This email letter was sent to Noah Modisett who is coordinating on behalf of the Neighborhood Councils and the City Wide Alliance in arranging two televised mayoral debates to be held on February 5 and February 28.

Hal Netkin


December 27, 2004

Dear Noah,

I have heard of the phrase "It's too good to be true." But when I read that you said that the Ethics Commission defines a viable candidate as one who raises $150,000 made up of $500 donations, it sounded "too bad to be true." I said to myself, "the ethics commission could not possibly be so unfair that they would make money a criteria as to who is a viable candidate." If they did, they would be unethical. And that is what should have come to your mind when you failed to do your homework on "who is a viable candidate."

I have researched the Ethics Commission. Using their search engine and plugging in the word "viable," it turns out to appear only once on their entire website. Here is what the commission says about "viable":

...The Program encourages more competitive elections by providing resources to viable candidates who agree to limit their spending and use of personal funds...

The above comes from the Ethics website which can be read in whole by Clicking_here.

If you read the wording, it says providing resources to viable candidates... it does NOT say that unless you raise those resources, you are not a viable candidate. One does not have to be a lawyer to figure out that anyone who qualifies on the ballot -- even if they never get one vote -- is a viable candidate.

Moreover, at the Valley Vote meeting of December 20, where I was present, Mayor Hahn, responding to the question by David Hernandez asking who should be eligible to be invited to debate. At least 75 attendees including Walter Moore, heard Mayor Hahn say (and I paraphrase) that anyone who qualified to be on the ballot, should be eligible for any mayoral debate.

Having shown beyond a doubt that your definition of who is a viable candidate is in error, I expect that you will now invite Walter Moore to the subject debate. If you don't, the stakeholders can only conclude that you have a hidden agenda which is driving you to purposely disenfranchise L.A.'s stakeholders by excluding a "viable" mayoral candidate from the debate that you view as politically threatening to you or your handlers.

Please reconsider. But if reason doesn't prevail and you find another excuse not to invite Walter Moore to the debate, I as the president of, am prepared to exercise my first amendment rights by organizing a demonstration outside of the debate hall targeting you personally. Maybe then Walter Moore will get some name recognition.



Hal Netkin