Talk:City of Bell scandal/Archive 1

Wow!
Terrific! "talk" later. Good night for me. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)DocOfSoc (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied text
We can't just copy and paste text from other sources. If it's a notable view, we might quote it, though we need to avoid overdoing that and creating a quote farm. This is not a quote from Rizzo - it's in the words of the reporter. I'd suggest rewriting it in our own words. It is important for NPOV to include all significant points of view, and this is obviously one of them.  Will Beback   talk    00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ''Robert Rizzo was unapologetic, saying he could earn just as much in private business. Several council members said Rizzo had saved the city from near bankruptcy and was worth every penny of his salary.
 * http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0716-bell-residents-20100716,0,4326515.story?track=rss
 * I appreciate your diligence. I am apparently doing this back asswards.
 * I put up the info and was in the process of rewriting the "copy & pastes" when I got an edit conflict. I know better, it is just simpler for me to do it this way. TY for being on top of this. (I almost said me LOLOL)DocOfSoc (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I guess I'm being too diligent! Even so, since Wikipedia articles are always "live", it's best to try to make sure the text is always at least minimally acceptable.   Will Beback    talk    01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

NP, agreed. DocOfSoc (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
That paragraph showed issues of free speech, comparative values in PD and the egregious salary increases effect on the community. What does that have to do with POV? This is an evolving issue and these points IMO are important. There is more being reported as I type. Namaste!...DocOfSoc (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Thinking here, I have this funny idea that even encyclopedias should be interesting reading. I also occasionally write copy for the local radio station, where I can engage a little flair. Is there something I am not getting about the concept? ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between interesting and advocacy. You described a quote as "extremely valid & poignant". Valid maybe, but we should focus on relevant, expert, and longevity. As a SoCal resident, I'm as disgusted as the next person, but we're writing a neutral piece not something you'd find in a column in LA Weekly. In the long run, is what a waiter thinks of this controversy really relevant to this article. No. If it was, we'd have "man on the street" quotes on just about every article here. Clearly people have opinions on everything from George Bush to cherry pie. If we list every "extremely valid & poignant" opinion we read or see on television, we become advocates for those who are upset about this. We need to focus on official statements and stop trying to be the voice of the people. AniMate 09:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict - I agree with AniMate and add this:
 * An encyclopedia article should be very different from a newspaper article or radio piece. A primary difference is WP:TONE. Another is WP:NPOV. It is hard to approach an issue like this, which so easily and naturally provokes outrage, while maintaining a neutral point of view. But we're not here to craft an indictment of the guilty, nor are we here to write titillating or time-sensitive news stories. Our job, as encyclopedia writers, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.
 * Among the specific ways that the styles differ, on Wikipedia there is a concern against over-using quotations. See WP:QUOTE. It's usually better to summarize quotations than to give them verbatim. For one thing, there is a sister project, Wikiquote, whose sole purpose is to hold quotes on every topic. Second, it's hard to make quotations neutral, and the choice of them can be contentious. Third, they tend to take up more room than summaries, making the article longer without adding more information. Some quotations are OK, even long block quotations, but they should be as few and short as possible. It isn't urgent to remove them, but I expect that as the story matures and the article evolves we'll condense some of the material of passing interest, and find more significant factual material.   Will Beback    talk    09:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The facts of this case are extraordinary in themselves. There is no wonder that the residents of Bell are up in arms. Because they are so outrageous, there is no need to embellish them with outraged language. this is an encyclopedia, so the facts should be reported as calmly and neutrally as possible. the reader can then make up his or her own mind. I have made a bunch of edits to try to bring this in line with the policies that Will BeBack cites. Ground Zero | t 03:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

News
It can be hard to maintain a good balance in an article on a breaking story. Every now and then we'll need to review the article to make sure it's still balanced and coherent. As the story matures we'll probably want to to rewrite it entirely and maybe even merge it back it to the city article. In the meantime, can we please avoid language which will quickly become dated? Such as "today", "last week", and so on.  Will Beback   talk    23:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Planned on removing the todays etc. as the story evolves,I put the dates on all of those just for that reason. Is that not ok? BTW., I appreciate your help last night. You don;t make me feel like a dunce. DocOfSoc (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dates are fine. The idea is that we should be able to walk away from this article and have it make just as much sense next year as it does now.   Will Beback    talk    23:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Need to add BASTA group who connected media with insider information which gave way for the LA Times to acquire further information on City Administrators and Council members. BASTA consists of community members who are motivating the community to become educated and and to stand up for their rights and direction of tax dollars.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelle8101k (talk • contribs) 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. BASTA is a key player in this, from what I've read. Also, I see Maywood mentioned. We should get into the narrative that it was collapse of Maywood, whose municipal duties were partly absorbed by Bell, that drew attention to Bell itself. That was on or before June 24. This matter is like the proverbial loose thread on a suit or sweater - keep pulling on it and the whole thing comes apart.   Will Beback    talk    08:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This needs to be considered for Wikinews when the dust setteles, agree?

DocOfSoc (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just the opposite - Wikinews is for active stories and Wikipedia is for more settled accounts.   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Article
Words deleted were neither excited or grisly (inappropriately violent choice of term). They are called adjectives, toned down from the media but important for the impact of the facts that have occurred in Bell, they are not "embellishment". Whether the title of Obama's article contains his title or not is not the point. It is for emphasis that these officials were taking salaries twice that od the President. Wiki must agree since it is blued unlike governor. I repeat, he is called Mr. President and is generally included when referring to him. Since we disagree, I suggest we ask for a third opinion and/or discuss here before making any more controversial edits. Please extend me Good Faith and we shall see what a third editor says. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here, to assist in the discussion, are the edits in question, with the words I propose to remove in bold, and the words I propose to add in square brackets: My general point is that these words are subjective - there are opinions, not facts. Wikipedia should stick to the facts per WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. The people involved would probably argue that they deserve these salaries and bonuses - there is another point of view here, and an encyclopedia article should not present only one point of view. That would make it an opinion piece.
 * 1) receiving unusually large salaries, likely the highest in the nation. Reports of the city's inflated [high] salaries led to widespread criticism
 * 2) high six-figure salaries
 * 3) refusing to listen to their outraged constituents' calls to step down
 * 4) the controversy over the excessive salaries and bonuses for officials
 * 5) Lee had signed his approval for the lavish salaries
 * 6) a bill to attempt to curb elevated city salaries like the ones in Bell.
 * 7) fiscally abusive public servants

Some specific comments:
 * 1) "likely the highest in the nation" - if we do not know whether or not they are the highest, we mustn't say that. Either they are or they are not. Wikipedia does not speculate. "Inflated" is a subjective word - it is syaing that the salaries are undeserved. you and I think that, but the people involved do not. "High" is a comparative one. Their salaries are higher than comparable cities. This is sufficient to explain the issue, and it is objective.
 * 2) "high" here is added for emphasis. "Six-figure" is a quantitative statement, and does not need elaboration. It adequately illustrates the issue.
 * 3) I can live with "outraged". I think the outrage is pretty clear in the article, but if you want to keep it, I won't argue.
 * "excessive", "lavish", "elevated" and "fiscally abusive" are also subjective statements. An encyclopedia should present the facts and let the reader decide for her or himself. We do not have to tell the reader to think that these are excessive, lavish, etc. It is up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusion.

With respect to the linking of the President's name, Wikipedia does not include titles in the names of articles about people. Mr. Obama has not always been the president, but the article covers his whole life. President Barack Obama is a redirect page. I am only fixing the link to the correct page, which is Barack Obama. Please check these links yourself. "Bluing" is not for emphasis. It is only to indicate that their is a hyperlink. There is no need to make the link longer than the article title, and linking to a redirect page instead of the correct page makes no sense. Ground Zero | t 15:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are both right. Regarding the adjectives, GZ is correct that we should keep our descriptions as neutral as possible (except when we're quoting a source). But some of the descriptions mentioned here are justified. These almost certainly are the highest salaries paid for these jobs in the nation, and I'm sure we can find a source that says so. "Six figures" could mean $100,000, and these salaries were significantly higher, so it's too vague. "Mid" or "high" modifies it for greater accuracy.  As for the link to Obama, it can be handled various ways. GZ is right that we shouldn't link to "President ..." because that's a redirect. But if he's speaking as the country's leader (rather than his other roles as father, husband, etc) then it's appropriate to include his title. Two ways of doing that would be to leave "president" out of the link, like "President Barack Obama", and to use an alternate label, like this: President Barack Obama] .   [[User:Will Beback| Will Beback    talk    21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent compromise Will. I don't think I've see this kind of compromise in a long time to get what everyone is thinking into the article but in the proper way.  I totally agree with what you are saying, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  21:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see the the point about "high six figures" to distinguish from "low six figures". The problem is that the seven employees were not being paid in the "high six figures". The article syas: "At a website that the City of Bell was required by the State of California to set up, it has been revealed that seven more city officials are receiving high six-figure salaries for their "public service" to this tiny town.[13]" and provides a reference to an NBC.com report. What I could find on here on NBC.com is: "The California city of Bell says seven more city workers received high salaries, with two making more than $400,000 per year and three making more than $200,000." So it turns out that "high six figures" can be misinterpreted to mean a lot more than was actually being paid.
 * There is no question that it is appropriate to include Barack Obama's title here. We are all agreed on that. The question is whether it should be included in the link or not. Linking is not intended to be used for emphasis, just for linking. That is why we generally only link something once or twice per article (WP:OVERLINK). If we were linking for emphasis, then we would link every time and make the links as long as possible by including extra words. What is being linked is the article about Barack Obama, which covers his whole life, and so it is called Barack Obama. If there were an article were only about the part of his life as president, then I guess it would be called "President Barack Obama" and we would link that. Ground Zero | t 04:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is useful for us to remind ourselves of some of Wikipedia's general guidance on WP:NPOV:
 * WP:ASSERT says: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources."
 * Instead of interpreting the facts for the readers using words like "excessive", "lavish", "elevated" and "fiscally abusive", the article should simply report the facts and let the reader interpret them for her or himself. Citing the specific salaries and bonuses and other benefits is a more objective way of explaining the controversy, and more consistent with Wikipedia policy. Ground Zero | t 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Highest salary
There's more, but that's sufficient to support an assertion such as "According to newspaper reports, the salaries are likely the highest in the nation."  Will Beback   talk    21:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rizzo previously has defended his compensation, thought to be the highest of any city administrator in the country. 
 * Unlike in Bell - where the city manager's nearly $800,000 salary made him likely the highest paid local official in the nation - the top manager at Los Angeles City Hall is ....


 * Um, so we're taking one newspaper reporter's speculation and building it into an encyclopedia article? I don't think that is a good idea, but if you really want to do it, then it should be correctly attributed so that the reader can determine how reliable this claim is, something like "According to Rick Orlov, a staff writer at the LA Daily News, the salaries are likely the highest in the nation." Ground Zero | t 04:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's actually two different newspapers. I can find more if that'd help.   Will Beback    talk    04:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is more than two newspapers and several news sources. It is also several different independent reporters.  I would not write something that gives the wrong impression.  Since I live locally, I get the news and have read absolutely everything I could find on this incident every day.  I have a ton of info that is not included in the article.  Also, The base salaries are not  the whole shebang. benefits and other packages raise the amount these people were receiving significantly. i.e.

"Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo was earning more than $1.5 million a year in salary and benefits The newly reviewed records show that when the benefits package is added, Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia's $376,288 salary more than doubles to $845,960. Police Chief Randy Adams' pay jumps from $457,000 to $770,046 annually. Spaccia was to have received $188,640 in vacation and sick pay and Adams $76,428, the records show. Adams, according to his contract, was to have received lifetime medical benefits for him and his family." The others had benefit packages that raise their gross income significantly.  There are more refs to this if you wish. DocOfSoc (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, for balance, Mr.Rizzo's point of view is included in the article. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI My city is HUGE compared to Bell, about 10 miles away, and is also solvent. 09:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WillBeBack, will you be changing the name of the article? I defer to your expertise and it is surely beyond my ken. BTW I did check out WikiNews and came away slightly cross-eyed.DocOfSoc (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times link doesn't work, but I'll take your word for it that it says what you say it does. What we now have is two reporters saying "likely to be" and "thought to be". There is no evidence that anyone has looked this up. There probably is no national registry of municipal officials' salaries to facilitate such fact checking, so finding support for such a statement would be hugely time-consuming. I really doubt that these reporters have gone to the effort of looking this up. I do not doubt the statement, because the figures are so huge, but Wikipedia aims to have a much higher standard of verifiability than do newspapers with daily deadlines to meet. Given that there are two newspaper reports, I suggest, based on WillBeBack's proposal, "Some newspapers are reporting that the salaries are likely the highest in the nation." Ground Zero | t 13:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I've changed the link, and added a couple of more from the Times below.    Will Beback    talk    16:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A comment on the word "likely": editors should review Manual of Style (words to watch). I think that "likely" would be classified as a Weasel word in this case because is does seem to indicate,"well, we haven't really looked this up but we're pretty sure we're right about this." This is why is it is important that if it is going to be used, it is not Wikipedia that is claiming that this statement is likely to be true, but that it is newspaper reports making this claim - the weasal word should the newspapers', not Wikipedia's. Ground Zero | t


 * If we used "likely" on our own, then that'd be a concern. But if we're reporting that the newspapers have found it likely, then that's a different matter. I think GZ's proposed text, "Some newspapers are reporting that the salaries are likely the highest in the nation", does an adequate job of covering the matter.   Will Beback    talk    14:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Some more excerpts from the L.A. Times.  Will Beback   talk    16:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Experts said Rizzo appeared to be the highest-paid city manager in the nation.
 * The Times reported that Bell's city manager, Robert Rizzo, was earning nearly $800,000 in annual pay, making him the highest-paid government manager in the nation.
 * As Bell's city attorney, Lee signed off on contracts that paid top administrators some of the highest salaries for their positions in the nation.

Moving forward
Here, to assist in the discussion, are the edits in question, with the words I propose to remove in bold, and the words I propose to add in square brackets: 1. Replace: "it was revealed that Bell city officials were receiving unusually large salaries, likely the highest in the nation.
 * By: "Several newspapers have reported that the salaries are likely the highest in the nation."
 * Comment: Lots of evidence has been provided that newspapers are reporting this (thanks, Will), so I think this is the best way of handling it. (I note that there is no indication of who the "experts' are or where they are getting their information, so I think it is just reporters making it up, but I think this is a reasonable compromise.)

. 2. Replace: "Reports of the city's inflated salaries led to widespread criticism"
 * By: "Reports of the city's high salaries led to widespread criticism"

3. Replace: "At a website that the City of Bell was required by the State of California to set up, it has been revealed that seven more city officials are receiving high six-figure salaries for their "public service" to this tiny town"
 * By: "At a website that the City of Bell was required by the State of California to set up, the City of Bell says seven more city workers received high salaries, with two making more than $400,000 per year and three making more than $200,000."
 * Comment: this avoids the unclear "high six figure" phrase and replaces it with a more accurate description of what the source says. Also, I should have pointed out that WP:MOS tells us not to use "scare quotes" like those here that imply that these people were not providing public service, but doesn't actually say it. Sarcasm does not become an encyclopedia article.

4. Keep: "refusing to listen to their outraged constituents' calls to step down"

5. Replace: "the controversy over the excessive salaries and bonuses for officials "
 * By: "the controversy over what many residents believe to be excessive salaries and bonuses for officials "
 * Comment: this turns it from appearing to be a statement of fact to a statement about people's opinons.

6. Replace: "Lee had signed his approval for the lavish salaries"
 * By: "Lee had signed his approval for the salaries"
 * Comment: the fact speak for themselves elsewhere in the article that the salaries ar high. There is no need to keep repeating it through subjective statements like this.

7. Replace: "a bill to attempt to curb elevated city salaries like the ones in Bell."
 * By:"a bill to attempt to curb high city salaries like the ones in Bell."

8. Replace: "fiscally abusive public servants"
 * By: "public servants"
 * Comment: again, "fiscally abusive" is a subjective statement that makes it sound lie we are just beating up on them. It is not that they don't deserve it, it's that Wikipedia strive to be neutral in tone.

Any further comments, or can I make these changes? Ground Zero | t 18:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You can but you may not ;-) a couple of quick examples off the top of my head and then I will answer your proposals one by one, even tho I feel like I answered some of them in yesterday's post.  SoCal residents, such as WillBeBack and myself, can attest to the uproar in our state caused by Bell. FYI, I have spoken with my city rep who attended the meeting in Sacramento, so have much personal info, which of course, I cannot use.


 * Posted: Thursday, 12 August 2010 8:02AM

CA Assemblyman Introduces Bill to Curb Bell-Like Salaries "(KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO) Some action in Sacramento today to try and curb bloated city salaries like the ones in Bell, CA. One bill by Assemblyman Hector De La Torre of South Gate would limit salaries based on city size and would slap a 50 percent tax on anything above that. The bill is up for a committee vote. Another being introduced in the Senate today would require local elected and appointed officials to publicly disclose their salaries and benefits every year." (will give linky shortly.
 * "Someone" is doing research, finding that the city manager from Vernon, CA, population 91 (not a typo-91!) is receiving over $500,000 in retirement, will find the linky.BBL
 * Namaste... DocOfSoc (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that this has cause uproar locally, regionally, nationally, and even internationally (I saw a piece from China's Xinhua News Service about the "fat cats"). While we should report that outrage, we shouldn't stoke it. Adjectives like "bloated", "inflated", "outrageous", "abusive", or "excessive" are fine for politicians or journalists to use. They aren't required to adhere to the neutral point of view, like we are. I'm sure there'll be more to add to this article as time goes by and as outrage is channeled into political action. We shouldn't use emotional language to describe it, even when our sources do. The exception is when we're quoting someone. If a noteworthy person says, "these salaries are bloated, inflated, excessive, and outrageous" then we can quote them. But we need to keep the quotations limited. Better is to simply summarize their views, along the lines of, "Politicians and community leaders from outside Bell expressed their outrage over the salaries, termed 'abusive' and 'inflated'."   Will Beback    talk    23:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect to both of you, I will go ahead and make what I (believe)Hope will be satisfactory edits in the spirit of compromise, rather then addressing them here. Your comments are always appreciated. Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Website?
Our article claims the City of Bell was forced to set up a website to display their salaries, but this isn't supported by any sources. This seems like an ideal external link. Can anyone find it? AniMate 02:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Will search Ani. TY. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could this refer to a new policy of the Secretary of State, who is creating such a website to report the top salaries of city employees across the state?   Will Beback    talk    04:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise
BASTA is the acronym for "stop the abuse" so removing "fiscally abusive" would have the section say" revolt against public servants" so that change was not made. My eyes are tired and so I'm even more impressed w/ GZ's detailed assessment. Oh, yeah, younger eyes, lol! If I have missed anything, I know you will let me know and I am counting on the fact that the esteemed "Will Be Back" ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Doc. I think the article has come along way toward meeting Wikipedia standards. I am going to try to take another run at it over the next little while to do some more touch-ups here and there. The issue with the BASTA line is that the article is asserting that the public servants are fiscally abusive, instead of presenting this as BASTA's view. I will suggest a change that I think would reflect this. Ground Zero | t 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional edits
Here are notes on some of the additional edits I have made:

1. Replace: "On August 3, 2010, the controversy over the excessive salaries and bonuses for officials in Bell received yet another riposte from California's state capital. The Los Angeles Times reported that the State Controller, John Chiang, stated he would be revamping all financial reporting standards for cities and that, beginning in November, he will post the financial information on the Controller's website."
 * By: "On August 3, 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported that the State Controller, John Chiang, stated he would be revamping all financial reporting standards for cities and that, beginning in November, he will post the financial information on the Controller's website "
 * The first version sounds very much like newspaper reporting, not like an encyclopedia article. Again, let's leave out the contextualizing (by now the reader already knows that the scandal is about the salaries and pensions being higher than in other cities) and the "story-telling" ("received yet another riposte from California's state capital").

2. Replace: "Angry residents, who said that they were unable to locate the council members during the day, disrupted the meeting and served the council members with the recall notices in full view of everyone in the council chambers, including members of the media."
 * By: "Residents, who said that they were unable to locate the council members during the day, disrupted the meeting and served the council members with the recall notices."
 * The residents were descibed as "irate citizens" at the beginning of the paragraph, so their mood has already been established. No need to repeat.

3. Edit: "At more more than twice the size of the city's budget, the cash-fettered city appears unable to pay the debt."
 * "Cash-fettered"? I think the city's fiscal situation is well-explained in the article, and we don't need this colorful interpretation for the reader here.

4. Replace: "The volatile scandal that saw officials in the lower-income city of Bell expelled in July, 2010, due to excessive salaries and pensions may have had its roots in voter fraud."
 * By: "The salaries and pensions scandal that led to City of Bell officials being expelled in July 2010 may have had its roots in voter fraud."
 * "Scandal" doesn't need sensationalizing with "volatile". By now, the article has made it clear how big a deal this scandal is. That the city is lower-income has already been established in the article. It does not need repeating here. That the city officials were expelled because of the high slaries has also been made clear.

5. Remove: "Based on the national literacy statistics, it follows to suppose that at least 40% are functionally illiterate. The soaring high-school dropout rate could make that percentage as much as 25% higher."
 * This sound very much like original research to me. Wikipedia should not extrapolate these statistics through supposition, and "could make that percentage as much as 25% higher" is using the weasel words that Wikipedia tries to avoid.

I think some of the difficulty with an article like this is that that the only sources are newspaper reports which, because of the nature of newspaper journalism therse days, tend to dramatize and sensationalize stories to make them interesting for readers. It is challenging (but we Wikipedians are up to the challenge!) to present the informational in a factual, dispassionate tone. Ground Zero | t 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey GZ, we are practically on the same page! :-D I have no problem with the current edits, except I use no original research. I just failed to put the source darn it!. All my research is not from newspapers,   I work part time at a radio station so I often get news before it hits the papers.  I have spent an inordinate amount of time on this article. I appreciate the time you have taken to delineate the issues.  Wikipedians we are and working together is the best place to be. TY! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could not find school citation so just go ahead and delete it.
 * Animate there are several citations to replace the one you removed about the "almost riot," twice, so rather that just  why don't you go ahead and find one that is appropriate and replace it? Thanks DocOfSoc (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGdEUTeWpM1vUAau9XNyoA?p=Bell+CA+%22almost+riot%22&ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&pstart=1;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Bell's troubles continue
Found this:"Bell stuck in a money rut" http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gelinas-bell-bonds-20100816,0,2505325.story With a better source it may need to be explored, if someone wants to take it on. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC) ICMA/Cal-ICMA Members Address Bell, California, Salary Controversy http://icma.org/en/icma/newsroom/highlights/Article/100482/ICMACalICMA_Members_Address_Bell_California_Salary_ControversyDocOfSoc (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How can I help?   Will Beback    talk    08:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

City Info Box
The info box does belong in the article. It explicates and/or clarifies what a tiny town this is and exemplifies what a huge scandal this is. Please do not remove this without discussion. DocOfSoc (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense. We don't need the town's infobox to show what this scandal is about. People should go to the town's article to see info about the town, not here.— Chris! c / t 20:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense to me to have to go back and forth between the article for the info. Since an admin set this up with the info box when we created it, I think we need to consult with him. DocOfSoc (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the admin can certainly join this discussion, but he/she has no additional power in terms of editing decisions. Consensus is what matters. Anyway, the info about the town is not what this article is about. The subject of this article is the scandal and we should stick to it IMO. Yes, it is a little inconvenient having to go back and forth between the articles. But that will inevitably happens when new pages are created.— Chris! c / t 22:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So far you are a consensus of one. LOL! Why make it inconvenient? Yes, the subject is the scandal in BELL! and we are sticking to it, as we have for *months*.  And gee, shucks, I have been under the impression that admins do have a little more power ;-) Shall we run that by a couple of them?  Keep smilin' ...Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Readers who want to learn about can visit the Bell, California article. This article is about a political scandal. There are other infoboxes, one of which might be more appropriate. Now that criminal charges have been filed, I suggest Template:Criminal case.   Will Beback    talk    04:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Will BeBack: I don't understand. Reading above, then why did you put it in the article in the first place? DocOfSoc (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is "it"?
 * The matter has changed considerably since criminal charges have been filed. Let's not get hung up on which infobox to use. There's plenty of reporting to summarize. As with many cases across the world, the Wikipedia article may be the main resource to give the overall picture. Keep the focus on the key issue.   Will Beback    talk    08:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Dear! I have NO idea how to do a 'template, and have no great desire to learn ATM. ;-) I looked at  Criminal Templates and came away as blank at that page. Yes, I saw the suggestions on the page. Feel Free to template away! and I will continue daily update.   Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this topic. The radio and TV shows have paid writers to research this, but we're luckier to have you. Moving forward, this topic will probably take a few years or more to complete, but the next few or dozen months will be the most important. Let's pace ourselves. We have plenty of time to get it right. 09:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TYVM! DocOfSoc (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that using Template:Criminal case is a good idea.— Chris! c / t 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Length, quotations, etc.
This article is getting much too long and the scandal hasn't even reached a conclusion yet. One particular problem is the number of quotations. While a few are OK and give flavor to the article, there are now over fifty of them. A second issue is the blow-by-blow nature of the narrative. It isn't usually necessary to specify which day minor events happened, for example: The Times acquired a letter to the city on September 2, 2010,... In the long term (and that's how we should approach this), no one cares which day the newspaper acquired the letter. A third issue is editorializing, such as in this sentence: ''The end of August ended the California legislature’s law-making season, and the bill (AB1955) that would have strictly regulated elected officials’ income levels died while in the Senate, only two months after Los Angeles Times reporters exposed the obscenely large salaries that some employees in Bell had been earning. '' A fourth problem is duplication. Some points are made in multiple places, such as discussions of a recall. It'll take some work, but I think we can make a much better article in about 30% less space.  Will Beback   talk    07:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yessir! ;-) On it!  Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! I'd been fearing a confrontation, and instead you did more than I'd hoped. Thanks.
 * It's understandable to want to include all of the developing details, but we should remember that we're writing for the ages. It might even be worth re-writing the article from scratch once this is over. Only then can we gain the proper perspective. Meantime, let's write conservatively with consideration for both the reader and the (BLP) subjects.
 * That said, this case keeps developing by the day. I think it'll be at least two years before dust settles.    Will Beback    talk    09:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * When did I sign up for two years? LOL DocOfSoc (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than writing the entire article from scratch eventually, I am attempting to rewrite as I go along. I am rearranging and then will do some more editing, so don't worry. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Charter City
(I did not post this,because the source is dubious, will research.DocOfSoc (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)) The intellectual author of Bell's criminal enterprise is former long-time Bell mayor George Cole, who was first elected to Bell's city council in 1993, same year as Rizzo was hired by the city. George Cole was the mastermind behind not only the salary spikes which increased eleven-fold for Rizzo from $93,000 in 1993 to almost $800,000 in 2010, but was also the driver behind the city's Charter City initiative. []

Bell's Charter City status allowed Bell officials a crafty circumvention of the spirit and intent of Assemblyman De La Torre's AB 11. Public records obtained by the Times revealed that the Charter City proposition was put before the voters with scant explanation as to its true intent, cost consequences or impact to public funds. Will update tonight. Input appreciated. BTW, I can't do this and Vernon too without help.DocOfSoc (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bell Updates link
While I am ill, help would be appreciated with updating
 * Dec 2: City manager debate and others of importanceDocOfSoc (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

accounting investigation.DocOfSoc (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The way this story will likely lead -- if I've heard correctly -- is that Mayer Hoffman McCann, the accounting firm that audits the books for Bell & the vast majority of other small California towns was doing little more than agreeing to whatever numbers the towns gave them without any bother to examine them & collecting the paycheck. In many cases, reports that are required by state law hadn't been filed in years -- an oversight which MHM either knew quite well, or couldn't help but know. (But if what I've heard is correct, this would become the contents of another article, possibly best named 2010 California town account scandal.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Needs Work.
Per W:NPOV, the article needs to take a more neutral approach. Describing Rizzo's paychecks as "fat" and his claim of being owed back due pay "audacious" clearly shows bias against Rizzo and his associates. --71.118.253.156 (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A Million dollar paycheck for part time job that you rarely show up for isn't Fat?  Asking for back pay for the time one is jailed for stealing from the city isn't audacious?  Having written this article from scratch, I would appreciate any help  offered.  Just criticism is not helpful. What is needed is help on the almost daily updates. Feel free to jump in.
 * Again, per W:NPOV, you need to take a more neutral approach with the article. I'm not trying to discredit your claims or say he's innocent, but you have to present the facts without using adjectives that could be construed as taking a side. --71.118.253.156 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

article that needs to be covered: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-bell-code-enforcement-20101216,0,6922856,full.storyDocOfSoc (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_16889411 DocOfSoc (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubber stamp audits http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_16946379
 * The Rise and fall of Robert Rizzo: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/30/BAMD1H1P6K.DTL DocOfSoc (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_17043234 DocOfSoc (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Police Dept. Cuts: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/cutting-police-department-to-stay-solvent-prompting-political-fight-in-bell.html
 * Financial, services to be cut?:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/bells-finances-so-bad-city-could-have-trouble-providing-basic-services-audit-concludes.html  DocOfSoc (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * DONE! Expand: DocOfSoc (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

External link	HTTP	DEAD links http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Bell_Salaries_552570C.shtml (info) [www.pe.com]	404	Not Found http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/28/2365935/bell-officers-say-they-have-proof.html (info) [kansascity.com]	404	Not Found 46	 SEC investigating $70 million in bonds issued by Bell (info) [latimes.com] date=2010-10-15 work=Los Angeles Times 404	Not Found http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/11/11/1649516/bell-mayor-in-corruption-case.html (info) [mercedsunstar.com]	404	Not Found http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Bell_Salaries_Audit_532566C.shtmlhttp://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Bell_Salaries_Audit_532566C.shtml (info) [www.pe.com]	404	Not Found http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Bell_Salaries_Audit_532566C.shtml (info) [www.pe.com]	404	Not Found 88	 Ex-city manager among 8 arrested in Calif. scandal - Yahoo! News (info) [yahoo.com]

Continued POV issues
I'm concerned with the POV that permeates this article and continues to be added. I trimmed some out of the section on the upcoming elections section, but lite versions of the same POV got restored. No bad faith here -- these appear to be very good-faith attempts to flesh out the section. But we need to do so with care.

The main source in this Election section is a Steve Lopez opinion column. We need to be careful about bringing in things from an opinion piece. Opinion, even sourced opinion, is just opinion. (And we haven't gone there yet, but re-adding the opinion with "According to columnist Steve Lopez" would not insulate this.) Let's limit the articles to facts.

POV I cut included:
 * labeling the mayor as "disgraced";
 * labeling the police union as "powerful";
 * characterizing the type of support and level of funding;
 * political statements ("it is time to think about the environment, beyond political stereotypes and honest leadership"; "They have, for years, been trying to discover what was behind all the secrecy at City Hall. Now the entire nation knows their secrets."

Ideally, this section would be about the facts of the election: the officials who are up for recall; and the candidates for the positions made vacant by the resignations.

I added an external link for the election information, if someone who knows more about the structure of the council and its election wants to take a stab at using it.

My comments above are specific to the election section, but really pertain to the entire article content. TJRC (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Organization
This article needs substantial re-organization.

The first section is "Updates," which is odd for at least two reasons. First, it makes no sense to have updates in an article prior to the foundation to what is being updated. Second, an article in a work like Wikipedia should not have an "updates" section; instead, as new information becomes available, the article should just be updated.

I think the guts of the article is in the section marked "Timeline". That section could serve as a good core of the article (with a better name). Most of the parts that are in individual sections could be worked into that.

We should have sections on:
 * what happened?
 * Consequences (resignations; non-resignations; indictments & arrests; recall; special election)
 * What reaction? (press, etc.)

Maybe more; maybe broken down into subsections (some of which I've indicated in parens; others are now free-standing sections in the article).

I'm not an expert in this subject. I'm a Californian, but nowhere near LA and Bell. I see some news stories; and I'd hoped to find out more by reading this article, and found it frustrating, both due to the organization and the POV (noted in my other comment).

Thoughts? TJRC (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, the entire article needs to be restructured. BTW the mayor IS beyond a disgrace. (When Hernandez would not answer the door at his home, the sheriff’s department used a battering ram to break down his door and bring out the mayor in handcuffs) I wrote this article every night for MONTHS with no help. I am sick and tired and got tired of trying to integrate the news every night, hence the "updates". You don't have to live near L.A. to read the news. Your criticism is well organized, so IMPLEMENT it.  I have friends in Bell and they were happy with the update section. But you are right, it is not the proper structure. So feel free to change it. The admin that helped me set this article up liked timeline, what would you use instead? He and I have agreed this will have to be re-written
 * when the trials are over. But go ahead and start now, no excuses!  ;-)  Namaste — DocOfSoc •  Talk  •  02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Slapping on a template without any intent to improve the article oneself, is kinda ***** (insert word). Those who critique and don't jump in are a pet peeve. Surely you are not one of those people??  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  02:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Slapping on a template without any intent to improve the article oneself, is kinda ***** (insert word). Interesting. What do you think of those who add the template, and start a discussion, with suggestions for improvement, to try to get a consensus first?  06:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Answering a question with a question does not fly, Counselor. Suggestions duly noted. No one is objecting so why are you seeking a consensus? — DocOfSoc •  Talk  •  14:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, this is not likely to be productive; I'm outta here. Good luck with the article. TJRC (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tags, if placed for a clear reason, help point out problems but they don't fix them. Wikipedia editors sometimes make small contributions which are appreciated too. The benefit of a timeline is that it's easy to update as the story unfolds. Only in retrospect will we know which events are most important and which are minor. Since the first wave of revelations are now some months behind us, it's a good time to review the article and see if it's properly balanced. Of course, as the trials progress there will be new events and new information on old events so nothing is finished. While structure is important in any article, for this article perhaps the two most important qualities we need to monitor are compliance with BLP and NPOV. We have to remember that the accused have not been found guilty, and that we are not here to condemn the crimes- just report them. Beyond that there are many ways to construct the article, and I'm sure that help and feedback are appreciated. I wish I had more time to contribute to this article, but I've taken DocOfSoc's care of the article for granted.  Will Beback   talk    23:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
I apologize if I sounded unreasonable but your placing of the template was upsetting. However, I do appreciate any input you may have and help in editing the article. When I said I was sick and tired I meant it literally. I have had two analphylactic episodes in the last two weeks, requiring hospitalization. I have utilized your excellent suggestions and would appreciate your input. Mea Culpa — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  09:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad Faith
For an editor to cruise in put of the blue and accuse me of cutting and pasting is just beyond the pale. I was up all night posting election results. I have written almost every word of this article with the gracious guidance of admin Will Beback and always under the watchful eye of Admin Tedder and other. YOu need to apologize Jojhutton!  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •
 * Only newspapers say "At Time of Press". Also you need to stop shouting in your edit summaries. If you didn't want others to edit the article then perhaps you shouldn't have created it. Remember no one owns an article so I did not just cruise in out of the blue, because these articles are for everyone to edit.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You unfairly and in bad faith accused me of copy and pasting. Where have you been the last year when I asked for help with this article? Yes you just cruised in and insulted me and my writing. I am still waiting for the apology.  — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> • Talk  •  02:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Never accused you of copy and pasting. What I said was it looked like a copy and paste. So I apologize if that will make you feel better. So you really typed at time of press?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Start over
Apology accepted. ("Looking like" looked like an accusation.) I was up all nite for the election, because I am a newshound and it really was the minute it rolled off the press! LOL!! We had a local election going where I live in So Cal, so there were several of us up. I am rather passionate about the towns I grew up in. I profusely apologize for shouting. May we back up the truck and start over? HI! I really am a "Joy" and would sincerely like you to join me in keeping this article updated. OK? Pretty please? Semper Fi ;-) Namaste.. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> • Talk  •  03:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have another source, will go get it. Keep me on my toes :-)<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> • Talk  •  03:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Note
Bell story has changed government coverage:http://www.cnpa.com/full_story.cfm?id=3051 <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> • Talk  •  07:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)