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: , ,

  • 835
    I've always found Suja to be a competent and honest representative. As a voter and resident, I couldn't care less about her love life as long as she keeps fighting for good things.
  • Dave in Alamitos Beach
    To me this is so unlike the Laura Richardson fiasco. Laura has betrayed the public trust in so many ways even if the stuff she's done is only borderline illegal (that we know about anyway). She's used her status and influence to benefit her personally on so many occasions.

    In my opinion, Suja can have as many friends or "friends" as she likes as long as she treats everyone equally in the public sphere. And thus far, I have seen nothing to show that she hasn't. So good luck to Suja, Daniel, and their son, i.e. the Mayor of Long Beach 2030.
  • Miguel
    The Press Telegram ran a story about the divorce, and it was clearly spin by Suja. I thought one of the reader comments that followed was very telling. Here is a repost of the comment from "William":

    I live in Rose Park and drive past the Lowenthal house after work on my way home. Never ever have I seen Suja at home. The husband Daniel is always playing catch or golf or tree climbing with their son in front of the house. I have always wondered where was Suja and why she wasn't playing and doing things with the family. It seems that politics was more important to her than her family.
  • iLOVElongbeach
    I get that people wonder about this kinda stuff, but I also get that some people just love to gossip and come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories as if their own life wasn't exciting enough.

    To single out Suja is inappropriate. She's gotta be right about people who work on City issues being friends - they must talk all the time with each other as there are constant, REAL issues in this town that require their attention. No matter where we work, it's like that. You can only go for so long in the work environment without becoming friends (or complete enemies, but that's much less productive). Given that, why aren't you asking ALL the council members who voted to support those issues if their personal relationships conflicted? You're not; you're only asking Suja because she's getting divorced and people love to gossip and this sort of thing will just thrill your readers. Who knows, maybe you'll get a few new ones...

    At the end of the day, you're taking advantage of a very difficult chapter in her personal life. To be sure, there IS a difference between muckraking and yellow journalism; this story is the latter and yet another step of The District’s path toward that end of the spectrum.

    To the issues themselves, the COST OF EVERYTHING IS GOING UP (in case you haven't been paying attention). That is the natural order of our economy. So if GASOLINE is more expensive - i imagine nearly double what it used to be when the taxi #'s were last negotiated - I can see why the council voted to approve it unanimously. As for Fire: I want skilled women and men putting out the blazes and saving lives. If we don't make their pay comparable to other cities in the region, we lose them and get a smaller force or people who aren't experienced. It's that simple. I feel the supporting council members made the right decision, no matter who is a friend with whom.

    YELLOW JOURNALISM, or sensationalist media, does more bad than good... and the publisher is the only one that benefits. Have fun building your castle, bought with shameful lies.

    Now... let's talk about YOUR personal life...
  • wswaim
    Dear iLOVElongbeach: Yellow journalism? You're kidding, right? You've got Dave telling Suja that the entire conversation is uncomfortable for him and for her, and you have Suja's answer: "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."

    Suja, at least, understands what journalists are supposed to do.
  • Andy
    Suja will stay quite comfy with her campaign contributions. If you re-elect her, or elect her to any other position, you deserve no better than Laura Richardson's vicitm mentality constituency. Suja has fought for good things? Really? Like.....less parking requirements for developers? A monorail to Belmont Shore?

    There is always room for journalists to question the relationships of their elected officials. The crime is that more of them don't do it.
  • JuanPardell
    The interview does bring up an interesting point. The fact so many councilmembers have "friends", who are directly involved with impacting the manner in which taxpayer dollars are spent, is problematic. The appropriate and ethical thing to do, when a "friend's" issue come up for vote, is to recuse yourself from participating in the process. Its sets a bad precedent, when municipal employees are allowed to usurp what is proper. Just look at what happened with Oakland's now former City Administrator.
  • Andrew Williams
    Does that maybe mean that Acres of Books *won't* be bulldozed? Oh wait, that was just a dream I had. That's very different. Never mind. :/
  • Pleeze Move On
    Laura Richardson Blew the Police Chief !!!!... Or he blew her I'm not sure.
    How many contracts did she vote on?
  • Observer
    As a long time observer of Long Beach "insider" politics, I know how systemic the sleeze of councilmembers providing "favors for friends" is in this city. Suja Lowenthal came to the Council promising progressive politics but has instead engaged in regressive "good ol boys" politics as usual.

    It is the duty of responsible journalists to ask whether or not she has voted on matters which granted advantage to those with whom she may have been especially good "friends." It is no more or less appropriate to ask Suja the questions that were put to her as to ask Dan Baker, prior to The District coming to town, if he had a business relationship with with someone on whose contract he voted. I applaud The District for its reportage.
  • Luke
    I know he said he 'Had' to ask, but the reference to Rich Brandt is totally ludicrous. Please don't confuse a friendly business relationship with some type of romantic encounter. I know Rich, and I know that he is affectionate towards the people he likes. He also hugs Rae Gabelich, Nancy Foster, Bonnie Lowenthal and damn near everyone else, so does that mean he is romantic with them? Please ! Just because the guy is good looking and single does not give anyone the right to assume that he is obviously having a relationship with those that he deals with professionally. This is nothing more than a bad rumor from someone who is trying to build up their own pathetic existence. Insecure people start shit like this, but the truth will always prove that they are just losers, looking for a leg up.
  • Smut Reporting
    Really, this story is nothiing more than smut because the District doesn't reveal the source of the information and nobody is on record confirming such relationships. It's a private matter until somebody talks.
  • District supporter
    I understand that questions regarding extra-marital relationships make many people uncomforable--HOWEVER, questions about possible conflict of interest (regardless of the nature of the realtionship) must always be in order for the public to have confidence in their public officials. (I don't see that she denied that she had these intimate relationships--she only denied that she was influenced.)

    I believe the article to be entirley within the bounds of good journalism.
  • Comrade Molotov
    Speaking of losers looking for a leg up, Suja shouldn't be the only one being asked about who they've been screwing when city money is involved...but I digress...
    The only real change this city (or country, for that matter) is going to get will almost certainly require Molotov cocktails--but that's not how the ruse is run. You'd have the Progressives and the Unprogressives both trying to kill you if you messed with their Gamescam like that.
  • Seen from Seal
    Am I the only one who noticed that the councilwoman didn't answer a direct question?

    Am I the only one who noticed that the councilwoman wasn't ASKED a direct question?

    I'm surprised Dave Wielenga let her get away with this crap for a response. The quoted Q&A here is an embarassment. She cuts him off repeatedly and diverts the questioning to a discussion of being "friends" with lots of people who have business before the council, and implying that since she couldn't have had sex with EVERYONE who had business before the Council, she therefore must not have had sex with ANYONE who had business before the Council. Then she renders a judgement about her own ethical purity based on this absurdity she's constructed (that's the ballsiest part) and stops Dave from asking anything more by telling him, in effect, he wasn't listening. And by his silence, Dave agrees.

    She's good.

    It's almost as bad as the line in the John Canalis piece in the P-T which runs, if memory serves: "(Suja) Lowenthal said that her husband would not be unavailable for comment." Guess she proved who wears the pair there. Either the husband is quoteworthy for the story (gosh, I wonder how tough it would be to find a phone number for a judge) or he is not. What, he's not entitled to speak for himself?

    Will the journalists in town get over their squeamishness (which it appears Lowenthal is exploiting) and please decide if the possible dishonesty and illegal activity of a city official are worth investigating? Stop this half-assed effort. Go for it or go home.

    Just ask the councilwoman if she voted on a measure before the Council that would have benefited a person she was at the time having a sexual relationship with. She's not supposed to do that. That's the question before the house -- an affirmative answer says she failed to disclose a conflict of interest. A negative answer says she didn't, and until someone comes forward to call her a liar (those shadowy sources), she's in the clear. Unfortunately, no one's put the question to her.

    Lowenthal is once again demonstrating the charm she holds over the media. Think she considers Dave and John "friends"?
  • Seen from Seal
    " . . .not be AVAILABLE for comment." Sorry
  • Mary
    i've got it all figured out. i'm going to marry a lowenthal, then be a shitty wife causing a divorce, but then go on using their name for the rest of my political career because dumb voters don't really know any better and i'll always have a job due to name recognition. brilliant.
  • District supporter
    And speaking of name recognition--it is a fact that the Lowenthal name got her elected. In my opinion she misused the Lowenthal name. She promised to be an advocate for the community, but what we got under the smooth talking veneer, was a manipulative politican, a supporter of the developers and a proponent of the Long Beach power structure.
  • Jane from Long Beach
    Suja Lowenthal is an asset to the Long Beach Community. She has never "coasted" on the Lowenthal name as the few naysayers have implied but has championed for those without a voice in the City of Long Beach. She is the only Asian Pacific Islander representative on the City Council and has been a voice for underrepresented minorities who add to the beautiful tapestry that is Long Beach. I am proud that she represents my council district and her impending marital problems are private and the district weekly should be ashamed for using her personal pain for public pleasure. I am shocked that you would imply that her "friendships" were anything but professional and slandering her name will only make the District Weekly look bad.
  • John
    I would add to #15, read Steve Lopez of the LA Times and see how he asks politicians questions. I am sure the politicians don't call Steve a friend when he's done.
  • JuanPardell
    Jane (#19),

    The District Weekly wasn't the only publication to make news of her marital issues. Personally, its not my business to monitor what is going on with anyone's marriage. However, I do find it troublesome, that elected officials develop close friendships, with individuals who represent interests, who may benefit from votes concerning taxpayer dollars. Suja is a very bright individual. She is capable of achieving great things. My dismay, is she appearantly has given into the systemic process of "going along" in order to advance her political career. Her voting record reflects this. Granted, she isn't the only councilmember, whether past or present, to exercise this brand of political culture. Many decisions have been influenced by certain "friendships". For example, Joseph Prevratil and his ability to mismanage a city owned asset (The Queen Mary), without any oversight from elected officials whom he coddled with campaign contributions and other benefits. He was considered a "friend" to many Long Beach polticians. Well, I believe we've all seen the results of that relationship. This being the case, there needs to be a separation between serving as an elected official, and the "friends" that consumate from being involved with entities that benefit from a councilmembers vote. Otherwise, what's the point of have any checks and balances?
  • Andy
    "The beautiful tapestry that is Long Beach" is unraveling thanks to compliant councilpersons that shill for the ports and developers over the interests of their constituents.

    The only "Asian Pacific Islander" representative and a "voice for underrepresented minorities"...are you serious? That's your criterion? Did she get some sort of Asian-Pacific Islander day proclamation for you?

    That's the victimized thinking that will get Richardson elected, so we'll have a bloated nationalistic panty-obsessed xenophobe from OC and a corrupt, largesse-loving fiscal idiot from Carson as LB's next congresspeople.
  • I could be mistaken, but I though Suja was of Indian decent, not Asian Pacific Islander.

    One thought: elected officials' "private" lives are legitimate ground for journalistic investigation. They have placed themselves in the public eye by their own personal choice. They get elected with the promise that they are morally upstanding, reliable, unbiased, etc...
    Being unfaithful to your spouse and voting favorably for your "friends'' contracts are newsworthy because these behaviors speak to an overall personal code of ethics. One you have promised the voters that you are good and true to your word then you should expect those very voters and the press will be watching and evaluating you to see if you can keep your promises.
    A politician's private life? This term is the ultimate oxymoron.

    I support The District on this one. And I wish they would dig into more of our city council's personal lives, I'm sure there are more with a questionable code of ethics.
  • Miguel
    Does anyone here realize the true meat of this story? Suja is a liar! She lies to the person that has been her biggest supporter.....her husband. I don't see the Lowenthals coming to her defense. The silence is deafening.

    Don't give me this crap about her family life being private. Why? In every single piece of campaign mail Suja sends out it has pictures of her and her family! She would boast about her family credentials stronger than any political endorsement. She walked to my door with her family when she was running. In the Press Telegram article she notes that she's keeping the Lowenthal name because "it's her son's name" (do any of you HONESTLY believe that's why she's insistent on keeping the name???!!)

    Why is it appropriate to use family to get her elected, but inappropriate to ask about family when she finds it inconvenient?

    It is the ultimate in arrogance to have an affair and refuse to speak about it if you put your family out to public view. But it is just nuts if you do this with people who have big business before the city and expect the rest of us to think it's your "private" life and move on.

    Suja should take ownership of her actions, just like other electeds who have been in this situation. She put her family out there for us to marvel at, not us. She's cheated them, not us. Most importantly, she should be accountable for using them as puppets and apologize to her husband publicly for dragging him through this process.
  • Paul Hamilton
    Miguel (#24),

    "I don’t see the Lowenthals coming to her defense. The silence is deafening."

    Perhaps they themselves have more to hide than this baseless rumor. Or perhaps they are staying out of it because of their own past transgressions which occurred years and year ago.

    There is NO proof or evidence to any of these assertions stated here.

    My question to the DISTRICT WEEKLY as well as any of those who believe the smut they read here is: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? WHO IS YOUR SOURCE?

    Come on, if you are trying to blow the lid off of this "story", why not hit it out of the park?
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.