Revised "Form 52" Threatens NC Council Files
The LANCC recommends action

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LOS ANGELES NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL COALITION



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

by Len Shaffer
Chair, LANCC

September 3, 2008

LANCC Members, all NC Board Members and all Stakeholders:

We have a problem.  How an idea that started as an attempt to give more meaning to the word “advisory” when applied to neighborhood councils could have been so subverted is somewhat beyond me. 

What I'm talking about is "Form 52" .. the latest recommendation by the staff of the Ethics Commission for the meeting scheduled for this Friday, Sept. 5th. 

A little history is necessary, and not the perverted or uninformed history as set out in the staff recommendation. 

After NCs were created by the 1999 Charter, and after they actually began the process of certification, the City Attorneys office made two critical decisions.  First it was determined that NCs, being Charter created, were subject to the Brown Act just like any other city commission.  The next decisions had to do with conflicts of interest under state Political Reform Act. 

As a consequence of that decision the City Attorney was of the opinion that NC board members must file the "Form 700" financial disclosure form.  It soon became evident that many NC board members would resign rather than disclose many of the financial items referred to on the Form 700.  It's not that they had anything to hide; they just did not feel that their grassroots, volunteer positions should put them in the position of disclosing income, customers, etc. 

It was at this time that members of the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils met with some Deputy City Attorneys to discuss the problem.  A provision of the law was found that would allow the City Council to exempt NC board members from the obligation of filing the Form 700 while still being subject to the other provisions of the PRA.  The City Council adopted an ordinance (LAAC Sec. 2.20.1) formalizing the exemption. 

The idea of NCs being able to generate Council Files was first put forth by Jason Lyons, an NC Board member.  Council Files are motions or ideas that are filed with the City Council through the City Clerks Office and then are assigned to the appropriate City Council Committee.

They usually originate through a City Council members office, but they may be generated by referrals from the Mayor and other city officials.  In the committees they may be acted upon and eventually take the form of an ordinance to be approved or disapproved by the Council.  Or, they may languish in the file cabinet of the committee chair until they wither and die. 

This issue was so hotly contested that the City Council, rather than vote on it referred the matter back to Committee and referred it to the Neighborhood Council Review Commission.  The NCRC recommended that NCs be allowed to participate in CFs as part of a two year study.  At the end of that time the program would be evaluated. 

When the recommendation came before the Council it was literally ambushed and a provision was attached that any NC board member participating in the filing of a CF needed to file a Form 700.  When it was pointed out that this would be contrary to the current city law a motion was introduced in City Council to do away with the exemption entirely. 

Since then it has gone back and forth between the City Council's Education and Neighborhoods Committee and the Ethics Commission. 

What is now on the table is a form proposed by the Commission referred to as the revised "Form 52".  This form is no longer restricted to board members participating in CFs, it is proposed as an annual form filed by all NC board members and would need to be filed by all elected or appointed members within 30 days of taking office.  The Commission recommends that any board member out of compliance be barred from participating in any board actions. 

It is unclear if this requirement would be for a two year period or permanent.  However, we all know what happens once something like this is in place.

While this Form 52 does not call for the detailed information required by the Form 700, it does require you list yours and your spouses or domestic partners employer.  It requires you to list all property you, your spouse or domestic partner own in or within 1000 feet of Los Angeles (excluding you personal residence) that has a value of more than $2000.00.  It requires disclosure of businesses in Los Angeles of which you, your spouse or domestic partner own 10% or more if valued at more than $2000.00. 

The Commissions resolution, based on the request of the E&N Committee is not limited to a two year trial period but is a permanent action.

I know this is a lengthy email, but perhaps now you understand my frustration with a system that takes a simple idea and, rather than vote it up or down, uses it to pervert a system where NCs were to be “as independent, self-governing and selfdirected as possible.” 

Here is what you need to do. 

Let them know this requirement would be a complete perversion of the response they requested from the NCRC.  Let them know they are going far beyond the boundaries of the original idea that was to allow NCs to be somewhat more affective in their “advisory” capacity.  Ask them to recognize that this idea of disclosure has taken on a life of its own and it should be stopped now.

The Commissions staff recommendation, the revised Form 52 and the proposed resolution can be viewed on the LANC Coalition's web site at: www.lanccoalition.org.

Len Shaffer
Chair, LANCC

Leonard J. Shaffer
LANCCoalition Chair

email: info@lanccoalition.org
website: www.lanccoalition.org