It's always a wonderment what part of certain everyday words Los Angeles city officials don't understand.
The first would be "illegal."
Under Prop. 13, property taxes cannot be raised without the approval of two-thirds of the voters. They illegally get around this by calling "taxes" fees and slapping them on utility bills.
It's a quadruple whammy because not only is it a lie and illegal, but they waste the money on foolishness; they don't spend it on what it's dedicated to; and they always try to divert the money from it's intended use to another use as their fancy strikes them.
Time and again letters to the editor start off saying 'what part of illegal don't they understand?' The controversy that rages is over Special Order 40 that forbids police from inquiring into a suspect's legal status, making L.A. a huge sanctuary city.
Their latest act of insanity and screwing over L.A.'s tax payers forces me to wonder what part of "volunteer" they don't understand.
While rationally understanding anything doesn't seem to be part of their job description, frankly I don't understand how they cannot understand what "volunteering" means.
Well, maybe they got their education from the Los Angeles Unified School District, which ranks among the country's worst educational systems.
Pay me to volunteer, and I'll volunteer all day long and so will every member of my family. Hell, I'll even "volunteer" the dog's services. He can be hitched to a supply wagon and follow me and the kids around while we're being "paid volunteers" to build houses for the poor.
All this began as the result of former President Jimmy Carter's visit to Los Angeles in October for a week-long Habitat for Humanity project in South Los Angeles, the city's Housing Department encouraged employees to volunteer...and they did...on the tax payers' dime.
Even 14 employees at one city councilwoman's office got in on the altruism at tax payers expense act by "volunteering" full- and half-days on salaried time to help build houses with her permission.
Has volunteerism ever been more profitable...for the volunteer?
According to my "American Heritage Dictionary," the number one definition
of volunteer is "a person who performs or offers to perform a service of his or her own free will without pay, which is followed by a dozen more definitions.
None mentions being paid for services rendered. Not one.
A volunteer who gets "paid" is NOT a "volunteer," no matter what kind of spin city officials put on it, or I've read my dictionary incorrectly,
or somebody changed the definition since its printing in 1992.
Not even Mercedes Marquez' rationale as general manager of the Housing Department, that its employees work was relevant and an appropriate use of staff time.
