Alarcon Considering a Run for State Senate

Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon, just elected to his second term in office, is contemplating a run for a state Senate seat next year.

Valley-based Democrat Herschel Rosenthal currently holds the job that Alarcon is eyeing, but Rosenthal will probably be forced out of office next year due to term limits.

Alarcon’s decision won’t be easy to make, however, because many issues are still up in the air.

First of all, term limits may or may not be the law next year. A federal judge last month gutted California’s term-limits law but held the decision in abeyance until it can be reviewed by an appellate judge.

Secondly, Alarcon doesn’t know who else might be interested in the seat. Several political pundits say former Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) has also shown interest in Rosenthal’s post.

But Katz’s name has also been discussed in Washington as one of the top candidates to head the Federal Highway Administration, a post that became vacant when Rodney Slater left the job to become head of the Department of Transportation.

Sources say Katz is struggling to decide whether he would rather seek the federal job or the state Senate post.

In deciding on the state Senate job, Alarcon must also consider that the job will mean a $20,000 cut in pay and require him to be in Sacramento three or four days a week.

“The decision involves a lot of factors,” said Alarcon.

“This is one of the most difficult decisions I have to make.”

Whatever Alarcon decides, he said he would make the decision soon so that he can have enough time to run a well-prepared (read: well-financed) campaign next year.

Thanks, but No Thanks Mayor Richard Riordan--a multimillionaire businessman--usually get good results from his investments.

But when he put up nearly $300,000 to promote candidates for an elected charter reform panel, the results weren’t anything to crow about.

Only three of the 12 candidates that Riordan endorsed were elected to the panel. Three other Riordan candidates were forced into June runoffs. Instead, the city’s labor unions were claiming victory for having helped elect seven candidates that they endorsed.

But that doesn’t mean that Riordan is through trying.

Recently, Riordan decided to make a endorsement in the 4th District runoff race between William Weinberger and Charlie Mims. Hizzoner was not about to endorse Mims, who has been supported by the city’s labor unions. A Mims victory would only help the union win a majority of the seats on the 15-member reform panel.

Instead, the mayor offered his endorsement to Weinberger, who promptly declined to accept it.

Weinberger, a 42-year-old attorney, said he turned down the endorsement because he wanted to “remain an independent candidate.”

Besides, he said, he did pretty well in the primary without Riordan.

But Rick Taylor, a political consultant who worked for Riordan on the charter race, believes Weinberger made a mistake.

Taylor noted that in the 4th District, Riordan received 67% support in the last election.

“Why would you turn down the mayor as a message carrier?” Taylor asks.

Gun Play One of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky’s pet issues recently has been gun control, specifically, cracking down on the sale of cheap handguns in residential, unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.

The process hasn’t been particularly smooth, however.

The supervisor first proposed county gun control when he took over as chairman of the Board of Supervisors in December. He promised to bring the motion before the board a few weeks later, but for one reason or another, Yaroslavsky delayed introducing it for months.

When Yaroslavsky convened a news conference on the issue at County/USC Medical Center in March, he was disappointed with the low media turnout, even though he was offering precious few new details about the plan he had originally announced three months previously.

Yaroslavsky’s anti-gun proposals were finally brought before--and approved--by the board on March 11. They included provisions requiring employees of gun shops to undergo background checks and prohibiting the stores from employing people under age 21.

What Yaroslavsky failed to do during his research was to meet with representatives from Wal-Mart and Big 5 Sporting Goods, two outlets that sell guns. The stores also hire plenty of teenagers.

After the businesses protested the age requirements, the county counsel changed the language of the ordinance. But when representatives of Wal-Mart and Big 5 arrived at Tuesday’s board meeting, it didn’t take long for Yaroslavsky--who feared they would try to change even more--to work himself into a lather.

First, he said he didn’t see them in the board hearing room. Next, he attempted to deny them a chance to speak because they had failed to sign up for public comment. Then, he said he’d seen them lobbying before the meeting started. Finally, the two representatives were apparently not moving quickly enough to the speaker’s podium to suit Yaroslavsky’s taste.

“A little patience, Mr. Chairman,” he was told by Supervisor Don Knabe.

Not wanting to face the supervisor in full anger, the two representatives seemed to do their best to speak in soothing tones.

The Wal-Mart representative, district manager John Sherman, even said that the chain is “very supportive of the idea of gun control. . . . It’s the right thing to do.”

Yaroslavsky was irritated nonetheless.

He called the pair “rabble-rousers,” and when they objected, he apologized.

When Knabe also objected to Yaroslavsky’s treatment of the two business representatives (at board meetings, even bona fide rabble-rousers are not called rabble-rousers), Yaroslavsky maintained that he was not referring to the business people at all, but rather to Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who hadn’t said much of anything.

“I’m not saying they’re rabble-rousing,” Yaroslavsky claimed. “I’m talking about [Antonovich].”

It was unclear if Yaroslavsky was joking, but his statement prompted not a few expressions of disbelief.

Among the audience members were schoolchildren observing the board meeting to see how government operates.

Department Departure The head of the controversial Animal Services Department is on his way out, according to City Hall sources, but critics of the department can’t take credit for his departure.

Gary Olsen, a longtime employee who took the top job three years ago, is expected to leave his post in September due to family and medical problems, according to sources.

Olsen’s department lately has been under harsh criticism by animal rights groups, particularly over the department’s handling of the mysterious death of an Encino pug dog named Pal.

The dog--the longtime companion of a deaf and nearly blind 84-year-old woman--was found skinned alive in his owner’s backyard. He died later. Necropsy reports by the department concluded that the dog was the victim of a coyote attack.

But animal rights groups, such as the Los Angeles chapter of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, insist the dog was killed by a sadistic human. They accuse the department of trying to sweep the killing under the rug.

Olsen’s departure is not tied to the pug controversy--although department critics may try to claim it played a role.

Mayor Richard Riordan’s office is working to find Olsen a position that will provide him more flexibility to deal with his personal problems.

An internal city document obtained by The Times said a majority of the Animal Regulation Commission already supports allowing Olsen to “go on contract to do special projects.”

Olsen was initially hesitant about the change, but now supports the move, sources say.

*

QUOTABLE: “We feel that waiting from 7:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. to seek a vet’s care is inappropriate.” Peter Persic, Animal Services Department spokesman, on the agency having considered seeking animal cruelty charges against 84-year-old deaf and nearly blind Louise Wilkinson, whose dog was skinned alive