Los Angeles Times - 02.10.2019

A10 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION

OPINION

EDITORIALS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO WRITE TO US

Please send letters to

[email protected]. For

submission guidelines, see

latimes.com/letters or call

1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.

L

ike it or not — andPresident
Trump and his administration ob-
viously don’t like it — the House of
Representatives has the constitu-
tional authority to investigate
whether the president has committed “high
crimes and misdemeanors” justifying im-
peachment. To resist legitimate inquiries
related to that responsibility is obstruction.
That’s why it’s alarming that Secretary of
State Michael R. Pompeo has reacted with
bluster and absurd accusations of bullying
to a legitimate request from three House
committees for information from State De-
partment officials caught up in the furor
over Trump’s July 25 telephone call with
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
That’s the conversation in which Trump,
after reminding Zelensky that “we do a lot
for Ukraine,” suggested that Ukraine should
investigate former Vice President Joe Biden,
a potential 2020 opponent. The Wall Street
Journal has reported that Pompeo listened
in on Trump’s call, which is at the heart of a
whistleblower complaint filed by a member
of the intelligence community.
As part of the impeachment process an-
nounced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
three House committees sent Pompeo a let-
ter requesting interviews with State De-
partment officials with possible knowledge
of Trump’s contacts with Ukraine. The let-
ter contained a schedule for depositions by
officials including former U.S. Ambassador

to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was

abruptly recalled from her posting.

In reply, Pompeo said he would not make

the officials available on those dates. In-

stead of merely questioning whether the

witnesses had been given enough time, a

dispute presumably open to negotiation, he

instead insulted the committee chairs by ac-

cusing them of trying to “intimidate, bully

and treat improperly the distinguished pro-

fessionals of the Department of State.”

Though less crude and crazed than

Trump’s suggestion that House Intelligence

Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff might

be guilty of treason, Pompeo’s response was

outrageous and sounded more like the pos-

turing of a partisan politician — Pompeo’s

role when he was a member of the House —

than what we expect from the head of a de-

partment traditionally regarded as nonpo-

litical. Although Pompeo didn’t explicitly

rule out appearances by the officials later,

his tone was the opposite of cooperative.

It’s vital that the House interview wit-

nesses who might shed light on this trou-

bling episode, compelling their testimony by

subpoena if necessary. As for Pompeo, if he

wants to raise questions about timing and

privileged communications — concerns he

expressed in his letter to the committees —

he can do so without hurling absurd accusa-

tions and pretending that a search for infor-

mation about possible presidential wrong-

doing is an attack on U.S. diplomats.

Pompeo brushes Congress off

W

ho could have imagined
in 2013, when the Los An-
geles Department of Wa-
ter and Power rolled out a
badly flawed new billing
system, that the city would still be mired in
controversy about it six years later? And
that ratepayers, the victims in the whole de-
bacle, would get stuck holding the bag?
Yet that’s what appears to be happening.
Last week, Los Angeles City Atty. Mike
Feuer dropped a lawsuit against the con-
sulting firm that oversaw the launch of the
billing software, abandoning the effort to re-
coup as much as tens of millions of dollars
blown on the faulty rollout.
The city had sued Pricewaterhouse-
Coopers in 2015, alleging that the firm mis-
represented its ability to do the job. Later,
Feuer’s office expanded the lawsuit to allege
that managers at the firm inflated time re-
cords to earn payments for work never per-
formed, and then spent the money on pros-
titutes, hotels and liquor in Las Vegas.
The consultancy denied the allegations
and chose to fight back. Lawyers for the firm
say they uncovered evidence of fraud and
double dealing by attorneys hired by Feuer.
Specifically, they accused lawyers hired
by the city of orchestrating a class-action
lawsuit by ratepayers against the DWP as
part of a scheme to quickly settle customer
complaints without further investigation, so
the city could focus on the Pricewaterhouse-
Coopers lawsuit. If indeed it was the city’s

legal team that instigated the class action,

as alleged, without the knowledge of the

lead plaintiff, that would be a violation of le-

gal ethics. There are also allegations of kick-

backs and questionable contracts awarded

to lawyers hired by Feuer’s office, though

Feuer has denied wrongdoing and commis-

sioned an ethics investigation of his office.

In July, FBI agents raided the DWP

headquarters and the city attorney’s office

looking for evidence of bribery, extortion or

other possible crimes involving the class-

action lawsuit settlement. There have been

no charges filed and no arrests made.

Feuer said he had no choice but to drop

the case against PricewaterhouseCoopers

when key witnesses (including former DWP

chief David Wright, who stepped down after

the FBI raid) invoked their 5th Amendment

right against self-incrimination.

Attorneys for the consulting firm quickly

said they would try to make the city pay

some of the company’s legal expenses. And

who would likely get stuck paying for that?

Quite possibly the ratepayers, again.

The DWP billing system has been a case

study in botched decision-making and gov-

ernment bungling, starting with the soft-

ware that hit ratepayers with enormous bills

and continuing up to the present, with alle-

gations of fraud and misconduct hanging

over the city. Dropping the Pricewater-

houseCoopers lawsuit won’t end the scru-

tiny of Feuer’s office, the DWP or city lead-

ers. Too much money has been squandered.

The DWP billing debacle

F

rom the early days ofbroad-
band, advocates for consumers
and web-based companies worried
that the cable and phone compa-
nies selling broadband connec-
tions had the power and incentive to favor
affiliated websites over their rivals’. That’s
why there has been such a strong demand
for rules that would prevent broadband pro-
viders from picking winners and losers on-
line, preserving the freedom and innovation
that have been the lifeblood of the internet.
Yet that demand has been almost impos-
sible to fill — in part because of pushback
from broadband providers, anti-regulatory
conservatives and the courts. A federal ap-
peals court weighed in again Tuesday, but
instead of providing a badly needed resolu-
tion, it only prolonged the fight.
At issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit was the
Federal Communications Commission’s lat-
est take on net neutrality, adopted on a
party-line vote in 2017. The Republican-
penned order not only eliminated the strict
net neutrality rules the FCC had adopted
when it had a Democratic majority in 2015,
but renounced the commission’s authority
to require broadband providers to do much
of anything. The order also declared that
state and local governments couldn’t regu-
late broadband providers either.
The commission argued that other agen-
cies would protect against anti-competitive

behavior, such as a broadband-providing

conglomerate like AT&T favoring its own vi-

deo-streaming service at the expense of

Netflix and Apple TV. Yet the FCC also

ended the investigations of broadband pro-

viders that imposed data caps on their ri-

vals’ streaming services but not their own.

On Tuesday, the appeals court unani-

mously upheld the 2017 order deregulating

broadband providers, citing a Supreme

Court ruling from 2005 that upheld a simi-

larly deregulatory move. But Judge Patricia

Millett rightly argued in a concurring opin-

ion that “the result is unhinged from the re-

alities of modern broadband service,” and

said Congress or the Supreme Court could

intervene to “avoid trapping internet regu-

lation in technological anachronism.”

In the meantime, the court threw out the

FCC’s attempt to block all state rules on net

neutrality, while preserving the commis-

sion’s power to preempt individual state

laws that undermine its order. That means

more battles like the one now going on be-

tween the Justice Department and Califor-

nia, which enacted a tough net neutrality

law in the wake of the FCC’s abdication.

The endless legal battles and back-and-

forth at the FCC cry out for Congress to act.

It needs to give the commission explicit au-

thority once and for all to bar broadband

providers from meddling in the traffic on

their network and to create clear rules pro-

tecting openness and innovation online.

No clarity on net neutrality

Abcarian writes: “Re-

publican presidents who

face impeachment are

accused of selling out the

office for political gain;

Democrats who face im-

peachment are accused of

lying about sex. Which kind

of president would you

prefer?”

She exhibits a naive

outlook that a president

who lies about sex wouldn’t

lie about something more

egregious. Pretty narrow,

or should I say partisan,

thinking.

John R. Grush

Palm Desert

Graduating more

college athletes

Re “State will allow college

athletes to profit from

endorsements,” Oct. 1

College athletes should

be allowed to earn income

based on their skills and

hard work, as a bill signed

by Gov. Gavin Newsom will

allow those in California to

do.

The fact that they are

being recruited by four-

year universities, many

earning full or partial

scholarships as a result, is

not enough to sustain

someone competing in

sports and studying full

time so they can earn their

degrees.

That said, with the

enactment of Senate Bill

206, there should also be

accompanying legislation

requiring all athletes to

reimburse their schools if

they do not complete their

degrees or leave early to

pursue a professional

sports career. The reim-

bursements should go into

a non-athletic scholarship

fund for students who need

or deserve financial aid.

If California allows

student athletes to mone-

tize their status, it is only

fair that they should be

required to compensate

the colleges that helped

them earn a living while

being given the opportuni-

ty to earn a subsidized

education.

This may also provide

another incentive for these

athletes to finish what they

started and complete their

degrees.

Gene E. Schwartz

San Diego

::

Re “The athletes who play

deserve their chance to get

paid,” column, Oct. 1

Bill Plaschke humanely

demonstrates the simplic-

ity behind the theory that

people should be entitled

to fair and equal payment

for their work and extraor-

dinary talents, especially if

they are used to publicize

and create revenues for the

organization they “work”

for.

And yes, this is work,

this is employment, this is

sacrificing your body and

even your education.

The bill might even

encourage more students

to study and train harder

for the chance to become

part of an organization

that respects and values

the enormous contrib-

utions that these young

athletes make.

Chris Johnson

Los Angeles

::

This is insulting and

degrading to what educa-

tion ought to mean. We

have sunk to new lows.

Do the cheering crowds

know what these so-called

students are missing by

devoting so much of their

time to athletics? And

what percentage of these

students go on to earn

huge amounts of money in

professional sports? How

many live lives of pain and

physical dysfunction for

the sake of a very short

athletic career?

I wonder how much the

meaning of an education

has changed for some

people. Football, the most

visible college sport, is very

demanding, whereas get-

ting an education builds a

better future.

Beverly Franco

Monterey Park

‘Lock ’em up’ on

homelessness

Re “This city has an an-

swer: Jail the homeless,”

Sept. 28

As a former Kern

County public defender, I

am distressed to read that

the current sheriff and

district attorney propose

addressing homelessness

through increased incar-

ceration.

The sheriff calls this a

“conservative” approach in

the “last large conservative

county” in California, and

the district attorney

pointed to an open Bible on

her desk. Conservatism, of

course, represents a legiti-

mate political and life

philosophy. However, a

prosecutor should never

point to the Bible (or the

Quran or the Torah) for

guidance on punishing

people.

Certainly, our Constitu-

tion is deeply flawed with

its acceptance of slavery

and lack of women’s equal-

ity. Nonetheless, whatever

one thinks of the poor and

homeless and the risk of

addiction in those commu-

nities, those attitudes

should not determine how

we punish or help these

people.

Konrad Moore

San Diego

::

Bakersfield has figured

out what progressives,

including Los Angeles

Mayor Eric Garcetti, ig-

nore for political reasons.

Being homeless has

never been a valid defense

for people accused of com-

mitting a crime, especially

for drug offenses, burglary

or assault.

We are all tired of the

lawlessness and giving

criminals a pass.

Mark Algorri

Pasadena

The whole idea of help-

ing homeless people is not

just to get them off the

street, but also seeing that

they get treatment and

guidance, whether they are

mentally, physically or

monetarily challenged.

The approach by Kern

County may finally help

homeless people get back

on their feet with some

semblance of health and

well-being.

Gerald Staack

Santa Clarita

Not empowered

by Ivanka Trump

Re “Ivanka Trump has her

own campaign,” Sept. 30

Ivanka Trump’s visits to

South American countries

meant to empower local

women are pointless.

South American wom-

en do not need Trump to

make them feel empow-

ered. Instead they need

education, good jobs, equal

treatment, respect and

reproductive rights,

among other things.

I can only wonder about

how much U.S. taxpayer

money was spent on

Trump’s jaunt and how

much the host countries

spent on arranging the

banquets and other cere-

monies. Trump and a

delegation of senior U.S.

officials were transported

on a U.S. Air Force jet, rode

in a protective vehicle

convoy and spent money

on other items.

Now that the first

daughter has returned to

the United States, let’s go

and ask some of the South

American women how

much more empowered

they feel after Trump’s trip.

Hugo Pastore

Lomita

::

At the time when her

father is cutting Planned

Parenthood funding in the

United States and nega-

tively affecting reproduc-

tive health programs

across the globe, it is rather

hypocritical for Trump to

travel in South America to

talk about empowering

women.

To truly empower wom-

en, we need to provide

young girls with education

and provide teenage girls

in parts of the world with

sanitary products. All over

the world, women must

have information on, and

affordable access to, family

planning.

Hillary Clinton fa-

mously said, “Women’s

rights are human rights.”

Give women our rights,

and we will empower our-

selves.

Donna Handy

Santa Barbara

Right light

Re “We were warned,”

letters, Sept. 28

One letter writer takes

columnist Jonah Goldberg

to task, concluding, “Since

Goldberg apparently no

longer accepts Trump as a

sentient, qualified, legally

justifiable president, I have

to ask him: What took you

so long?”

My response: Has the

writer been reading Gold-

berg’s weekly pieces over

the past few years?

I have been avidly fol-

lowing him for my weekly

dose of reassurance that

there is still at least one

sane, objective, clear-eyed,

evidence-based Republi-

can left on the planet, one

who judges Donald Trump

to be a disastrous presi-

dent, a disgrace to the

office and a threat to our

country and our system of

government. I regularly

forward his pieces to family

and friends who believe as

Republicans that they

have no choice but to sup-

port the president.

My sincere apologies to

Goldberg if I have over-

stated and infected his

views with my own, and my

grateful thanks for his

service to ethical journal-

ism.

Peter Vincent

Los Angeles

‘Power-hungry men’

Re “Why Congress should impeach Trump,” Opinion,

Sept. 29

Robin Abcarian states that in the three impeachment

traumas she has witnessed, the Republican presidents

were accused of selling out the office for political gain,

and the Democrat was accused of lying about having sex.

Which would I prefer?

The answer is neither.

In each of the three cases the office of the president

was debased. It was held in contempt by power-hungry

men who thought their actions were above the law.

Presidents should be role models. We should be able

to point with pride at our leader. Richard Nixon, Bill

Clinton and Donald Trump do not bring about that

pride. Each brought about only embarrassment with

their actions.

I am embarrassed to call each man my president.

Bill Rollins

Lake Forest

Greg GibsonAssociated Press

PRESIDENT CLINTONat the White House on

the day he was impeached, Dec. 19, 1998.

EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong

EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine

MANAGINGEDITOR

Scott Kraft

SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR

Kimi Yoshino

DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS

Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,

Julia Turner

ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS

Len De Groot, Stuart Emmrich,

Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez

Opinion

Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES

FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR