LANCC BRIEFS - Neighborhood Council leaders and Los Angeles stakeholders crowded into the Hollywood Constituent Center on Saturday for a healthy helping of debate and defiance.
The always controversial … and always passionately debated … Community Care Facility Ordinance was featured. But, Bernie Parks’ somewhat threatening and intrusive motion demanding that NCs explain themselves on their handling of ‘major issues pending before City Council got the group’s attention as well.
There were other moments … Ratepayer Advocate Dr. Fred Pickel guested and LA’s Mobility Plan was discussed. Comments on all of this are scheduled for Friday’s CityWatch. This is a brief report.
CCFO DEBATE
In a nutshell, everybody agreed on one thing: some of the current community care homes in residential neighborhoods have become untenable nuisances. What to do about it is what generates the fire and the brimstone.
Proponents argue that enforcement officials need a tighter and more comprehensive set of laws to help them regulate the homes and weed out the bad guys.
Opponents say the ordinance is too broad, throws the baby out with the bathwater and violates the civil rights of the aging, disabled, homeless, addicts, veterans and other citizens entitled to the care provided by CCF’s.
Here’s the Ordinance.
Here’s Councilmember Mitch Englander’s supportive CityWatch article.
Here’s Janet Denise Kelly’s CityWatch column opposing the ordinance.
AND, here’s Saturday’s LANCC debate … edited some for clarity and brevity’s sake.
Debate participants were Adam Murray with Inner City Law Center, Maria Fisk with Granada Hills South NC and Old Granada Hills Residents Assn and Gigi Zabo with New Directions.
●●●
PARKS’ CONTROVERSIAL MOTION
Councilman Parks is the Chair of the Education and Neighborhoods Committee … which watches over, for the City Council, LA’s Neighborhood Councils.
Chairman Parks has apparently become frustrated with the attention … or lack thereof … NCs are paying to what he describes as ‘major issues pending before the City Council.’ He uses the Board of Public Works recommendation of an Exclusive Franchise Agreement related to waste collection for commercial property owners as an example.
As a result, Mr. Parks created a City Council motion requesting from Neighborhood Councils a report on their process for community outreach efforts and their understanding and awareness of mayor, key issues pending before City Council … including waste sheds. Parks motion here.
Neighborhood Council leaders at the LANCC on Saturday took exception to the Parks’ order and agreed to respond to the Chairman with a defiant motion of their own. LANCC response motion … authored by Jay Handal and Ivan Spiegel … SEE BELOW.
●●●
Dr Fred Pickel … the LA Ratepayer’s new Advocate … was featured at the DWP MOU Oversight Committee meeting on Saturday. Mr. Pickel’s vision of the RPA and the citizen vision of the RPA appear to be at variance … if the reaction at the Hollywood Constituent Center was any indication.
As promised earlier … thoughts on that subject and more detail on the Parks/NC dustup … and the CCFO scuffle on Friday.
(Ken Draper is the editor of CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected]) -cw
Tags: Ken Draper, LANCC, CCFO, Community Care Facility Ordinance, Bernard Parks, Parks’ Motion, Neighborhood Councils
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 45
Pub: June 5, 2012
WHEREAS COUNCIL MEMBER PARKS HAS MADE A MOTION , SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PERRY, REQUIRING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS TO REPORT BACK TO E & N ON HOW NC'S PERFORM OUTREACH WITH REGARDS TO CITY ISSUES.
Be it resolved that LANCC, in its regular meeting dated 6/2/2012, moves to approve the following response to the motion:
Neighborhood Councils, by charter and ordinance, are mandated to be the link between the City government and the citizens of Los Angeles. Neighborhood councils recognize their responsibility in this matter. In an effort to do so, many NC's have created newsletters, blast e-mails, events, town halls and other forms of outreach.
BUT, the City of Los Angeles has not, for the most part, established any kind of procedures that would allow Neighborhood Councils to fulfill this duty. In fact, many of the current procedures are set up to work against any input from stakeholders and their elected Neighborhood Councils. What follows are only a few examples:
A- Neighborhood Councils are NOT advised in advance of issues. In many cases, Neighborhood Councils are never apprised of issues, thereby making it impossible for the NC's to get the word out, get feedback, and deliver said feedback to the elected officials. Many issues only come to the attention of the NC's within 72 hours of the issue being heard by the City Council. As the elected officials must realize, NC's are bound by the Brown Act and do not have the ability to respond officially within such a short period of time. There isn't even enough time to file a Community Impact Statement.
B- The current DONE contact list is several years out of date. It is virtually impossible to get any kind of timely notice to the entire Neighborhood Council system. The present policy only allows each individual board member to update their personal information. The Secretary of each NC should be given a password and allowed to provide this information for their entire Board. Failure to do so should result in DONE hiring temp staff to do it for them with the salaries being deducted from the NC's yearly funding assessment.
C- When Neighborhood Council members, many of whom have to take time from their work, appear before a Committee or the whole Council, they are routinely given two minutes to report or give public comment on an issue. It is extremely difficult to give any kind of reasoned response in this short time allotment. If the City Council really wanted input from official NC representatives they should allow a reasonable time period for official input. Only last year, a Committee Chair combined four agenda items into one public comment period. Speakers were given two minutes to speak on four very different items. Not only did this negate any kind of meaningful input, but it was disrespectful of the NC representatives who took the time to travel downtown with the hope of real participation.
D- The relationship between Neighborhood Councils and their respective Council offices is a mixed bag. Some Council offices work closely with their NC's and actually request their input on certain issues. There are other Council offices that could care less about NC's and would actually like them to go away. Some don't even have the courtesy to return phone calls. If the goal of your motion is to explore ways for better citizen input - it has to start at the top.
E- There has been a systemic demolition of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment caused by the City's inability to generate revenue and cut expenses in a more prudent way, but there has been no reduction in the amount of services that they are required to provide. There is no question that this lack of a proper staffing level has caused the Department and the NC system to falter in their ability to stay fully informed. The staff at DONE has been reduced from a 2008 level of 49 employees with 18 field reps, to the current level of 15 employees with 7 field reps. During the same time period, the number of Neighborhood Councils has risen from 89 to 95. DONE is the NC's direct conduit to the City government and is in the best position to notify the Neighborhood Councils about upcoming legislation. Someone should be assigned to keep track of upcoming hearings and meetings but each current staff person is already trying to handle the work load of three previous workers.
F- City Council members are busy people, but if they really wanted Neighborhood Council input they would show up at meetings to hear it. Public testimony at full Council meetings is a farce. The members are talking on cell phones, meeting with constituents, or leaving the chamber for large periods of time. How can Neighborhood Councils take their role seriously if the decision makers don't or if, as in some cases, they have already decided how to vote and could care less about what we have to say or the amount of time it took us to formulate our recommendations.
THEREFORE, we request that Council member Parks submit a motion to the full City Council mandating the following:
1- All "important" issues should be sent to the Neighborhood Councils 60 days prior to their first hearing so that they may have time to reach out to their stakeholders and take a position. A good example of this is the weekly notice from the Planning Department which alerts NC's to the permits pulled for their district. Each City Department head should be responsible to work with the NC system as a partner, not an adversary.
2- The Department Of Neighborhood Empowerment shall compile and regularly update a contact list of all Neighborhood Council Board members.
3- The City Council and all of its committees shall allow a five minute public comment period to all speakers that are officially representing their Neighborhood Councils.
4- All Council District offices shall meet regularly with their Neighborhood Councils and work with them to develop plans allowing for greater NC input in the decision making process.
5- The Education and Neighborhoods Committee shall look into the funding of the Department Of Neighborhood Empowerment pertaining to its capacity to fulfill its mission. An additional staff position shall be funded with part of the job description being to track all impending legislation and department hearings and to notify the Neighborhood Council system in a timely manner.
6- Neighborhood Councils should be allowed to request a postponement of all upcoming legislation so that they may properly notify their stakeholders and have time to meet and take a position.
This body asks the Chairman to consider the above information when reviewing how NC's interact with their stakeholders and the City government.
Submitted by:
Jay Handal, Chair, West LA Neighborhood Council
Ivan Spiegel, Parliamentarian, Venice Neighborhood Council
Message 15 of 22
