Bernard Parks Is NOT Who We Thought He Was

Parks Campaign Racks Up Massive Debt

2008-10-08T08:01:00.000-07:00

With only a month to go before the election,
Bernard Parks’ campaign is $261,500 in the red

Parks racks up $390,000 in debt that is paralyzing his campaign.

With only a month to go before the election, Bernard Parks has been busy struggling to pay off his primary election debts instead of campaigning – and still has $390,000 in outstanding debts, according to campaign reports filed with the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder’s office.

Parks’ campaign debts far exceed his assets. In fact, of the $207,038.30 his campaign has spent since the June primary election, $133,478.68 was spent on paying down his debt instead of on campaign activities for the November 4th election.

This means that Parks must raise $10,895 every day between now and the election just to pay off his previous campaign debts.

Meanwhile, the Ridley-Thomas campaign has more assets than debts, with only $17,000 in accrued expenses, and is campaigning full speed ahead.

Almost 100% of all funds raised by the Ridley-Thomas campaign have gone towards the campaign, and not towards paying debts – because the campaign doesn’t rack up bills that it cannot pay.

That has allowed the Ridley-Thomas campaign to mobilize thousands of grassroots volunteers and voters throughout the district who have signed on to support the Senator for the Board of Supervisors.

Parks’ fiscal irresponsibility shouldn’t really be a surprise to anyone, given his pattern of mismanagement. His history includes:

Trying to cover up the Rampart police corruption scandal, and then pushing to prosecute his underlings as scapegoats – resulting in millions of dollars in settlements.

Attempting to divert City funds specifically allocated to hire more police officers.

Running up over $100,000 in campaign debt to a vendor – Helen Mars and California Litho Arts – that contract with the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles.

Benefiting from illegal television ads paid for through “Independent Expenditures.” KNBC refused to air the ads, which did not include legally required disclaimers identifying the sources of money paying for the ads.

And it was recently revealed that Parks is illegally taking $7,000 a year in property tax exemptions on a house, outside the district he represents, where he doesn’t even live.

Making matters worse for his flailing campaign, Parks also admitted to the Daily News that he was renting houses in the City of Los Angeles so he could be on the City Council, even though he considered his home outside L.A. to be his principal residence for tax purposes.

So it comes as no surprise that Parks is spending his campaign into oblivion. With such a track record, voters need to decide whether they want someone like Bernard Parks overseeing L.A. County’s multi-billion dollar budget.

Bernard Parks is NOT who we thought he was.

Bernard Parks Campaign Disclosure Statement (PDF)

Parks Threatened With Recall For 'Disgraceful, Unethical, Illegal Actions And Abuses Of Power'

2008-10-06T10:29:00.000-07:00

Activist Damien Goodmon is calling for Bernard Parks to step down from his City Council seat as well as his positions with the MTA and Expo Line Construction Authority or face a recall for his "disgraceful, unethical, illegal actions and abuses of power." A letter from Goodmon to Parks lays out some of the issues:

“One would think a former Police Chief would understand how an action may not violate one section of the law, but would violate another section of the law. A criminal who robs a bank may not be guilty of murder, but the act is no less illegal. Perhaps my supposition that, given your tenure as the Chief of Police, you would understand this difference is predicated on my unfounded assumption that incompetence was not one of the primary reasons former Mayor Jimmy Hahn fired you. It is disappointing and revealing that you have not apologized for taking and/or soliciting the dirty money, let alone offered to return the donations. Instead, you have the audacity to threaten those who have highlighted this illegal act by calling for investigations. That may have been how you ran things at Rampart, Sir, but the good people of the 8th District will not permit our business to be conducted in such a manner."

Read the entire article at The Front Page Online.

BREAKING NEWS: Bernard Parks Voted In June Despite Not Being Eligible To Vote

2008-10-03T08:47:00.000-07:00

Somebody needs to ask Bernard Parks how many houses he has…

Bernard Parks voted in June – presumably for himself – despite not being eligible to vote at his alleged address

The question asked of Republican Presidential nominee John McCain now needs to be asked of Bernard Parks, candidate for the Board of Supervisors: How many houses do you have?

Hopefully Parks can answer the question, but if public records are any indication, the answer is quite complicated.

In summary, Bernard Parks takes a homeowners tax exemption at one house outside his current his Council District and outside the City of Los Angeles; he is registered to vote and votes at another address where he hasn’t lived since February; and he lives at a third house in another precinct.

So what’s the problem?

To start with, Parks was required to file a new voter registration affidavit or change of address to be eligible to vote in the June Primary Election.

He didn’t re-register, but he did vote at the polls on June 3, 2008, according to certified Registrar of Voters records. He fraudulently voted for himself.

In addition, as Parks was filing to run for the Board of Supervisors, he certified under penalty of perjury on February 29, 2008 that his residence was at 4132 Don Ibarra Place despite having already moved to 4420 Don Milagro Drive.

The 4132 Don Ibarra Place residence is the same address where Parks has been registered to vote since October 6, 2006 – just prior to his re-election campaign for the Los Angeles City Council. He hasn’t updated his voter registration with the Registrar of Voters since.

If Parks failed to re-register to vote after moving he could have voted provisionally at his new polling place, based on his new residence, or he could have voted provisionally at the Registrar of Voters office. He would have been required to re-register where he voted for future elections. But he did not. (Elections Code Section 14311)

If Parks moved within fourteen days of the June 2008 primary election, he could have voted in his old precinct. Trouble is, Parks moved long before that, in February 2008. (Elections Code Section 2035)

If neither of the above applies, Parks was required to file a new voter registration affidavit or change of address to be eligible to vote in the June primary election. But he did vote at the polls on June 3, 2008, according to certified Registrar of Voters records.

Section 14311 of the Elections Code states:

14311. (a) A voter who has moved from one address to another within the same county and who has not reregistered to vote at that new address may, at his or her option, vote on the day of the election at the polling place at which he or she is entitled to vote based on his or her current residence address, or at the office of the county elections official or other central location designated by that elections official. The voter shall be reregistered at the place of voting for future elections.

(b) Voters casting ballots under this section shall be required to vote by provisional ballot, as provided in Section 14310.

This news comes on the trail of revelations that Parks has been claiming a $7,000 annual property tax exemption at yet another address, outside the city he was elected to serve.

The State Elections Code gives weight to considering the residence on which a homeowner’s exemption is claimed as a person’s residence for registration and elections purposes.

Elections Code Section 2031 reads as follows:

“If a person has more than one residence and that person maintains a homeowner's property tax exemption on the dwelling of one of the residences pursuant to Section 218 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the residence subject to the homeowner's property tax exemption is that person's domicile.

However, this presumption shall not apply in the event any other residence is listed as the person's current residence address on any driver's license, identification card or vehicle registration issued to that person by, and on file with, the Department of Motor Vehicles.”

In addition to failing to pay his taxes in full, Bernard Parks has been violating the elections code while voting for himself.

Are voters expected to believe that in addition to accidentally becoming a member of an extreme right-wing political party, accidentally taking a homeowners exemption on a residence where he doesn’t live, accidentally certifying that he lives at an address that isn’t his – that Parks accidentally used a an invalid address when voting for himself in June?

Does Bernard Parks think he is above the law?

Bernard Parks is NOT who we thought he was.

-Bernard Parks Declaration - Front Page (PDF)
-Bernard Parks Declaration - Back Page (PDF)

BREAKING NEWS: Bernard Parks Improperly Taking Property Tax Breaks

2008-10-01T10:49:00.000-07:00

Parks claims homeowner’s exemption for house he doesn’t live in – and he should pay back taxes for the years he hasn’t lived there.

Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks – now a candidate for the L.A. County Board of Supervisors – has been claiming a $7,000 annual property tax exemption on the home he owns in an unincorporated area – even though he doesn’t live there, as required by state tax laws.

Parks is registered to vote at 4132 Don Ibarra Place in the City of Los Angeles, and state law allows individuals to register to vote only where they live. This address is in the 8th Council District, which he represents.

However, Parks claims his $7,000 annual property tax exemption at 5561 Onacrest Drive, located in unincorporated Los Angeles County. Ironically, Parks is claiming a homeowners’ exemption for a principal residence outside the city he was elected to represent.

Parks has not been registered to vote at this address since May 2002, when he registered to vote in the City of Los Angeles, and changed his membership from the American Independent Party to the Democratic Party [in preparation for his first campaign for City Council], according to documents available through the Registrar of Voters.

So, Bernard Parks owes his constituents an explanation: Why didn’t he pay his fair share of property taxes that fund a wide range of essential services including law enforcement, public safety, K-12 education, community colleges, state colleges and universities, highway maintenance, and health care for uninsured children?

Does he really live in the City Council District he was elected to represent, or does he live in a home in an unincorporated area outside of Los Angeles?

Bernard Parks has an obligation to pay back taxes and penalties for the years in which he claimed a homeowner’s exemption on his Onacrest property despite not living there.

The California Constitution provides a $7,000 reduction in the taxable value for a qualifying owner-occupied home. The home must have been the principal place of residence of the owner on the lien date, January 1st. To claim the exemption the homeowner must make a timely filing of a simple form with the county assessor. A partial 80% exemption may be granted for homeowners who file a late affidavit and claim for exemption with the assessor between February 16th and December 10th.

Homeowners' exemption claimants are responsible for notifying the assessor when they are no longer eligible for the exemption. December 10th is the last day to terminate the homeowners' exemption without penalty; the assessor should receive notice of ineligibility by that date.

The State Elections Code gives weight to considering the residence on which a homeowner’s exemption is claimed as a person’s residence for registration and elections purposes.

Elections Code Section 2031 reads as follows:

“If a person has more than one residence and that person maintains a homeowner's property tax exemption on the dwelling of one of the residences pursuant to Section 218 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the residence subject to the homeowner's property tax exemption is that person's domicile.

However, this presumption shall not apply in the event any other residence is listed as the person's current residence address on any driver's license, identification card or vehicle registration issued to that person by, and on file with, the Department of Motor Vehicles.”

“If a person has more than one residence and that person claims a renter's tax credit for one of the residences pursuant to Section 17053.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the residence subject to the renter's tax credit is that person's domicile.

However, this presumption shall not apply in the event any other residence is listed as the person's current residence address on any driver's license, identification card, or vehicle registration issued to that person by, and on file with, the Department of Motor Vehicles. This section shall not be applicable to state or federal elected officials.”

Bernard Parks has supported tax increases here and there as a member of the City Council, but he doesn’t pay his own… at least, not his fair share, like average taxpayers.

Bernard Parks is NOT who we thought he was.

-Bernard Parks 2006 Homeowners Exemption (PDF)
-Bernard Parks 2007 Homeowners Exemption (PDF)

City Awards Commander Who Clashed With Chief Parks $650,000

2008-09-30T12:43:00.000-07:00

From the L.A. Times:

In January 2007, the city paid a $650,000 settlement to Jim Tatreau, a police commander who alledged that he was denied promotion after he clashed repeatedly with former Chief Bernard C. Parks and called for Parks' firing.

Departed Campaign Manager Unveils Parks Smear Campaign

2008-09-19T12:32:00.000-07:00

Bernard Parks' field/campaign manager, Herb Wesson III, quit the campaign on September 10th because he was unhappy with Councilman Parks' smear tactics. Wesson, who is the son of City Councilman Herb Wesson, is quoted as saying that "there was some punk [two expletives deleted] going on that is not politics." Wesson continued his tirade against Parks:

"Parks is not right. He showed his card to me and I refuse to continue to be a part of his campaign. I am a young political operative and I have honorably won all the campaigns I've run and I will not have my reputation ruined by the ill-advised moves Parks believes he has to make to defeat Mark [Ridley-Thomas]."

Read the entire article at the Los Angeles Wave.

'Why Does Parks Hate Unions?'

2008-09-19T12:12:00.000-07:00

Betty Pleasant tries to answer that question in the September 18th edition of the Los Angeles Wave. Pleasant begins her column by calling Parks' recent controversial letter to the executive secretary and treasurer of the County Federation of Labor "despicable." She adds that Parks was "condescending, patronizing, disparaging, supercilious, disrespectful and downright nasty." Ultimately Pleasant questions where the country and Parks would be today without unions:

"Parks has a lot of nerve hating unions. After all, if it were not for unions, there would be no Black middle class, and certainly no pretentious Black bourgeoisie who can't remember where they came from or how they got here."

Read the entire column.

Parks Gets Support From 'Corporate Vultures'

2008-09-19T11:51:00.000-07:00

According to David Dayen at Calitics, the Supervisor's race is now between Bernard Parks who is "on the side of the corporate vultures" and Mark Ridley-Thomas who is "on the side of the people." Dayen sites Bernard Parks' association with "Republican fixer Steve Kinney," the notorious PAC BizFed and "the wingnuts at the Lincoln Club" in reaching his conclusion.

Did Parks Receive $21,000 In Illegal Contributions?

2008-09-13T12:51:00.000-07:00

Reporter Betty Pleasant evidences how Councilman Bernard Parks received $21,000 in unlawful MTA campaign contributions in the Wave Newspapers on September 11, 2008. After outlining the case against Parks, Pleasant concludes her article by writing:

"I believe I've provided sufficient specificity in detailing the blatant lawlessness of our former police chief -- he who prides himself on his tough, law-and-order stanch, his disdain for any form of criminality, his intolerance for any bit of rule-bending, his penchant for gleefully throwing the first stone at anybody even accused of wrongdoing. Parks, the self-righteous paragon of law enforcement, has engaged in illegal activity for almost two years. He ought to arrest himself."

Read the entire article.

Bernard Parks Sued By Family Of Slain Rapper Biggie Smalls

2002-05-01T22:05:00.000-07:00

In April 2002, Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bernard Parks was named in a wrongful death suit filed by the relatives of slain rapper Christopher Wallace (a.k.a. Notorious B.I.G. and Biggie Smalls). The lawsuit claimed that the LAPD failed to investigate threats against Wallace despite knowledge that members of a street gang "had consistently exhibited significant animosity" towards the musician.

Does Bernard Parks Believe In Racial Profiling?

2002-02-17T10:24:00.000-08:00

Ed Boyer in the L.A. Times writes:

As the issue of racial profiling made its way to the national agenda, Parks steadfastly maintained that his officers did not engage in that practice. But he once gave an interviewer what amounted to a textbook definition of racial profiling.

"It's not the fault of the police when they stop minority males or put them in jail," he said. "It's the fault of the minority males for committing the crime. In my mind, it is not a great revelation that, if officers are looking for criminal activity, they're going to look at the kind of people who are listed on crime reports."

Read the entire article.

Parks Misled Investigators In Rampart Corruption Probe

2001-03-26T19:23:00.000-08:00

A 2001 report by the Los Angeles Police Commission's inspector general found that then Chief of Police Bernard Parks made misleading statements, tried to bypass county prosecutors working on the Rampart corruption probe and refused to cooperate with the corruption probe.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "the report raises questions about the veracity of the chief's statements and the integrity of his actions."

Read the entire article.

Police Commission Disagrees With Parks In 'Clear Blow' To Chief

2000-02-16T14:52:00.000-08:00

The Los Angeles Police Commission agreed with the civilian watchdog Inspector General in finding that a 55-year-old, 102-pound, mentally ill woman did not pose a threat to officers when she was fatally shot in May, 1999. The decision was a sharp rebuke of Chief Bernard Parks who had sided with the officers:

The commission’s ruling, clearly a blow to Parks, comes at a time when the department is dealing with the ever-expanding Rampart corruption scandal, in which more than 70 LAPD officers are under investigation for either committing crimes or knowing about them and helping to cover them up. The commission’s siding with Eglash could signal an enhanced role for the civilian watchdog as the Rampart probe continues to unfold.

Read the entire article.

City Council Members Disappointed With Parks' Resistance To Civilian Oversight

1999-10-28T13:34:00.000-07:00

From the October 28, 1999, L.A. Times:

One by one and in no uncertain terms, Los Angeles City Council members made it clear during a Police Department briefing Wednesday that they are disappointed with Chief Bernard C. Parks’ obdurate resistance to civilian oversight of the department.

Specifically, council members said the chief’s constant expression of concerns about the role of the department’s watchdog, the inspector general, should be put to rest.

Read the entire article.