City Council 7th District

I find your backhanded endorsement of Alex Padilla for the 7th District City Council seat to be hypocritical, self-serving and hardly in the best interest of the people of the district (“Padilla in 7th District,” Valley Edition Editorials, May 23). Where is his track record? What are his accomplishments? What has he done to deserve the confidence of the people of Los Angeles’ 7th District, other than allow himself to be used by the existing political machine?

The Times seems only to want the status quo. And that is exactly what you will get for the 7th District with Padilla. He will, if elected, be manipulated and controlled by the existing pols. You cite Corinne Sanchez’s great track record as the very reason you cannot endorse her. You disagree with her on some issues, so you would deny the people of the 7th District capable leadership on that basis?

You endorse a candidate in Padilla who has not once demonstrated a shred of a leadership quality. . . . He has done nothing so you have nothing to knock him for, is that it? In fact, in the text of your endorsement, you fail to cite even one Padilla accomplishment. You even cite a major reason for electing Sanchez: Padilla is already being run by the established political machine.

In his lack of support for a Valley transit agency, he has in effect said that he would put the interests of others ahead of his own constituents. My hope is that the 7th District voters will discard your endorsement as hardly worth the paper it was printed on and see that Sanchez is the leader they want and need, and then vote Sanchez for City Council.

TOM NEFCY, Calabasas

*

Re “Sanchez’s Campaign Hire Decried,” May 18, and “Sanchez, Padilla Spar Over Vote by City Panel,” May 20.

I am an account representative for a public relations firm. I have known and worked with hundreds of public relations agents, lobbyists, publicists and others in related fields, including both Helen Hernandez and James Acevedo. Over the years, I have found that by far most of these individuals are honest and decent.

I find it very frustrating that people in my profession are constantly attacked for taking on unpopular clients or causes. Maybe these causes are unpopular because they are not well enough understood. Maybe a client got into hot water after retaining the consultant, who cannot then just walk away from the problem, any more than a lawyer would. Whatever the case, we should have the right to work for legal and legitimate--even diverse--entities, products or services without having our ethics and morality constantly called into question.

I see a disturbing trend. Where we used to say, “You don’t agree with us, therefore you are wrong,” we now say, “You don’t agree with us, therefore you are evil.” I have in the past and probably will in the future adopt unpopular causes. But I am in no way motivated by evil to do so.

LINDA CAMPANELLA JAURON, San Fernando