Comments
THE CHARTER MUZZLE - Los Angeles politicians never miss an opportunity to praise "community engagement."
They celebrate public participation. They champion neighborhood voices. They insist that residents deserve a seat at the table.
But at a Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council meeting on June 8, Mayor Karen Bass may have unintentionally exposed a troubling contradiction at the heart of Los Angeles government.
When asked whether Neighborhood Councils should be allowed to communicate official positions directly to state agencies, county officials, members of Congress, and other governmental bodies, the discussion revealed a little-known reality: under long-standing interpretations of the Los Angeles City Charter, Neighborhood Councils may be prohibited from doing exactly that.
Think about that for a moment.
The City created Neighborhood Councils to give residents a voice in government. Thousands of volunteers dedicate countless hours attending meetings, researching issues, engaging stakeholders, and advocating for their communities. Yet when it comes time to communicate official positions beyond City Hall, those same neighborhood representatives can find themselves constrained by rules that many residents and apparently some elected officials—never knew existed.
The Mayor's reaction was revealing.
When informed that the restriction was rooted in the City Charter and reinforced by previous legal opinions, she appeared surprised. After some hesitation, she responded with a smile:
"I don't like people telling me what to do."
The room laughed.
But behind the laughter was a serious question that deserves a serious answer.
If Neighborhood Councils are supposed to represent the people, why are they prohibited from directly communicating with the very government agencies whose decisions affect those people every day?
Why should a Neighborhood Council be unable to formally advocate to Sacramento on legislation that impacts its community?
Why should it be restricted from communicating positions to federal representatives on transportation funding, public safety grants, homelessness policy, or infrastructure investments?
Why should local volunteers be trusted to advise City Hall but not trusted to speak to other levels of government?
The contradiction is impossible to ignore.
Los Angeles constantly claims it wants more civic engagement. Yet the City's own structure may limit the ability of its most grassroots institutions to participate fully in the democratic process.
A government that trusts citizens enough to vote should trust them enough to speak.
Neighborhood Councils were created to amplify community voices not place them behind a City Hall filter.
Even more remarkable is that many Neighborhood Councils are already interacting with elected officials and governmental agencies outside City Hall. Council members routinely attend meetings with state legislators, congressional offices, county departments, transportation agencies, school districts, and regional organizations.
Equally important, communication between Neighborhood Councils and other levels of government is already a regular part of civic life in Los Angeles. State legislators, members of Congress, county officials, and their representatives routinely attend Neighborhood Council meetings or send deputies on their behalf to provide updates, answer questions, and engage directly with residents. The reality is that this dialogue is already taking place throughout the city every month.
In practice, communication is already occurring throughout Los Angeles every day.
The result is a growing disconnect between the realities of civic participation and the restrictions embedded in the Charter.
That disconnect should concern every Angeleno.
Because this debate is about something far bigger than procedural rules.
It is about whether Los Angeles genuinely believes in citizen participation or merely celebrates it when it is convenient.
It is about whether Neighborhood Councils are intended to be independent voices for their communities or simply advisory bodies whose influence ends at the doors of City Hall.
And it is about whether a Charter written for a different era still reflects the needs of a modern city facing unprecedented challenges.
The timing could not be more important.
The Charter Reform process is underway. Commissioners, elected officials, and civic leaders are actively discussing how Los Angeles government should function for decades to come. If there was ever a moment to revisit this restriction, that moment is now.
No one is suggesting that Neighborhood Councils should speak on behalf of the City of Los Angeles.
That authority properly belongs to elected officials.
But allowing Neighborhood Councils to communicate their own positions to other governmental bodies is not a threat to democracy.
It is democracy.
Democracy is not strengthened when citizens are organized. Democracy is strengthened when citizens are heard.
Residents volunteer because they care deeply about their communities. They deserve more than symbolic participation. They deserve a meaningful voice.
Mayor Bass may have delivered her comment with humor.
Yet the exchange exposed a serious issue that City Hall can no longer ignore.
The real question is not whether Neighborhood Councils can be trusted to speak.
The real question is why City Hall is still afraid to let them.
As Charter Reform moves forward, Los Angeles must decide whether Neighborhood Councils are meant to be a genuine voice for the people or merely a carefully managed extension of the system they were created to challenge.
The answer will say far more about the future of democracy in Los Angeles than any campaign slogan ever could.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond. )
(Jay Handal is a veteran community advocate and longtime CityWatch contributor who plays a central role in holding Los Angeles City Hall accountable. He serves as treasurer of the West LA–Sawtelle Neighborhood Council. With decades of grassroots organizing and civic leadership, Jay is a relentless voice for transparency, fiscal reform, and empowering neighborhoods to challenge waste, mismanagement, and backroom decision-making at City Hall.)
