LANCissues group for citywide and regional issues facing LA's Neighborhood Councils

EDITOR'S NOTE: Here are a couple of example posts (emails) sent by members of the Citywide Issues Group (LA Neighborhood Council's "LANCissues" e-group). The group has become a dynamic force, bringing stakeholders from across the city (and the Neighborhood Councils they represent) together for common causes. It now has a website, too. To read more about the group itself, and how to participate, click here:

LANCissues e-group

LANCissues.org
the website

Suggested NC "Global" Issues

Bob Gelfand
Coastal San Pedro NC
issuesbob@sbcglobal.net

To members of LANCissues, the Citywide Issues Group, and other interested parties:

The Citywide Issues Group (informally: CIG) was organized to create a system that will allow neighborhood councils to have a stronger voice in City Council actions. The CIG has been meeting informally every two months. Our next meeting, open to all, is on March 27th.

The idea, as expressed here in an earlier post, is to create a system by which neighborhood councils can talk to each other about major issues and can then pool their voted positions and communicate them formally to the City Council. It is to be the nervous system, as it were, for the neighborhood councils all over the city, allowing them to interact and pool their political clout.

At our last meeting, we agreed to start the process of outreach to all neighborhood councils.

How would such a system work? To make up a fanciful example, suppose one neighborhood council decided that it would be advantageous to have the airport run by the Department of Recreation and Parks. That issue could be communicated to the Citywide Issues Group, the CIG would communicate it by email to all certified neighborhood councils, and each council which chooses to take action on the matter would communicate back to CIG. When enough responses have been received, CIG would present the results to the City Council.

A less fanciful example, taken from real life: The Port of Los Angeles runs large cash surpluses, (ie: profits), and is one of the worst sources of air pollution in the basin. Community activists have suggested that the Port spend ten percent of its revenues on measures to remediate air pollution. For example, each new shipping company that signs a contract for dock space could be offered a break in its leasing fees in exchange for running a clean air terminal. In addition, the port is being asked to contribute to projects that replace older diesel engines with newer cleaner models. If we can get 60 or 70 neighborhood councils to endorse this idea, it would have a better chance for implementation.

What we are talking about here are the issues that go beyond our own council boundaries to take on regional or even citywide importance. At our breakout session at the last Congress of Neighborhood Councils, we heard of many such issues, ranging from public safety to airport noise to sidewalk and street repairs. What I think is important is that people from all over the city have a chance to put their thoughts and voices together in a democratic process.

I therefore propose that we formalize the concept of the Citywide Issues Group as an organization whose members are the neighborhood councils of the City of Los Angeles, that we decide how to form the communication links, and that we explain the plan to all neighborhood councils. This much could be handled at the next meeting, which will be on Saturday, March 27, immediately following the Alliance of Neighborhood Councils meeting, to be held at LA City College: (http://www.allncs.org/meetings.htm)

In addition, two pressing matters have come up recently. The first is the proposed DWP rate increases. The second is the ethics proposal coming before the City Council. These are issues that neighborhood councils have been considering, but we have been taking them up more or less in isolation, in the sense that San Pedro does not know what Northridge is doing, which does not know what Westwood is doing, etc.

We may wish to decide on one or more issues at the next meeting as CIG projects, but we should do this only if we are prepared to communicate them to every certified NC in the city in a timely manner.

Two weeks ago, I was going to suggest the DWP and ethics proposal as the two issues, but they may already be decided by the time we meet next. For example, the City Council has already voted to support limits on city commissioners doing fundraising.

This email forum is one place for people to suggest possible issues between now and March 27th.

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

Issues Group Proposal

Daniel Wiseman, M.D.
San Fernando Valley
dwiseman@wisemanmd.com

Mr. Gelfand:

The formation of the Citywide Issues Group (CIG) offers another forum for resolution of "global" Neighborhood Council Problems. According to the material you have sent, the group would represent the concerns expressed by Neighborhood Councils (NC). They also have the option to discuss any issue at their Board Meetings, vote and draft "Community Impact Statements" which may be submitted and incorporated in the City Council Agenda. It would be well to accept suggestions from individual Stakeholders as well as from NCs. Here are a few problems which I would like to see addressed:

1. Certain "Definitions" related to NCs have become "buzz-words" and have acquired diffused (diluted and/or frankly abused) meanings.