Citizen B decides to use their three minutes to play another Mike and Roy Show video, what happens if a third person, Citizen C, also wants to play an episode of the Mike and Roy Show? Would they be allowed to do so? Or would Citizen C be prevented from showing the clip because Mike and Roy have already accumulated their collective six minutes? If we use the Mayor’s logic, Citizen C’s right to show a video clip would have to be denied on the grounds that Mike and Roy had already spoken. Wouldn’t that deny Citizen C’s right to free to speech?

    It is my understanding that the any member of the public has the freedom to address the council on any issue. I’ve been to many meetings where members of the public, not just Mike and Roy, have used video clips and multi-media presentations as their form of public comment. And I hope that the City Council will continue to allow them to do so. After all, it’s a form of protected speech.

    Every citizen in Burbank has the right to show whatever media they feel best conveys their message, regardless of who is featured in that video. Is City Council really willing to infringe upon the free speech rights of Burbank citizens just because they find Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Moynahan irritating?

    • semichorus

      The city’s policy has always been that videos can be used to make serial presentations. In other words, each person is allowed their own time even if they are continuing on with a statement ( or campaign video) of someone else.

      Because it’s their own INDIVIDUAL time, they can use it as they wish — as long as it pertains to city business.

      What EGL ended up doing last night was banning content as well as an individual’s right to speak. Sounds like an Open Meetings violation.

      P..S. let me add a Question No. 4 —

      If Citizen A shows a video featuring Citizen B, and it’s ruled as Citizen B’s “three minutes,” then Citizen A is not allowed to go back up there and have their three minutes? Why not.

      Which Citizen A could then use — as their own free speech right — to continue the Citizen B conversation or monologue.

      The bottom line here is that Emily Gabel Luddy ain’t too bright. Whereas Dennis Barlow was (the city attorney who first validated this past practice allowance.) He saw these contradictions.

      I think Roy should file an Open Meetings complaint. He was denied his three minutes.

      • Anonymous

        i thought we would have a return to some modicum of decorum with the recent change at council. Nope. Same bully pulpit posturing from the dais.Several
        Pathetic and shameful.

    • I know Mike and Roy well and have helped with their videos in the past. Both of them work nights. I’ve OFTEN seen one or both of them have to hustle out of meetings to get to a gig before their speaking time came up.

      If you know them, you know this is the main reason they are in the habit of other people playing the videos. Will and Emily only made this an issue when they knew a lot of people were watching. If someone on the other side of an issue took the time to put together a video Mike and Roy would be all ears and not want to infringe upon those speaker’s rights. The one speaker was right about poking the bear. EGL’s going to regret this little episode.

      Also I love the idea someone posted above about a NO vote on all three initiatives. Just to spite EGL. Good luck with the tax initiative Mayor Gabel-Luddy!

      • semichorus

        You’re totally right. But I don’t think Will would have done what EGL did last night.

        He might have ridiculed Mike and Roy for the video, or misrepresented its contents. But he wouldn’t have tried to pull some Two For One thing or blocked another speaker who happened to be in it.

        How too did EGL know what was going to be said by the banned speaker? She clearly violated the state Open Meetings law by denying a speaker their time.

        The rules in Burbank have always been that individuals can use THEIR three minutes to defer to someone else’s statements or videos. Mike and Roy in theory could chain 10 people together to continue to show a 30-minute video.

        “Roll the tape!” as Irma Luz used to say.

        That’s PAST PRACTICE in Burbank. As I said, used to happen all the time.

      • Anonymous 4

        Here is how it goes. This new council and their supporters plan to have zero tolerance for any opinion that differs from their own, and if you do dare to differ you will be labled a racist, sexist, or a xenophobe.

        • semichorus

          Creepy, women-hating old guys bothering Burbank. They’re a problem everywhere now, we know.

          This is how it’s going to pan out, and perhaps with big money urging it on as an organized tactic:

          Little or no discussion of the issue at hand — especially planning problems. Just a lot of emphasis on personalities and supposed personal foibles. Look how horrible those people are, etc. etc.

          In other words, Will’s Inheritance. And in dumb places, it works.

    • Anonymous

      Roy got his three minutes when the “Mike and Roy” bullshit show first was played. You only get to speak once per session.

      • semichorus

        You don’t know the rules. That was the other speaker’s three minutes.

        If Joe Schmo wants to read a statement written by Betty Blue, or show a video that was made by her, then Betty Blue is allowed to get up there and use her three minutes to continue the statement or video. Or talk about anything else city related.

        Been that way for years, and used to happen all the time. There’s no “Two for One” rule.

        • Anonymous

          Seems that the city attorney sees it differently.

          • semichorus

            She’ll get her ass kicked in court or the outside world if she tries to stick with that position.

            As long as it pertains to city business, any speaker can use their time in any way they want. If they want to use it by reading someone else’s statement, that doesn’t waive the someone else’s right to have their own three minutes.

            It’s very simple. There’s no defense to EGL’s lame, hamfisted behavior last night. This has also been Burbank past practice for years.

          • Anony

            The city attorney sees many things different and more than one of her ideas has not only lost in court but has cost us big
            Our city attorney said ok to taking electric money and a judge made them pay ot back same with stealing water money so this city attorney has a bad record buckoo

  14. Just Say NO To Drugs

    Just Say NO To Drugs

  15. chad

    Well, Oscar, Will Rogers used gotcha videos to critique Gordon at City Council meetings. They were wild. Eclectic naive art that I wish someone had archived.

  16. Anonymous

    Hey Jimmy. You really spun your socks up on this one. You have convinced me that Jackson is the best choice.

    • Donald

      Sounds just like half-a-brick!!
      He would be willing to suck butte of Luddee and Co.

      What about the boys and girls at the Chamber of Commerce?
      Their boy “little chris” didn’t fare so well.

      So far Bob Frutos is making more sense than “All Three” of the others.

  17. Mel Goldberg

    All the council being retired city employees tells it all. It’s absolutely outrageous. People who misbehave in the city never oppose each other. It’s an allegiance thing. I’ve personally seen allegiance to each other when they’ve known that something is way out of line.

    At Thursday’s meeting, Luddy behaved like an abusive mother. The people are helpless as she tells them the way it’s going to be.

    Mommy’s in charge!!!!!! You little peons need to shut up!!!!!!

    • semichorus

      It also shows an incredibly limited range of opinions and backgrounds.

      The types of jobs too are what bothers me. They’re all retired city management people. Talk about a potential club full of go-along-to-get-along mediocrities. No teachers or mechanics?

      You can’t expect too much dissent from a crowd like that. Or imagination. That’s how they GOT those jobs, which is true of almost all management people post-1970s. (It was a different story postwar.)

      Btw … is Springer an old public employee? Wasn’t aware of that.

      • Anonymous

        ” is Springer an old public employee? Wasn’t aware of that.”

        Possibly because in your identity as one of your socks you got that wrong.

        There is only about six people who read this wretched blog.

        Jimmy, you are such a joke.

        • semichorus

          You’d be surprised about the readership.

          I’d always heard Springer being played off as some kind of knowledgable consultant or artsy type.

  18. Grossed Out

    I’ve read this particular blog over several times. Thank God the residents are starting to catch on. For me, it’s a head scratcher. How can a panel be so insulting and still get re elected? People have to be tuned out or uninvolved politically or this council would never keep their seats.

    • semichorus

      The new crop of Millennials in town. The ones who also voted for the airport.

      They see an older critical guy up there and they say, “Ewwww!”

  19. Thanks, semi, for sticking up for our right to show videos and for speaking up about Emily shutting Roy down. I guess that’s what we get for being critical of council’s boorish behavior and poor choices. I think she may have opened up a can of worms. I wanted to share this letter that I sent to city council. Keep up the good work!

    Dear council members,

    What Emily did last night, when she denied Roy Wiegand his right speak at the council meeting, was not only unacceptable, but it violated Roy’s rights as defined in section 405 of our city charter. The fact that none of you stood up for Roy and his right to speak was shameful. It’s obvious you don’t like hearing what residents like me or Roy have to say about what is happening to our city but, unfortunately, we are allowed 3 minutes of public comment and it’s your duty to listen. Roy didn’t get to speak because of Emily’s sudden and ill advised decision to take that right away from him.

    To be clear, Roy did appear in a video that was presented by another speaker. That was how that speaker chose to use his 3 minutes of public comment. So, basically, Emily counted that speakers 3 minute public comment twice. She counted it for that speaker and for Roy Wiegand. That just isn’t fair.

    In a conversation with our City Attorney and City Manager, we posed the hypothetical question. What if we showed a video of another Burbank resident, say, David Peroli, Konstantine Anthony or Tim Murphy? Does that mean their 3 minute comment period has been used up? The answer was yes. Doesn’t it sound a bit nutty that residents of Burbank can now use another person’s comment time by showing a video of them. We all know things have gotten crazy around here but we have just been taken to a whole new level of lunacy.

    In Ms. Albano and Mr. Davis’ defense, there was a lot going on at the moment and perhaps they didn’t understand our hypothetical question. It is, however, cause for grave concern that there is an effort by our city council to silence residents.

    In stark contrast to the way she treated Roy and the gentleman who played the video, Emily allowed other speakers to comment, with no interruption, on things that did not relate to last night’s topic. However, she interrupted the Mike and Roy video to confirm it was on topic. Emily allowed one speaker to go on for over a minute, commenting on how she felt about the Mike and Roy situation. Why wasn’t she interrupted and asked to stay on topic? You don’t have to like us but if you are going to serve as a representative of the residents of Burbank, you have to listen to us. Your job is to listen to ALL of us. Not just your supporters and cheerleaders. I believe Roy Wiegand deserves an apology.

    Mike Moynahan
    Burbank, CA.

    • semichorus

      Good letter. If EGL’s lost it this early, it’s gonna be a fun year.

      What’s amazingly inane about Albano’s opinion there is that someone could go in and subvert the speaking rights of another person merely by “using up” the other one’s time through the entirety of their own.

      Example:

      Let’s say I don’t like Jackson. She doesn’t get on the council. But sometime later I see her in the chambers wanting to speak at orals. So what I do is get in there first, spend three minutes up there just reading her stupid old letter to the Leader about Dr.Gordon, and that way I’ve completely pre-empted her time.

      Or better yet, just show appreciative videos of her.

      In order to be consistent the council would have to say that, yes, Jackson already had her time. I had already presented her point of view.

      Or, does this new rule only apply to council critics? Or a certain point of view the first time?

      I don’t see a judge or outside agency ruling for them. Not only is there a years-long past practice here in Burbank that establishes the complete opposite interpretation to the new one, but exactly what kind and volume of content presentation the first time establishes how the second speaker somehow waived or already exhausted their right to a later three minutes of their own?

      Oh, the council knows it when they see it? So they’re making on the spot judgments? The city clerk’s holding a stopwatch?

      She’s not? Why not, to make sure the time gets allotted properly…

      In other words, none of what they’re doing now will hold up — it’s too arbitrary.

      What you guys should do is make super-long videos and have three or four or five different people in them speaking the same opinion and point of view, delivered by three or four or five different speakers at orals. Even the same ones.

      Just use more people.

      It would drive EGL and Company completely bananas. It’d be hilarious — that’s precisely what the ROAR critics did years ago to drive Golonski totally nuts. Especially during the election campaign. Serial videos.

      “Roll the tape!”

      • Anonymous

        YES!! GREAT letter.

        Pandoras box has been opened!

        • semichorus

          Yeah. EGL made a huge mistake getting these guys going. She won’t win against them, but it’s obviously a war that she wants.

          Will was never that stupid– or politically unfair. He traditionally disliked these hamfisted attempts to thwart oral communications if only because he thought it unnecessarily riled up the rabble.

          Btw. This is just the beginning of an already planned-out effort to discredit political dissent in this town. The opening salvo. So get ready for more.

          Big money thinks it’s gonna work if they can somehow effectively portray all of the critics and slow-growth people as a pack of creepy and elderly child molesters and women haters.

          It won’t, if only because the boosters and Organization Men are clumsy and stupid. The same thing happened during the police mess, incidentally, until the FBI stepped in behind the scenes and clamped down on that odious crowd.

          It’s one big reason why the Bureau kept their investigation against Burbank open for as long as they did. Almost five years! They knew what would happen if they left town too early when it came to retribution and political set-ups.

          People in the outside world know how idiotically horrible Burbank institutions can be. It’s no secret. Too much money and no sense– it doesn’t attract the best any more like it used to.

      • Anthony

        Like everything else this council and city attorney do —- this is just more insane thinking.

        So they don’t like Mr Nolan , sort of clear that they don’t, so someone shows a video or picture of him and now he is unable to speak ?

        Let’s go beyond fair that is not legal it takes away Mr Nolans constitutional right to speak.

        We need a mew Mayor and a new City Attorney.

        • semichorus

          What we need is an ELECTED city attorney. Like other cities. For citizen review and oversight.

          How’s THAT for a new Charter proposal, eh Carolyn Jackson?

          Right. You and those other clowns on the committee would NEVER allow such an expansive proposal. You know who you’re working for, and quite agreeably.

          (No one with such an idea in mind would EVER get selected to be on these committees. They never are. They’re not “collegial” enough!)

      • Anonymous

        Someone run a video of Constantine every week so that Constantine can never speak again.

        • semichorus

          Funny.

          Why not? That’s the new rule.

          I have a question. If someone runs a Mike and Roy video first at orals, does this mean that BOTH Mike and Roy lose their place to speak?

          Or does the city clerk have to time each “opportunity” up to the allotted three minutes?

          Just another question to ask the city in front of the judge…

          • Semi, what I understood from my conversation with CA and CM, we would not both lose our opportunity to speak, because, between the two of us we are entitled to 6 minutes of public comment. Six minutes of excruciating truths and annoyingly lofty expectations.

            Who, then, decides which one of us loses our turn? It’s just insane! Here’s a good one…We show a Mike and Roy video. Then, Roy speaks at the podium for 3 minutes. Do I lose my right to speak? Is the new rule that whichever one of us gets to the podium first after showing a video, still gets their 3 minutes? Are we living in North Korea? What’s wrong with the way it was?

            Every speaker gets their time to use as they wish. If someone wants to show a video, they use their time to show a video and that counts as their time. Are we now going to scrutinize every video for who appears in it and for how many seconds and then subtract those seconds if that person wants to speak at the podium? It is truly ludicrous.

            I will say, this wouldn’t be an issue if we were supporters and cheerleaders of these council members. The fact that we are critical and work to expose the corruption in our city government seems to make them VERY uncomfortable. Hmm…I wonder why?

            • semichorus

              From now on Mike and Roy should experiment with all sorts of different combinations of videos and card requests. The city clerk will end up needing a special spreadsheet just to keep things straight.

              Turn the entire meeting into a bookkeeping session. Have people speak for them, show their videos, then reverse the procedure.

              It’ll be fun. Make a mockery of this new little rule.

      • Jan

        I really feel Luddy is an enemy of free speech but Springer is even worse just wait for Jackson to join them, it will get much worse.

  20. OF

    Oh stop complaining. All is well now that cab boy Konstantine Anthony was put in his place and told to take a hike by all four of them. The guy looked stunned when he walked out of city hall. Drive away for good, cab boy.

    • Anonymous

      If someone puts in a video talking about flamingos and Rogers can we prohibit anyone else from mentioning them ?

      • semichorus

        No, they’ll probably fall apart in tears. It’ll be allowed.

        No further proof about how stupid this crowd is necessary:

        Those flamingos were A SARCASTIC JOKE of Will’s from long ago. He thought he was being cute and clever then about a kitschy decoration that was ALREADY years trite by the time he jumped in on it.

        That anyone could be charmed by them is nuts, or to try to make a meaningful emblem out of that crap. As I said earlier, it’s like honoring someone with lawn jockeys.

  21. Jessica R

    Here is how average Americans react to all these Flamingos.

    Please show this at a council meeting and dry their fake tears.

    • semichorus

      They’ve always been a joke. A very trite one since at least the late 60s.

      I love the idea that Will was somehow “fascinated” by lawn flamingos and thought he’d then put a few of them on his lawn for curiosities sake.

      No, he was making FUN of them.

      Ted McConkey told me about this years ago, that Rogers had “these damn flamingos” on his lawn over on Pepper. I remember telling Ted that Rogers was about 40 years too late, and that even back THEN it was an old and stale joke.

      Our point was that the guy always thought he was really cute and sharp and funny and clever, but he wasn’t.

      Well, maybe for much of Burbank he was. This flamingo thing is the perfect physical illustration of what the problem is with Rogers and much/most of Burbank: it dumbly misses the boat.

  22. Rosemarie

    and now Semichorus we have the trite and banal Emily Luddy who just adores the wit, wisdom and truth telling of Rogers. She will continue to live the Rogers dream until we get her off the council. Week after week she will continue to say ? what would Rogers have said.”

    It is beyond pathetic and disgusting and just goes to show what a shallow and hollow person Luddy really is.

  23. Anony Miss

    O.K., time is up. I think people have sat back and watched the city council’s shenanigans for long enough. The boredom factor has played in because the city council is so united and disgusting that people have tuned out. Now, Emily made the mistake of venturing out and was rude and controlling while the others did nothing to soften her insults. She makes no effort to hide how turned off she is with so many people.

    Semi, how about a specific blog with suggestions to get the growing number of fed up people united in a plan of action?

    Time for teamwork. Vote NO was a great suggestion for starters!

  24. Susan

    For starters whoever is in charge of Burbank Chanel 6 should be fired and run of town. The sound is terrible, the picture is terrible and the council is terrible, but it is so hard to watch when the sound and picture alternate between being so bad and poor quality. It never was like that before so start holding whoever we are paying a bunch of money to be in charge of it responsible and fire them.

    • semichorus

      That’s pretty funny. Wish I’d thought of it.

      Give them those monster voices, too. The ratings will skyrocket– it’ll be better than Dr. Karam.

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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