Writing Shotgun

‘I HAVE MANY FRIENDS’

Dave WielengaFri. July 11
 

Suja Lowenthal answers questions about the sudden intrusion of her personal life on politics

Several hours after Thursday morning’s Press-Telegram reported the impending end of the marriage between Long Beach City Council member Suja Lowenthal and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel Lowenthal, The District Weekly posed questions to the Second District’s representative about some official city issues that are potentially related to her personal life—specifically, Lowenthal’s votes in favor of city contracts benefitting the Yellow Cab Cooperative and the Long Beach Firefighters Association.

A variety of sources have told The District that an intimate relationship between Suja Lowenthal and Yellow Cab Cooperative president John “J.R.” Rouse prompted Daniel Lowenthal to file for divorce on July 3; court documents obtained by The District show that he is seeking sole custody of their five-year-old son. Those same sources also detailed a longtime close relationship between Suja Lowenthal and Rich Brandt, the president of the Long Beach Firefighters Association.

On Aug. 14, 2007, Suja Lowenthal seconded Third District Councilmember Gary DeLong’s motion to approve the Yellow Cab Cooperative’s request for an increase to $2.45 per flag drop and $2.45 per mile and $26.53 per hour waiting time. The motion passed 9-0.

On May 6 of this year, Suja Lowenthal voted with an 8-1 majority to approve a five-year contract with the Long Beach Firefighters Association that carries the potential of pay raises up to 27 percent by 2013.

Although both votes were lopsided, conflict-of-interest laws do not take voting margins into consideration; public officials are required to recuse themselves from issues in which they have a personal stake. The questions revolve around whether the Lowenthal’s relationship with Rouse or Brandt or both constituted conflict(s)-of-interest when she voted to approve contracts they sought for their organizations.

Here’s how we asked them, and how she answered:

I want to be totally respectful to your privacy and personal life, and just on a couple of issues—
“It’s a hurtful time. My husband and I filed for divorce.”
I read it in the Press-Telegram this morning. I guess that’s important on two fronts. One, because the Lowenthals are a traditionally strong political family; anything that happens [to them] perhaps has a consequence to the city. But maybe the more important thing—I’ll just go straight to it—is whether or not your personal relationship with Mr. John Rouse . . . J.R. . . . whether you were having that relationship at the time you were voting on changes to the city’s contract with Yellow Cab—whether or not that personal relationship was happening at the same time you were casting votes for a rate increase.
“John is a friend; I have many friends. Let me assure you that I have never cast a vote based on anything other than the merits of the issue. That is the Mr. Rouse you’re talking about, right? There are several. You said J.R., right? John’s a friend; I have many friends.”
You’ve probably heard the rumors, as much as anybody else.
“Actually, if I could just continue with what I just said about ‘I’ve never cast a vote other than based on the merits of the issue’: No amount of rumoring will change that. No amount of rumoring changes that.”
It’s uncomfortable to ask.
“I know. I know. I’m sorry. Sorry you have to ask. But I appreciate that you do ask. I do. You’re entitled to ask me anything that relates to my official capacity. You’re doing your job.”
OK, then I’ll ask about one other one, Rich Brandt, and whether or not—
“Rich is a friend; I have many friends. And the firefighters, just like the police, these are our public servants, engaged in public safety. We have 1,500 public safety officers. Rich Brandt is the head of one side of public safety. Steve James is the head of the other. Council members are friends with people who have an impact on the public servants that serve our city.”
So nothing in your relationships with those men would constitute in any kind of way a compromised position, a conflict of interest, in terms of votes you cast on those contracts?
“I think I’ve answered that.”

Tags: , ,

  • wswaim
    Miguel: See my post, No. 122. It's Bill, Luke and 15th Floor Staffer, and she's not using a city hall ip, and isn't a city hall staffer. --w
  • Miguel Hinojosa
    Will Swaim,

    do you mean Luke or Duke has the same ip address as the others? Please clarify. Are there any others from the same ip address? probably means city hall.
  • DW reader
    WIll (122): Yes, the insanity is making sense now..how 'bout checking if doublestandard and 'politics as usual' are one and the same based on the 15th floor.
  • Duke
    Well Will, over on the PT blog, there's someone name of Jeff who claims to know who I am and that I have harbored thoughts of running for office. Couldn't be further from the truth, but it does tell me there isn't a lot of logical thought in some of these posts.
  • Duke
    I don't get the "emotion" charge here, but then again, who cares? I know what I know, and there's no need to try and convince people on an internet blog.
  • wswaim
    Bill, 15th Floor Staffer and Luke are the same ip address. Now the insanity begins to make some sense.
  • DW reader
    ...and to further expound on my previous comment, it could be that Suja is being seen as an ever-increasing embarassment and liability to the Lowenthal clan. And despite the hugfest at the Tuesday night city council meeting, for all any of us know, Bonnie Lowenthal could be secretly disgusted and embarassed to have to sit next to her soon-to-be ex-daughter-in-law at future council meetings. Bonnie probably can't wait to be elected to the state assembly in November so as to put a few hundred miles between herself and the whole sordid Suja mess.
  • DW reader
    politics as usual: you keep accusing Judge Lowenthal of using and abusing his office to confirm the dirt on his wife yet you don't present any evidence or proof. He's married to her! He wouldn't have to use his office to investigate her when her sleazy antics were already common knowledge among city hall staffers.

    James #118: Just what are the actions by Judge Lowenthal that you want to call into question? And just what evidence or proof do you have? All that has been reported in the media is that he is filing for divorce and seeking sole custody of their son after learning of his wife's intimate relationships with other men. Just what is questionable about that?

    Suja is doing an excellent job of dragging herself and the Lowenthal name through the mud and that in itself could be another motivating factor for the Judge to divorce her.
  • wswaim
    No 112: I haven't said anything like this anywhere--let alone in response to "every post." Seriously can't imagine what you're talking about . . . unless someone's masquerading as me. Can you point me in the direction of these comments you say I've made?
  • James
    Ronald #116 - Thanks for your post. I also read the post on the PT and totally agree. The interesting thing is that the "Duke" is still full of emotion. I don't think he understands that nobody on this website or any other website have called Judge Lowenthals actions into question. The only thing being called in to question is the heavily slanted and biased opinion of the "Duke." Obviously, the "Duke" is someone who has a bone to pick with one person in that marriage, and he is seizing the opportunity to try and drag her through the mud in a public forum. I think that is very childish. Grow up... nobody cares that you have "Scoop" on Suja. I heard you eat your own boogers, hows that for scoop.?
  • Duke
    Emotionally charged? If they were any more matter of fact and drier I'd have to check myself for a pulse.

    politics as usual- If you've got proof regarding Judge Lowenthal, let's hear about it. Tell the DW or PT if you have specifics that he "used his office" to investigate his wife, or spill it here. As I've stated before, there are plenty of people with the scoop on Suja. It's just a matter of who or what finally snapped to have this go public. Otherwise, yes, you're shooting blanks here.
  • Ronald
    If this is the case, isn't the Judge elected into his position as well? So that would mean he is on government time, abusing resources, and on our dime, right?

    A poster on the Press Telegram said it the best, "The statements made by "Duke" are obviously full of emotion and slanted heavily toward painting a poor picture of only one party involved. It takes two to tango, and the truth is somewhere in there, but not being reported here."

    I wonder why Duke is so emotionally charged, both in the PT and DW?
  • politics as usual
    Sure you don't. However, interesting that no one else has corrected me here except for you on this fact:

    The Judge used his office to run an investigation into his wife's affair, abusing his power with the methods he used to gain this knowledge…

    And if I'm writing checks I can’t cash here, you think you are?
  • Duke
    politics as usual, #95- I can absolutely guarantee that you have no idea who I am. I don't know what purpose you think that serves by saying that you do.

    As others have corrected you, the DW did not independently confirm anything here, the PT did. And again, why the baseless accusation about Judge Lowenthal? You're writing checks you can't cash here.
  • JuanPardell
    Bill ~~~ So far, there has been no admission by Suja of any extra-marital affair. However, there has been no denial. Therefore, she's left everything up to speculation. Now, the mayor of San Francisco, engaged in an extra-marital affair which was reported by the SF Chronicle. Was this libelous? If so, I'm sure Mr. Newsom would have filed a lawsuit. Its not as if he doesn't have any legal resources. After all, his father is a retired judge. I believe, he knew it would have been a lost cause. This being the case, I'm curious as to where you believe the District Weekly's reporting of this matter, opens their publication to litigation.
  • Bill
    Will Swaim - Why the constant smart ass responses to every post. 'Then maybe there is my attorney that thinks you and yours libel people on a regular basis lately.' 'Then maybe she should contract with Chris Pook's lawyer to make you crawl back into your hole.' Seems to me that is just what you did when he threatened you with libel. Of course you remember him. He is the guy that helps to bring millions of dollars into the city each year. Oh, but Im sure the DW competes with that too, right? In short time, you and yours will be "Collateral damage..."
  • 15th floor staffer
    #110 - Knock it off JOSH, you juvenile idiot
  • wswaim
    Bill (106): Thanks, at least, for crediting us with talent. I guess we just disagree: you're on one side, arguing that there's simply nothing here but salaciousness; Suja is on the other side, ironically, agreeing with us that the questions we've put to her are serious and deserve serious answers. Then, too, there's Robert Stern, the attorney who authored the state’s Political Reform Act of 1974, who also agrees with us that maybe personal relationships have some bearing on public policy-making.
  • 14th Floor staffer
    #108 (Jemie)- Instead of dissing my figure, you may want to be concerned about how you have spent far too much government time and resources covering for Suja during her rendevous with John. Also, word of advice, tell Suja that she probably shouldn't drive city cars to other cities for her rendevous with John.
  • James
    14th floor staffer #108 - Grow up. Are you still in high school? Don't be mad because you can't wedge into a "Teeny tiny barely there dress." If you could, you would have been included in the photo as well. Just accept who you are, and if you can't, go visit Jenny Craig
  • anonymous
    and what i'm saying is, you printed (on your website) that she's got an "intimate relationship". if you don't think that's having an affair, you're wrong.

    guys don't have "intimate relationships" with women unless they're shacking up.

    give me a break.
  • Bill
    Right... He could come forward with his hard hitting, heresay evidence, and the DW could protect him as "A source close to the family." Perfect, that is just what we need... more unverifiable rumors to base an opinion on.

    Please let these people deal with the tragedy of their marriage falling apart without trying to senationalize it for the purpose of selling ads and creating interest in your publication. So far, nothing you have reported has any credibility, other than the fact that they are splitting up. There is nothing there. This fishing expidition your on is wasting the talent and energy of your staff.
  • wswaim
    Hey, Anonymous: I don't have any greater knowledge of the relationship than what we've printed. If you do, then speak up. But bring your evidence. (There's the break you asked for.)
  • anonymous
    hey swaim, give me a break. your reporter is very much saying suja had an affair. when you print that she had an "intimate relationship," what the hell else do you mean? don't start parsing words, ala clinton. the implication was that they hooked up.
  • DW reader
    My apologies to Will Swaim and Dave Wielenga for crediting the Sat. Press-Telegram (comment #99) instead of the Fri. District Weekly report above on the child custody issue.

    I regret the etiquette breach...
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.