VOICES-After hearing yet-another longish session of nearly-all supportive public comments (with the few opposition voices representing only the Westside), the Los Angeles City Council’s Education and Neighborhoods (E&N) committee in February called – for a seventh time – for a continuance on File #12-1681, the so-called Neighborhood Council (NC) Subdivision Policy, this time for 30 more days (now 90 due to two cancelled meetings).
And so, before that committee could meet again, a new milestone was passed last month – on April 11 – as this “report back in 90 DAYS” motion passed the (ten-fold) 900-DAY mark. This, despite majority-positive affirmations from stakeholders and NC leaders, and unanimous passage by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC) – under whose direction it was created by leaders of most City NCs.
At that same (last) meeting, then-committee chair Councilmember Bernard Parks – who appeared to be heading ever so cautiously towards action -- nevertheless asked the responsible City department (EmpowerLA) to deliver yet another, more nuanced number-crunching report to set some few remaining concerned minds at ease.
One key deliverable for that newest E&N-requested report: To evaluate why the minority of those polled who expressed opposition (or more precisely an unwillingness to “support”) City NCs finally being allowed to subdivide (or “unmerge” in some cases, from coalition NCs controlled by other nearby neighborhoods).
(Before that report could even be started apparently, however, word came that Council President Herb Wesson and Councilmember Paul Krekorian would, instead, take over as interim chairs of E&N for the balance of FY 2015, in order to “put things in place to move forward.”
“The First He’s Heard?” --An earlier overview of NC subdivision’s now lengthy history before the City; (Citywatch: ‘Myths Exposed: The ‘Unmerging’ of Neighborhood Councils’), touched briefly on the mostly “pro” responses to the online survey EmpowerLA hosted almost two years ago. Survey results for all 9 initial motions are still available for review here.
The Remaining “Parks” Homework!-The 2013 survey was created to get feedback and gauge support for/opposition to the first nine motions put forward from the 45 appointed “working group” volunteers of the NC Plan Review & Reform effort set up in late 2012 as a four-month task force. All NC boardmembers (and hundreds of other stakeholders) were asked then to respond to each proposed motion (respondents were split nearly 50/50 between boards and other stakeholders).
Subdivision was first up on that survey, receiving 239 “yes” votes compared to 149 “no” responses, roughly a 62-to-38 % split. But, as will be shown, a lack of information about why this first-time policy was being considered, which NCs it might affect, and how the subdivision process – especially—would relate to other policies (e.g., boundary adjustments and “orphan” areas) heavily skewed some results towards the negative.
CHART #1: Results of EmpowerLA’s 2013 Survey: Subdivision
The Fault in Our Stats? –All that being absent respondents were still not given the option of answering “I don’t know” – an important consideration, which will also be discussed further. And, while those who said “no” to the question of “support” for the policy were asked, “why not?” (nearly 80 % of those did explain – making for an excellent statistical overview of that minority opinion) -- the much larger majority who do support it were not asked “why?”
Old Problems; New Solutions-Others scored higher “support” as a result of providing newer “tools” to help solve decade-old recurring problems within the NC system, e.g., a fleshed-out, citywide grievance policy (72% in favor), as well as high (79 %) support for having the Department create uniform standards for NC “selections.”
Compared to these, the small but determined street-level push to finally allow “subdivision” beyond the one BONC-generated 2002 precedent – is the “new kid” here, still relatively unknown to all but a few dozen NC system watchers, and often mischaracterized as a “license” for someday carving up all NCs.
Two-year-old “Attitudes”--Even now, with the publicized poll results, the policy having been included on multiple BONC and E&N agendas (and even a few recent articles about it in Citywatch) – most NC leaders don’t have it on their radar. This seems to be mainly because they don’t expect to ever need or use its provisions, nor should they.
(Even if the policy were to be approved in the weeks ahead, discussions of how to best subdivide NCs would likely not be part of one of the ”Keys to Success” panels at the next Congress of Neighborhoods. And, don’t bother looking for a new module on “How to Bifurcate Your Current Coalition NC” – to be added to 2016’s new board training packet.)
P.S. = “Parsing Statistics”-What follows works to accurately answer former E&N committee chair Parks’ #1 question: “WHY,” specifically, did a significant minority not support THIS NC subdivision “policy”, as stated by the NC Plan working groups (and approved by the BONC)?
This analysis uses as the only equitably measurable -- and statistically significant -- pool of such data available, the earlier referenced online survey comments, and most specifically the 119 replies that explained “why.” Some results were revealing.
As shown in Chart #1, the brief survey offered the complete text of the proposed policy without any further explanation. In addition to lacking any background – and with no option to say “don’t know,” two additional factors play into the ability to categorize the responses, skewing further many ”no support” and “why not” responses.
1) Though perhaps implied, but not understood by many, undertaking “the process for NC formation …” [motion, part “a”] would include requirements that EmpowerLA will still first review applications to ascertain if the “subdivider” even qualifies for consideration, under the certification requirements (or exceptions thereunto) in the NC Plan, and;
2) that – even if qualified AND successful in the next steps [motion, part c] -- a certification hearing before Neighborhood Commissioners would still be required. These two hurdles, in the initial years of NC certification, could take up an additional year, even if not contested by other parties such as the original NC.
Approval of the policy is then, not in any way a guarantee that even ONE new NC would be created, even after delays into future fiscal years.
The final decision would rest with the appointed neighborhood commissioners, and not with any elected officials or other City employees. (In 2001-2003 – when all areas, were essentially “up for grabs” -- 1 out of every 4 applications failed to result in that NC being certified).
{module [1177]}
Categorizing the Objections-Finally turning to the number-crunching of respondents’ replies, what follows takes those that answered the question, “Do you support the [Subdivision Policy] motion” – and “If not, why not” and places them into ten (10) sub-categories under three (3) major categories
Necessary Assumption -In order to proceed, at least one typical assumption was broadly required to be assumed broadly – namely that a respondent’s first comment (if they gave two or more reasons) was assumed to be their principal objection to the policy, for the tallying.
CHART #2: Major “Why Not” Categories
Three Major Categories-All 119 reasons given for non-support were categorized into 10 fairly specific types of objections collectively identified. No one type ending up representing more than 16-to-17 percent of the total comments. But based on other similarities (and to provide some graphic representation for the comparison vs. EmpowerLA’s pie chart’s summary (again, Chart #1), those 10 categories were further grouped into three more general ones -- re-tallied as shown in Chart #2.
Major Category A-Sub-categories 1-to-4 (grouped as general category “A”): “Do not support ANY policy (or subdivision)” – represented by far the most adamant objections (in some cases, to even the idea of subdividing … ever) and accounted for 37% of the “why not” survey comments. Their reasons were largely based on the belief that there is no real need for it, and – if it was allowed – could prove divisive and perhaps even confusing.
Major Category B-Sub-categories 5 and 6 (grouped as general category “B”): Do not support this METHOD (as outlined) for handling subdivision. Or else, the respondents felt uninformed or unclear about the policy. Together, these accounted for 23.5% of the “no” side.
Major Category C- Perhaps not as closely tied together as the first 4 were, responses for sub-categories 7-10 (grouped as general category “C”) share the fact that they either are not “true” (at this time, at least) or didn’t answer the question asked: Do not support for the “WRONG” reasons. While labeling these (39.4 %, the largest of the three major categories of non-supporters) “wrong” may seem judgmental, the detailed sub-categories that follow bear this out.
In the end, two out of every five “no support” responders gave as their primary objection (to approving a subdivision policy), reasons that showed that they either misunderstood (the question, or policy, or both), or else made assumptions about it that were untrue or yet to be determined.
Not a ‘Top 10’ List-Based on the same 119, the 10 specific subcategories were given shorthand titles that would seem self-explanatory, however, some example responses are included. They cover all of the survey-stated reasons for non-support of the specific NC subdivision policy offered” . . .
- “No need; it’s unnecessary” – 13 responses, or 10.9%
- “Divisive/factionalizing; will cause confusion” – 20 responses, or 16.8%
- “Enough NCs; too many already” – 7 responses, or 5.9%
- “Cost of reorganizing” (administrative) – 4 responses, or 3.4%
(Note: Most “cost of funding” responses were counted with subcategory 10, following)
- “Wrong voting method” – 13 responses, or 10.9%
(Note: Of these, the majority [10] were opposed to the original NC having “veto” power over applicants.)
- “Process (or “need” for policy) is unclear; need more details” – 15 responses, or 12.6%
- Incorrect reasons (misunderstood the process/policy) – 21 responses, or 17.6% (e.g., “would cause decertification” or “a sub-NC [‘inside’ of and still reporting to a current one] adds a layer of bureaucracy, etc.)
- Reasons unrelated to creation of a policy (likely also misunderstood) – 9 responses, or 7.6% (e.g., “I like transparency in all things”, etc.)
- “Personalized”/equated policy creation to own NC – 11 responses, or 9.2% (e.g., “Venice would be Balkanized” or “my council is (already) effective”, etc.). To some, then, “I don’t want mine to subdivide, so yours can’t either.”
- False/premature assumptions; no basis in fact -- 6 responses, or 5.0% (e.g., “could lead to unequal allocation of resources” or “will decrease the funds other 95 NCs each receive”, etc.)
Key observation –Although even more has been revealed, the major finding seems to be that by uncoupling the reasons given for “no support,” we find that only about 15 % of the nearly 400 total respondents are completely against ever letting NCs subdivide or “unmerge”, versus the 38 percent the original, simple “yes/no” survey with its shortcomings.
The balance of 23 % -- almost one-quarter of the total responding wanted -- or needed -- some background information in order to make an educated, accurate choice. Or else, they wanted something spelled out better (even if already covered by The Plan).
Simply put, despite being the least understood of the 2013 NC Plan group’s first nine issues/motions two years ago, the NC subdivision policy (as proposed) and now perhaps headed for the E&N Committee for a seventh time, has been supported at all levels of the NC system, most notably with a unanimous approved by BONC – the entity most-responsible for creating policies needed to grow neighborhood council participation.
For some, however, the system remains “broken” so long as the original pairings and boundaries of early certified NCs make it impossible for their neighborhood to speak for itself, or engage directly with elected officials on an equal footing with others that surround them and often drown out their voice.
● Note: Copies of EmpowerLA’s 2013 survey responses, a more detailed analysis – or this writer’s categorizing key for the “why not” responses -- are available upon request to: [email protected]
(In 2013, Joseph Riser served as secretary for the regional NC Plan Review committee that first drafted the proposed “NC subdivision” policy now before Council. While employed by a multi-national NGO years ago, his title once also included “statistician.” He can be reached at [email protected])
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 13 Issue 37
Pub: May 6, 2015
