47 comments

• 

  David

  11 months ago

  I think she has done a great job on the council, especially with parking. However, I will never support her again because of her unforgivable moral failures. If somebodys marriage is bad, they can divorce. But to have intimate relationships with other men, especially when a child is involved, is simply unforgivable. It doesn't matter if these men had business before the council or not--the extramarital affairs itself are what matters. She is not the person she held herself out to be or that I thought she was.
  reply
• 

  Bill

  11 months ago

  LIBEL, LIBEL, LIBEL. I can't wait to see you guys stuff your little pee-pees between your legs and run like hell
  reply
• 

  JuanPardell

  11 months ago

  Bill ~ Can you provide specific areas of libel that has been part of the District Weekly's reporting on this matter?
  reply
• 

  jason

  11 months ago

  #2 She doesn't even deny it. What married person gets accused of infidelity and doesn't deny it (if it isn't true)? And here she is being given every opportunity to deny it--reporters are hanging on her every word. So, if all of these sources are wrong, Suja simply has to say so. And why haven't the men involved denied it--because it is true!
  reply
• 

  melinda

  11 months ago

  Bill - everything will come out in her divorce proceedings, so we'll get to hear it from the horses mouth!
  reply
• 

  Bill

  11 months ago

  Im not talking about Suja. The District has gone out of its way to throw people not related to the marriage under the bus, and try to somehow connect them to some kind of conflict of interest and infidelity. The DW has also, by naming the leader of an organization, impugned the reputation of that organization and all of it's members. I will gladly watch with pleasure, when that organization defends it's reputation and it's leader. This is a ridiculous fishing trip. The fact that the DW would even consider any of this newsworthy only serves to solidify the fact that their journalistic standards are not as important to them as creating a buzz about a topic. It makes no difference to me what the Council woman says about her marriage dissolving. The fact is, this is a private matter, and by the DW's own reporting, no laws or statutes have been broken, yet, the DW continues to try and discredit people not related to the marriage. The DW is walking a very slippery slope, and in my opinion, when presented with the facts, a reasonable person will agree that the only intent of the DW was to try and tear apart the reputation of a person in this City. I suggest that the intent of the DW was to try and create something out of nothing, so as to create interest in their publication. Maybe that has worked to an extent, but not in the way I believe they intended. Divorce is a private matter between two people. Regardless of their place in society, it should be dealt with privately and with a certain amount of discretion. How would any of you like to have your personal life splashed across the front page in tomorrow's paper? It does not matter that she is an elected official, her private life is hers and hers alone. There were two people in this marriage and I find it strange that the DW has not reported the other side of the story... to be fair. But I guess that would not sell as many ads as this side of the story.
  reply
• 

  JuanPardell

  11 months ago

  Bill. Whether we like it or not, a casualty of being a public official is your private life becomes news. Now, if you feel the other side of the story hasn't been published, that has been fueled by evasive responses. Also, if Judge Lowenthal chooses to speak, or not, its his prerogative. As for The District Weekly, I'm still unclear as to where you believe they've committed libel. Can you please be more specific?
  reply
• 

  DW reader

  11 months ago

  David #1: It's heartening to see someone on the outside has gotten wise to Suja's charades while expressing your newfound perspective intelligently.
  
  Bill: Why are you blindly defending Suja while launching a blitzkreig against the Weekly for simply reporting the facts as they have been presented?
  reply
• 

  Dave Wielenga

  11 months ago

  Hello Bill. To reiterate the one of the issues that was central to this story:
  
  "What kind of privacy do we owe our public officials? Should there be a general standard or should we consider privacy on a case-by-case basis? Either way, what kind of privacy do we owe the Lowenthals?
  
  Is a divorce off limits when the marriage created connections that factored into the election? Is a child-custody battle between once-loving spouses taboo when the now-spurned spouse and child were part of the campaign strategy?
  
  When Suja ran for office in 2006, one of her most effective pieces of political literature was a mailer that included a charming photo of her family. They were dressed casually, in long-sleeved T-shirts and jeans, and they cuddled together on a green, trimmed lawn. Suja showed us the smiling faces of her husband and her son because they were supposed to infer reasons to vote for her.
  
  Now, as that husband has filed for divorce, requested sole custody of that son and pleaded that he not have to pay alimony, are we supposed to ignore the collapse of those not-so-subliminal campaign suggestions and not factor the new circumstances of her private life into our assessment of her as a public figure?"
  
  I'm not quite sure, myself. What do you think?
  reply
• 

  Dave Wielenga

  11 months ago

  And while I'm on a roll here, I want to address the other key part of the story--what appears to be a big gap in our conflict-of-interest laws. Is it OK that an elected official is free to vote on issues that may financially benefit their close friends? That the only votes they are barred from making are those that financially benefit themselves or members of their immediate family? Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal acknowledges that the two men I mentioned in the story are friends. The record shows she voted in favor of issues that benefit the men and those they represent. Turns out, that's legally OK. Should we re-examine that legal standard? Or in place of that, should we keep closer tabs on the friendships our elected officials have, to be sure that their votes are not influenced by those friendships? Doesn't being a well-informed citizen, a participant in democracy, kind of demand that? Yes, it's a complicated and sticky issue. Does that mean we can't even bring it up?
  reply
• 

  shawnda

  11 months ago

  # 1 I agree with you--parking is much better in Alamitos Beach because of Suja's work.
  
  # 6, I disagree with you. Her life is not private for two reasons: 1) she is a public servant; and 2) when she ran for office, her family was the centerpiece of her campaign. In fact, I received several large postcards of Suja, her husband and son that said something like "family is very important to me." So she is the one who made it an issue, not anybody else. Why then is it unfair to examine that issue that she created herself? Essentially, her mail said vote for me because I am part of this lovely family that means so much to me. And many of us did. But now it seems that she was involved in extramarital affairs. If that is in fact the case, she was not just lying/cheating on husband, but also on the voters who voted for her based on her mail.
  reply
• 

  KaRi from ThePrimeSpot.TV

  11 months ago

  Long Beach is small potatoes for Suja; with her pizzaz she belongs in Hollywood, Bollywood or heck,I'd feature her on Poddywood if she had a podcast!
  
  PS Are you saying when council members vote on an issue involving the opposite sex that they are sleeping with them? If so, the whole city must be one gigantic orgy.
  reply
• 

  Duke

  11 months ago

  Carl Kemp? Is this the same Carl Kemp who used to work for the city and Port as a lobbyist? Someone who used to try and curry favor for the city has now been hired to explain away a conflict of interest between Suja's vote and her friendship with Rouse?
  reply
• 

  Misty

  11 months ago

  #13 - Yes, that's the one and only Carl Kemp.
  And, if I hear that same speech again, “the long, somewhat varying, enriching journey I traveled before I became a public servant”: her immigration from India at age seven, and her subsequent climb to a position of leadership and consequence" ugh! get over yourself.
  reply
• 

  Dave Wielenga

  11 months ago

  Hey Jason (Post No. 4): Just to be clear, I didn't accuse anybody of infidelity. I heard lots of rumors that Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal had close personal relationships with two men who had brought business before the City Council (and upon which she had cast favorable votes), and I asked her about those rumors and whether those relationships and her votes consituted a conflict-of-interest. She characterized the men as friends and insisted there was no conflict.
  reply
• 

  reality bites

  11 months ago

  This divorce is going to turn into the city's entertainment for the next 6 months. It will be like our own reality show. I hope the DW gets a camera into the Long Beach courthouse and webcasts the proceedings.
  reply
• 

  Dave Wielenga

  11 months ago

  That ain't gonna happen, and hopefully there will be better things to do.
  reply
• 

  doublestandard

  11 months ago

  I wonder if we'd be giving this affair the same scrutiny if it weren't for the fact that Suja is a young, beautiful woman. Male politicians have been doing this for centuries yet we don't question their morals or ability to do the job (See Edwards, Clinton, Villaraigosa). Would we be so up in arms if it were, Val Lerch, for example? I doubt it.
  reply
• 

  JuanPardell

  11 months ago

  Its to each his own. If you're willing to look past an elected officials personal indiscretions, continue to vote for them. Is this a double standard? I don't believe so. Many questioned other officials, whether male of female, as to their moral character and the ability to uphold elected office.
  reply
• 

  DW reader

  11 months ago

  doublestandard: you obviously pre-judge character based solely on what genitalia a person is born with. In your extremely narrow sexist tunnel view, anyone who is of the female gender is automatically above any kind of reproach and is always the victim in what you perceive to be a totally male-controlled world.
  
  To put it more crudely, doubtless to the offense of you and others of your ilk, you are a female chauvinist sow who needs to GROW UP majorly by first trying to see past your own vagina. Even if that means, for you, doublestandard, growing a set of balls.
  reply
• 

  lindaonline

  11 months ago

  Get real, if it were Lerch we would all be shocked and in disbelief. He tries and can’t keep his hands to himself but there are no takers.
  The difference is no man will file a sexual harassment suit against Suja but it may happen to Val if he keeps it up.
  reply
• 

  wswaim

  11 months ago

  Yikes (20), a little harsh, no? I mean, I get the response to (18): she made the same comment on the previous iteration of this story. But here's how I responded:
  
  First, no one’s saying Suja had an affair–no one but you, Double Standard for Women. Second, not knowing the details of the mayor’s relationship, I can’t say much except this: the point under consideration is whether Suja ought to have disclosed her relationship with men who brought business before the council. Otherwise, who cares?
  
  And if you think there’s a double-standard, I beg you to consider Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, etc.
  
  This isn’t an issue of sex or gender. It’s a question of transparency in government. See Dave’s latest post for comments on that:
  
  http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/writing-shot...
  reply
• 

  LB lover

  11 months ago

  Dave - I noticed you NEVER responded to Bill's statements about LB Fire (#6). He's right - you guys are in the wrong here and, in regards to the comments in #8, you were NOT presented with FACTS... you were presented with rumors. Smearing an institution (and it's President) that has shed blood for this town based on rumors is shameful and libelous.
  
  You may care more about your adspace than you do your integrity, but its going to kick your as* one of these days...
  reply
• 

  DW reader

  11 months ago

  LB lover (23): OK, fine. Why is Bill blasting the Weekly so harshly for reporting the INFORMATION (that would include facts and/or rumors) that has been presented by outside sources? And why isn't Bill attacking the Press-Telegram for first reporting the divorce story if he thinks the Lowenthal split should be kept private and not made public?
  reply
• 

  anon

  11 months ago

  Okay, so no one is piling on Suja because of a sexist double standard...then why aren't we mentioning any ethical concerns based upon "friendships" with women Suja knows.
  reply
• 

  DW reader

  11 months ago

  Mr. Swain (22): Harsh? ABSOLUTELY! Some ludicrous statements,comments and viewpoints can only be addressed harshly. I also read her previous (if it is a her) ridiculous male-bashing comments to the "I Have Many Friends" article when she was going by "Double Standard for Women". And despite you refreshing her short-term memory with the Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton examples, she continues clinging to her childish gender-centric whining.
  
  GROW UP doublestandard!! It's not a gender issue. It's a CHARACTER issue!! Women, just like all men, are expected to possess decent moral character!
  reply
• 

  wswaim

  11 months ago

  No. 25: You raise precisely the question Dave raises in his article: it's easy to determine that there is a conflict of interest where married or business partners are concerned. The question before us is this: what should we do about relationships outside marriage? Ignore them? Or ask politicians to disclose relationships that might influence their decisionmaking?
  reply
• 

  #####

  11 months ago

  dear suja...thank you so much for tearing down acres of books, it is a legacy you will long be remembered for tearing down a beloved book store.
  reply
• 

  Andy

  11 months ago

  #18 So you're saying the DW wouldn't cover it if Mayor Foster had an alleged "relationship" with a woman who had city contracts because he's a dude and it's OK?
  
  It's easier in this life being a dude, but that ain't one of our perks. Writing our name in the snow and not needing to talk about our feelings, however, are big bonuses.
  reply
• 

  JJ

  11 months ago

  She is power hungry. Everything for her is about image and political advancement.
  reply
• 

  Melissa

  11 months ago

  My high school english teacher, Mr. Shields, would give about half the people in this blog an F for not fully comprehending this article. Before attacking the DW why don't you reread the article. Bonus: you won't sound like a moron.
  reply
• 

  L.C.

  11 months ago

  To # 13.
  Carl Kemp as the spokesman for John Rouse??
  Carl is a very busy man these days..he is a registered lobbyist for Englander and Associates, (check Los Angeles registered lobbyists). Carl served the city under both Hankala and Miller and then took a position with the Port before going with Englander. Lobbying firms love this and want ex city employees for the obvious reasons -expertise in in city policy and a network of professional and personal relationships. Carl has been seen lobbying the redevelopment agengy for the Hyatt Pace and for those of you on the eastside....Carl is the lobbyist working with David Malmuth and Cliff Ratkovich on the new SEAPORT MARINA project...but that's another story!
  reply
• 

  DW reader

  11 months ago

  Oops. Sorry Mr. Swaim. That was a typo error in your name in #26
  reply
• 

  DW reader

  11 months ago

  lindaonline: just what precisely are you trying to say in 21?
  reply
• 

  Duke

  11 months ago

  If we can take a break from the Suja fest here, put her three aides in your thoughts. Aguilar, Coward and Burke were in a bad car crash this afternoon at 3rd and Atlantic. There are pictures on Pearl's site. It wasn't pretty.
  reply
• 

  EM

  11 months ago

  Look who she has for a mother-in-law! Can you blame Suja?
  reply
• 

  DW reader

  11 months ago

  EM(36): Yes, we can totally blame Suja; mother-in-law notwithstanding...
  reply
• 

  Seen from Seal

  11 months ago

  Before I say anything else, let me say -- I support the DW in its coverage of this story and its general coverage of local politics so far.
  
  (And my thought and prayers are with those hurt in today's auto accident. I wish them a full and speedy recovery.)
  
  Will -- do what you have to do to keep your business strong. If you have to go no further in your approach to challenging stories than you are demonstrating here, I will understand. I would be sad to see your business fail -- Long Beach would be a poorer place without you -- so if you see thorough investigation of this issue as too big a financial risk because of excessive exposure to lawsuits, I understand. The quality of what you are providing to Long Beach is already far and away a net plus to the community.
  
  That said . . .
  
  I am dismayed that you are punting on this story. You call for a discussion on this issue, posing as a kind of gladiator asking the audience for thumbs up or thumbs down on this woman's privacy. It's the wrong focus -- you should be telling us what we stand to gain as a community by intruding in this public figure's private life. Judging by the chaotic and confused discussion string here, your readers don't know -- so you have to tell them.
  
  You're not telling us what you think is at stake. You should.
  
  I am not a lawyer (though I often usefully play one in my pronouncements to my children), but libel law and the First Amendment would seem to support you asking Suja Lowenthal damn near anything you want to at this point in time. And the reason why is because the law recognizes that our political life as a society is improved when news organizations provide maximum information about government decision making. The character of an elected official is germane and is clearly of "compelling public interest." You have to demonstrate you are not acting out of "malice aforethought," but you do this by acknowledging that this line of questioning is of public interest and by asking her questions and giving her time to respond before publishing her responses. It may not make you popular with everyone at City Hall -- but is that your goal?
  
  Do you have legal counsel telling you anything different? If so, and your counselor is telling you to drop your notebook and slowly back away from questioning elected officials about their sex lives, you may have an obligation to either get a new lawyer or tell your readers this is the advice you are following.
  
  And I don't think the question is about her honesty. I think it's more a question of her loyalty to those who support her and her personal courage: how does she confront an evolving situation (hypothetically, an increasingly unsatisfying marriage) that challenges her previous, very public, commitments? This could be (hypothetically) a wedding vow or this could be a commitment to supporters to complete her campaign for a school board seat instead of opportunistically jumping into Dan Baker's still warm council seat (I'm surprised THAT chapter in the Suja Lowenthal Hagiography wasn't in your article--talk about abandonment! She left a lot of good people as angry as jilted spouses and in-laws when she bailed . . . and delivered to Long Beach by her abandonment the school board member much in the news of late).
  
  Bottom line: does she treat her partners -- personal and political -- with respect in resolving conflicting political or personal desires, or does she find it acceptable to abandon those partners when convenient, jump into a new seat and parse ethics law with alternative weekly reporters as a diversion?
  
  Low scores here on loyalty and personal courage lead to future stories (that you could pre-write today) about what she is leaving Long Beach holding in the bag as she departs for Sacramento or D.C. The importance of exposing this depends on what you, as political journalists, think would be in that bag.
  
  Memorable coverage could change the political climate here -- can anyone say "Michael Carona"? (bless you, Moxley) But if you think the game isn't worth the candle -- if you think Long Beach needs more politicians like Suja, not fewer -- say so (cuz you seem a little, well, smitten). I'll still kinda respect you in the morning.
  
  Frankly, I think Americans in the voting booth admire adulterers. As long as they don't lie about it, do something homosexual (without the prior acceptance of their homosexuality), or reveal some beyond-the-pale kink (wherever that pale may be), they're golden. Plain vanilla cheating on a spouse suggests a certain initiative and reckless individualism in a politician that we can't help but find appealing. Heck, you can even cheat and be the presidential nominee of a major political party! So infidelity might even advance a political career in this brave new world.
  
  But my goodness -- what's that about Suja being abandoned (for whatever reason) by her mother for two years at the age of five? and she volunteers this information to her audiences? Any psychologist in the crowd could fill you in on what that could mean for the adult version of that child. It's not pretty.
  
  Will -- I think it's really about what you and Dave have the stomach for and the direction you want to take your publication. As I said above, don't endanger your enterprise. But you could provide an even greater public service than you already do, if that is in your plans.
  
  Dave -- this is a great story, as far as it goes. You placed into superb context your interview with Lowenthal that I previously understood poorly. You have told us all some important things about Long Beach politics that have not been previously reported, and for that I thank you.
  reply
• 

  Dave Wielenga

  11 months ago

  Seeing things from Seal is pretty impressive.
  reply
• 

  Al

  11 months ago

  Lowenthals. If they were in charge of running a real business, it would have sunk well under the sea years ago.
  
  Yes, Suja's career of political opportunism sucks,... as well as her conflict of interest with her voting record,... But it's Suja Lowenthal's, as well as Al Lowenthal's, and Bonnie Lowenthal's voting record of sticking it to every taxpayer that REALLY sucks!
  
  The forever money losing Queen Mary and that whole fiasco.
  
  The money losing Aquarium that old Al Lowenthal was instrumental in helping stick the city with on a forever basis, (check the whole history of that continual big fat lie over on LBReport.com).
  
  And the proposed NEW TAX INCREASE? Designed to pay for basic services such as streets and sidewalks that should be covered by the first basic expenditure of a major city?
  
  Yup, those Lowenthal's have never seen a tax increase they didn't like.
  reply
• 

  drnoe

  11 months ago

  Seal, how is Heidi?
  reply
• 

  John_B

  11 months ago

  Will Swaim (27): Since through our votes (or, more accurately, our unfortunate habit of voter apathy) we grant our elected officials the mandate to operate on our behalf, we really have no choice but to hold their feet (collectively and individually) to the fire on any act and any behavior that impacts that mandate.
  
  An important fact that we often tend to forget is that we, the electorate, retain the responsibility for managing and leading…for governing…our communities, counties, states and nation but that we temporarily delegate the authority to others while they remain in office to represent us. Please note the distinction: We retain the *responsibility* but we delegate the *authority*.
  
  When we remember this simple fact we then see that the true challenge before is not whether to hold elected officials accountable for their behavior when it impacts their mandate but, rather, why we often seem so reluctant to do so. We sometimes trip all over ourselves making excuses and allowances for those we elect. We are all human after all (well, most of us) and we are usually loathe to accuse others, especially when the issue involves what would normally be a personal relationship. To do so means we have to pass judgment and most of us don’t like to do that either.
  
  Not liking something, though, does not make it cease to exist. We can’t close our eyes and pretend that our responsibilities as an electorate magically disappear just because it's sometimes uncomfortable to consider them. Not only *should* we scrutinize the behavior and actions of all of our elected officials but we *must*. Not only must we do so in *this* case but in *all* cases.
  
  By some standards, Suja cuts quite a sympathetic figure: she’s survived personal adversity; she’s attractive and intelligent; articulate and educated and seems to have the best interests of her constituents at heart. Great! Some see her as a great crusader for her various causes and a strong and vocal advocate for those she represents.
  
  But others see something else.
  
  So let’s stop the hand-wringing over whether we should scrutinize the behavior and actions of our elected officials (including Suja) and, if so, to what degree. As a person, Suja has a right to conduct her personal life in any way she sees fit. But as an elected official she does not have a right to permit her personal relationships to compromise her mandate to represent us without conflicts of interest.
  
  Has Suja done so in this case? We really don’t know yet (at least I don’t). But since the question has now been raised, it must likewise now be answered to our satisfaction. Because Suja has presumed to govern us, that’s the only standard that should now apply: our standard, as interpreted by a non-partisan and impartial body such as the FPPC, whose stated mission is: “…to promote the integrity of representative state and local government in California through fair, impartial interpretation and enforcement of political campaign, lobbying, and conflict of interest laws.”
  
  If the FPPC feels this doesn't fall within their purview then we need to either alter their purview or create another investigative entity. The FPPC works for us too, remember? If we want situations like this to be within their scope than, guess what...they are! If we have to ammend the Political Reform Act of 1974 to make that happen, then let's do that.
  
  The answer is really quite simple: We *must* scrutinize the behavior and actions of our elected officials in *all* cases. If the scrutiny reveals no violation of their mandate to represent us without conflicts of interest, that’s wonderful. Should the scrutiny produce a different result, however, then such persons must be removed from office and swiftly. This, of course, requires a level of involvement and intestinal fortitude on the part of the electorate that we, as a people, haven’t really displayed in many decades.
  
  So we end where we began: The challenge is not whether to hold our elected officials responsible but, rather, to remember that as a freely governed people it is our *duty* to do so…
  
  …and then to act accordingly.
  reply
• 

  DW reader

  11 months ago

  Dave Wielenga (39): What John B.(42) says is by far even more impressive!! He makes the rest of us sound like a bunch of blathering dolts.
  reply
• 

  Outraged

  11 months ago

  lindaonline, your post in #21 is a despicable lie about a decent man. Either provide proof or retract it.
  reply
• 

  JuanPardell

  11 months ago

  #40 What I found amusing, is that Sen. Alan Lowenthal, who chairs a committee dealing with the proposed high-speed rail project, recently questioned its cost to the taxpayers. What the hell? Here is an elected official, who supported many of the taxpayer boondoggles that are currently raping the city's general fund, supposedly concerned about the cost of probably one of the best investment/infrastructre projects this state will ever undertake.
  reply
• 

  JuanPardell

  11 months ago

  (con't) Is there some sort of agenda behind his concerns? Well, Sen. Lowenthal, supposedly an environmental supporter, has taken in thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the oil/petroleum industry. Obviously, high-speed rail will cut into their bottom line. Is he protecting them? Maybe he can better answer that question.
  reply
• 

  Al

  11 months ago

  Amusing?
  
  Don't worry, Juan. Al will get back to us on that issues, as soon as he's done with his latest tax raising scheme for whatever is his latest boondoggle.
  
  And Suja is no different.
  
  Since day one, whenever one sees a Lowenthal speaking, hold on to your wallet.
  
  And i don't find anything amusing with that, mate.
  reply