 |
#21
Neighborhood Council Debate
by Gerald A. Silver
EDITOR'S NOTE: Gerald Silver has created a series of thoughtful
"Neighborhood Council Debate" reports. This is #21 in
the series. Please email him if you wish to be added to his email
list, or would like a copy of a previous report.
To: Parties Interested in Neighborhood/Community Councils
From: Gerald A. Silver, President - Homeowners of Encino
gsilver@sprintmail.com
Subject: #21 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL DEBATE
CITY
ATTORNEY ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO SPEAKS OUT
ON THE STATUS OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS
-- ASKS FOR CHANGES IN THE SYSTEM!
Rocky
Delgadillo, Los Angeles City Attorney has observed "significant
dissatisfaction with the [Neighborhood Council] system." And is
asking for changes. He believes that the "neighborhood councils
have been hamstrung by the very system they were intended to change."
This is no surprise to community activists that have expressed continued
dissatisfaction with the NC's across the city. Below is a copy of
the letter by Rocky Delgadillo, as well as newstories, and responses
to previous emails on this subject.
*********
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO
CITY ATTORNEY
February .2004
The Honorable Janice Hahn, Chair
The Honorable Dennis P. Zine, Vice Chair
The Honorable Antonio Villaraigosa, Member
Education and Neighborhoods Committee
City Council of the City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: STRATEGIC REVIEW OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS
Dear Councilmembers Hahn, Zine and Villaraigosa:
With the passage of the new City Charter in 1999, voters created
a system of neighborhood councils designed to increase civic participation
in Los Angeles' municipal government. While some progress has been
made, this promise of a broader and more powerful community voice
has yet to fully materialize.
My observations are derived from meetings with numerous neighborhood
councils in the last few months and in the course of handling the
myriad of inquiries for legal explanations of rules that govern
neighborhood councils. Many neighborhood council members are pleased
to be heard and participate in this new manner. There is, however,
significant dissatisfaction with the system. Much of the discontent
is bound up in the frustration of dealing with the City's bureaucracy
and insufficient resources.
Although the Charter established a neighborhood council system,
the operating regulations were created through an administrative
and legislative process. The Charter-mandated plan was adopted by
the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners and approved in ordinance
form by the City Council. Along the way, there were incremental
policy decisions that detailed the way neighborhood councils would
operate on a day-today basis, such as how they received funding
and staffing. While these decisions may have appeared to be administrative,
in some cases the decisions altered the legal status of neighborhood
councils and triggered new requirements and regulations.
The cumulative effect of these decisions and actions, aided by a
broad Charter framework, may have put neighborhood councils on a
path strikingly different from that envisioned by the Charter's
framers and City residents. Originally billed as a means to "promote
more participation in government and make government more responsive
to local needs," neighborhood councils have been hamstrung by the
very system they were intended to change.
In the case of neighborhood councils - which represent the vast
geographic and cultural diversity of Los Angeles - rigid bureaucratic
processes should take a back seat to local control and flexibility.
The City should serve the neighborhood councils as an empowering
resource, not a bureaucratic overlord.
In just the last few months, my office has been asked to advise
on the applicability of a variety of laws and regulations, including
whether neighborhood councils and their members have to abide by
City contracting laws, state and local conflict of interest laws,
civil services rules and City laws for accepting gifts. It is highly
likely we will be asked for advice on more regulations applicable
to neighborhood councils.
Neighborhood councils were launched as a bold experiment to empower
our neighborhoods. As with any experiment, leaders must not only
build upon successes, but also learn from and correct problems encountered
along the way. Yet to date, the City has not formally or comprehensively
evaluated the successes and challenges of the fledgling system.
I therefore urge the City's policy-makers revisit the vision for
neighborhood councils and strategically chart a course that allows
our residents to realize that vision. My office stands ready to
evaluate the current legal framework applicable to neighborhood
councils and make recommendations to realize the original vision
and purpose of neighborhood councils.
Rockard J. Delgadillo City Attorney
RJD:TS:lee
CC. Mayor James K. Hahn
All Members, Los Angeles City Council
Greg Nelson, General Manager, Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
*********
Neighborhood
council rules to be reviewed
Holdings, clients at issue
By James Nash
Staff Writer
Los Angeles Daily News - February 03, 2004
Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and three City Council
members said Tuesday that neighborhood councils should be liberated
from requirements that have caused several leaders of the advisory
groups to resign rather than have their finances made public.
The officials were responding to complaints that members of
neighborhood councils -- part-time advisory panels composed
of volunteer community leaders -- were being held to the same
financial disclosure requirements as the City Council.
Council members Janice Hahn, Antonio Villaraigosa and Dennis
Zine, who sit on a committee that deals with neighborhood councils,
asked Delgadillo on Tuesday to revisit a 2000 city attorney's
opinion holding neighborhood council members to many of the
requirements of the Political Reform Act of 1974, which requires
public officials to disclose their finances.
"It's distressing to me that it's become so bogged down with
red tape, bureaucracy and politics that it would discourage
people from getting involved," Zine said. "We didn't want those
regulations. We wanted it to be simple for (community members)
to get involved with their community."
If enforced, the requirements would mean that many neighborhood
council members who are lawyers would have to reveal their clients,
and people who own property would have to disclose their land
holdings.
City officials said only eight neighborhood council members
have resigned rather than submit to the requirements. But some
neighborhood council activists said the number is higher, particularly
in light of people who don't join neighborhood councils because
of the mandate.
Sol Ajalat, an attorney who had served as president of the Greater
Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council, said in an interview that
he stepped down rather than make public his clients.
"There is no way I could disclose, or would disclose, a client
who paid me $10,000 or more," said Ajalat, who said 13 members
of the Toluca Lake group resigned or cut short their terms to
avoid the requirement.
"This has created a major problem for many people. It is the
entrepreneurs who are being driven off the board."
The 2000 legal opinion holding neighborhood councils to the
Political Reform Act was issued by a deputy to then-City Attorney
James Hahn. Delgadillo, who was elected in 2001, wrote in a
letter to council members Tuesday that he is willing to review
that opinion and other legal requirements on neighborhood councils.
"Originally billed as a means to promote more participation
in government and make government more responsive to local needs,
neighborhood councils have been hamstrung by the very system
they were intended to change," Delgadillo wrote.
James Nash
(213) 978-0390
james.nash@dailynews.com
Copyright © 2004 Los Angeles Daily News
********* |
[REPLIES TO #20 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL DEBATE]
Sunday, January 25, 2004 11:22 AM
For publication, if you wish:
Dear Gerald,
The letter below is the type of BS that we are dealing with down
here in Venice with our "new" GRVNC board who were installed by
DONE with very little investigation into the fraud charges which
caused mass resignations of most of the remaining reasonable people
on the board. The vacant board seats were filled by people who follow
the "new" board's agenda of "anti-gentrification," further packing
the kangaroo court and alienating the rest of the residents. All
of this seems to be approved and supported by DONE officials.
Many of the new people are also new to Venice and unknown around
the community and within "regular" organizations like the Chamber
of Commerce, The Community Police Advisory Board, Abbot Kinney Assoc.
etc, etc. The worst is that they will approve stands on things that
are in direct opposition to the wants and needs of the community
but will support things that they feel are "for the greater good
of the community." ...and what community is that??!!
As you can see by the following letter, they have their ways to
limit comments from the resident community.
Basically Stalinist dictators.
Most recently, they have determined that the Venice Specific Plan
and Local Coastal Plan are not strict enough for developers and
even want to extend the coastal zone over a mile to the east to
add restrictions and layers of process to anyone wanting even to
add a room or expand a garage.
On the other hand, boardmembers come to meetings and planning hearings
to firmly express that any non-profit social service provider or
affordable housing developer be exempt from all of the laws that
they wish strengthened for everyone else. It also is interesting
to note that half of the new board have long-time ties, including
board membership, board officer status and employment within Venice
area non-profit social services. Hmmmmmm. . . . . . . !
This is what happens when a "slate" from a political part (in this
case the Peace & Freedom Party) with a particular agenda and politic
take over, no matter if they cheat (well actually, as DONE pointed
out, nothing that they did REALLY was cheating - it was all just
a matter of interpretation - they have four or five lawyers on the
"new" board!) or just campaign well.
I used to think that these people were crafty, manipulative, obstructionists.
My opinion is changing - while this might be somewhat true, I think
that they are turning out to also be lazy and incompetent... None-the-less,
DONE approves and supports their efforts and still refuses to even
look into their continuous Brown Act violations. PATHETIC!
Check out the letter below:
Cheers,
RF
Venice
From:
ME
Subject: Will there or won't there be a GRVNC board meeting
January 26th?
To GRVNC President Sheila Bernard,
I received information that you are considering canceling, then
rescheduling the January 26th board meeting.
I just checked the door at the Vera Davis Center (8am Sunday
morning) and the agenda is still there for a Monday meeting
(although the date is wrong, the notice says "December 26th"
instead of January). The website has posted the same agenda.
When were you planning to make this decision? Tonight? Tomorrow
night?
When exactly is the community supposed to be informed as to
what is going on? Were you just planning to have someone at
the door of the Vera Davis Center Monday night to shoo people
away?
Sheila, you and board have made it nearly impossible for Venice
stakeholders to have any input in the Monday meeting. You claim
that your board wants to be inclusive and outreach to the entire
Venice community, yet your on-again, off-again scheduling will
greatly limit the very public participation you say the board
wants.
Forget about my earlier complaint that GRVNC technically violated
the Brown Act by missing a notice posting by four hours - what
is happening now is violating the very heart and soul of the
Brown Act, the very reason it exists - to ensure the greatest
possible community involvement.
There is simply not enough time now for concerned Venice stakeholders
to organize and inform their neighbors of the Monday meeting.
And I sincerely hope that was not the point. The Monday agenda
has a number of very controversial items on it that I'm sure
some would like to comment on if given the proper 72 hour notice
(including, I discovered, a grievance about violating the Brown
Act!).
Sheila, this behavior has clearly become a pattern of abuse.
It is an abuse of the democratic system, an abuse of Venice
stakeholders, and, most importantly, an abuse of trust.
ME |
*********
February 6, 2004
TO: The Honorable Commissioners of the Board of Neighborhood Commissioner
(BONC)
FROM: Daniel Wiseman, M.D.
Stakeholder, Van Nuys Neighborhood Council (VNNC)
The VNNC still exists.
The BONC meeting, last Thursday, January 29, heard of the diminution
of the VNNC Board but did not make any move toward decertifying
VNNC. Therefore, VNNC still exists and will exist for months to
come. We cannot even take ourselves out of existence, as a neighborhood
council. The individuals who are currently-participating Stakeholders
still have the option of continuing to come together, bringing in
new Stakeholders and developing plans for the future.
VNNC's Board of Directors has been decreased to ten (10) which is
less than the Bylaws-specified number, eleven (11), required to
hold a meeting or to make specific actions. If VNNC were to "do
something;" for instance; form committees or pass a resolution,
there might be DONE-originated criticism. We do not need that right
now. The current "players" do not seem strong enough to overcome
that and no one in VNNC is talking as if they wanted to defy DONE.
VNNC's greatest strength has always been and continues to be its
large group (estimated at between 30 - 50) of dedicated people,
who have been trying to "get together" and to "move forward" to
create a neighborhood council which will work, within the framework
and the spirit of the Charter, to represent and improve Van Nuys.
Right now, that group is split into many contentious factions; many
won't talk to their neighbors, many have left active participation,
many are quietly waiting to see what the City (DONE and BONC) and
the other Stakeholders will do. This is a dangerous state of "paralysis"
which can only be followed by further discontent, disaffection and
dissatisfaction.
It is time for us to think and review. What we have done? What don't
we want to do any more? And, most important, why we are here working
for Van Nuys in the first place? The first question is being answered
by each of us, individually, in our own minds and hearts. The second
question has a complicated answer based on who we want to "win the
fight" for "control" of VNNC. However, the second question has a
better, simpler answer: We don't want to "fight each other," any
more. The third question, "why are we working for Van Nuys, in the
first place," answers itself: WE ARE HERE, CONCERNED WITH THE CONDITIONS
IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, TRYING TO WORK FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY,
VAN NUYS.
We are all frustrated by our current situation but this is a time
to forget our past injuries and prejudices. This is not a time for
releasing our self-righteous indignation by criticizing one another.
This is a time to remember the reason we are here, in the first
place. This is not a time for withdrawing from the currently unpleasant
task of working for VNNC. This is a time to set aside our individual
aspirations for power. This is a time to re-evaluate our situation,
quietly, in our own minds and to find peace for ourselves; to reach
out, peacefully, to our neighbors and to find peaceful ways to move
forward. This is a time to reach out to each other, even those we
used to view as "enemies" and work to re-create VNNC as a vibrant
and functioning Neighborhood Council. IN SHORT, THIS IS A TIME TO
RE-DEDICATE OURSELVES TO OUR MUTUAL GOAL AND TO RE-INVENT OUR VAN
NUYS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL.
There will be a "gathering" of interested parties (we don't have
to call it a VNNC "meeting") at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11,
at Braude Center (6262 Van Nuys Blvd.). Mr. Tony Cardenas, one of
the two City Council Members who represent our area, will address
us. Ms. Wendy Greuel, our other Councilperson, will be represented.
Both of them want to know who we are, what we are doing and what
we want to do. This evening, Mr. Cardenas will hear us speak out.
That is our job.
For the purpose of discussion, even at the risk of further criticism
from others, here are my answers to these questions:
1. We were, are and continue to be well-meaning, public-spirited
citizens who "live, work and/or own property in Van Nuys."
2. We are aware of and we are thankful for the opportunity, given
us (ENABLING US) in the City Charter, to form a new, exciting, important
new kind of democratic unit, a VAN NUYS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL. We
believe we are pioneering a new kind of City Government which will
benefit us all.
3. Right now, we are stunned and/or we are hurt and/or we are confused
and/or we are cautious and/or we are outraged and/or we are not
sure of what will happen but we do know that, unless we EMPOWER
OURSELVES, someone else will make the decisions for us and we will
not be happy with the result
4. OUR MOST PRESSING NEED IS TO HOLD ANOTHER ELECTION, as soon as
possible, TO RESTORE OUR GOVERNING BODY and WE NEED THAT NEW GOVERNING
BODY (OUT NEXT BOARD OF DIRECTORS) TO BE BOTH REPRESENTATIVE OF
AND RESPONSIVE TO ALL OF US.
5. We hope for the understanding and support of our colleagues in
other Neighborhood Councils and ask that they contact us and join
un in our meetings, when they can. We need the reassurance, from
DONE & BONC, that we can continue.
We need the re-assurance from BONC that the current remnants of
VNNC can be permitted to form an Elections Committee, create new
Elections Procedure and hold our second Election, as soon as possible.
We accept and want the advice and guidance of DONE and may call
for help from other sources, as well. We want this process to be
efficient and effective.
AS AN INDIVIDUAL and with the hope that this request will be joined
by others:
I, AT THIS TIME, FORMALLY REQUEST THAT BONC CONSIDER AND IMPLEMENT
AN ACTION, on an emergency basis, TO PERMIT THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS
AND STAKEHOLDERS OF VAN NUYS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL TO FORM A COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE
CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BE A FULLY EMPOWERED ELECTION
COMMITTEE FOR VAN NUYS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL with the understanding
that that committee will work with and receive the assistance and
guidance of DONE and its staff in their efforts TO HOLD THE SECOND
VNNC ELECTION AS SOON AS IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE.
I encourage my fellow Stakeholders to consider these concepts and
this request. I hope they will write to and speak before the Commissioners
of the BONC:
The Board of Neighborhood Commissioners
305 E. First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Email: done@mailbox.lacity.org
The next BONC Meeting is at Valley College, 5800 Fulton Avenue,
Valley Glen, at 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 10th.
I ASK MY FELLOW STAKEHOLDERS TO WORK TOGETHER, TO BE THERE, TO SPEAK
UP AND TO FURTHER THE FUTURE OF OUR VAN NUYS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL.
Thank you
*********
If you wish to share comments on this report, please contact: gsilver@sprintmail.com
*********
Homeowners of Encino (HOME) serves as a watchdog
over community issues. It monitors the work of elected officials,
Neighborhood/Community Councils, Van Nuys Airport, etc. HOME is
NOT another form of Neighborhood Council, that by law must represent
Chambers of Commerce, business interests, developers, apartment
associations, high-rise building owners, homeless, and "anyone who
lives, works or owns property" in a community. HOME's mission on
the other hand is to preserve the single-family habitability of
our community. As such, it actively addresses issues of traffic,
congestion, aircraft noise, over-development, sign blight and air
pollution. While Neighborhood Councils seek to be all things to
all people, HOME targets issues that specifically affect the residential
quality of life, and is NOT under the control of the City of Los
Angeles Department of Neighborhoods (DONE).
**********************************************************
|
|
