CityWatchLA - Oversight and Accountability requires a City Prosecutor with Enforcement Authority

CityWatch, Jan 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 1

Angelenos in pursuit of oversight reform are in the midst of an "all or nothing" battle that starts with the upcoming opportunity to create of a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and establish the Office of Public Accountability. (OPA) But both efforts will be for naught if they are not supported with significant Commission Reform and the establishment of a City Prosecutor.

It was increasing public outrage over LA's Department of Water & Power cavalier behavior that stirred a grass roots battle to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) with oversight authority in order to ensure open review of the DWP's operations, finances, and management.

Through it all, public distrust of what Jack Humpreville refers to as "the DWP’s politically appointed Board of Commissioners, its overly politicized and less than candid executive management, and the Mayor and his evasive staff" continued to grow.

It was an internecine struggle over LA's budget crisis that led to a family feud between the DWP, the City Council, and the Mayor's Office. The residents of Los Angeles watched and listened to threats of bankruptcy, renewed layoffs, increasing flotsam and jetsam, ongoing cuts to city services, and the impending sale of city assets.

Through it all, public distrust of what Richard Lee Abrams refers to as "lots of emotional hysteria about lost services, but total silence about available funds" left the Mayor and City Council struggling to explain how a large LA deficit matched by a larger CRA surplus still results in a budget deficit that requires a fire sale of city assets.

The resulting groundswell of grassroots support for greater oversight of the DWP, the City's budget process, and the machinations of LA's Commissions and Boards stirred a stampede as the DWP Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor's office all got in the game.

As the deadline for March 8, 2011 ballot measure drew closer, there were competing proposals for a Ratepayers Advocate, an Inspector General, and an Office of Public Accountability. The DWP's union entered the fray, management and commission positions changed hands, and by the time the City Council was done, the proposed ballot measure had been watered down, resulting in reduced authority and narrow jurisdiction.

While the DWP Reform Panel originally called for charter amendments authorizing a well funded, empowered, and truly independent Ratepayers Advocate as well as an Inspector General, the resulting ballot measure no longer include the authorization of City Council to remove the DWP General Manager and any Commissioner with a two-thirds vote. The Office of Public Accountability will be limited to the review of water and power rates and will rely on the City Council and Mayor to pass ordinances to insure the thorough review and analysis of DWP’s $60 billion strategic plan and its operations, finances, and management.

Still, progress is admirable. It is rewarding and it is encouraging. But the establishment of a Ratepayers Advocate supported by the Office of Public Accountability is a hollow and symbolic gesture unless they are supported by subsequent ballot measures that reform the Commission process and establish a City Prosecutor.

All four elements must exist or the City of LA will have oversight reform that consists of a dog that is "all bark and no bite." The last thing LA needs now is oversight reform that consists of more audits and advice with no authority or mandate to enforce the law.

Those involved in neighborhood councils have learned the hard way that the City Attorney has a client, it's the City of Los Angeles. NC Boardmembers can call the CA's office for advice but not for support if their complaint is with the City of Los Angeles, that's when the public finds itself without representation.

The City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to the City's employees and its elected officials and that prohibits the City Attorney from taking any action against the interests of those people. The City Attorney may not even conduct an investigation that might reveal bad behavior by one of his clients, and if he does get such in formation during an investigation, he must hold it confidential.

Municipal authorities typically address this situation by having two separate offices. The County of Los Angeles has the District Attorney who owes no duty to the County Board of Supervisors while the County Counsel serves the Board and the Supervisors themselves.

In similar fashion, the City of Los Angeles needs two separate offices, one for the City Attorney and one for the City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor would prosecute all the crimes which the City Attorney now prosecutes plus its jurisdiction would be expanded to cover felonies and grand jury investigations into City Hall.

The City Charter would need to clarify jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor and provide for felony investigations that involve the City of Los Angeles. Cities, counties, states and the feds can have concurrent jurisdiction, thus allowing the City Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute cases which involve or may involve the City, a City agency, or a City official. This must take place without divesting felony jurisdiction from the District Attorney or the State Attorney General.

As the March 8, 2011 election approaches and the ballot measure establishing a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA) get the spotlight, it is important to remember that oversight and accountability mean little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

2010 was a great year for the grassroots advocates who fought so hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress was made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

2011 is the year in which we can work together to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

CityWatchLA - The Mythology of "Full Cost Recovery"

CityWatch, Dec 14, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 99

To call the City of Los Angeles "Penny-Wise and Dollar-Foolish" would be an insult to those who are actually good with pennies.

The City's current assault on community gardens is the latest evidence that the Mayor's ongoing "Full Cost Recovery" marketing campaign falls far short of addressing the systemic economic problems that are responsible for LA's current and projected financial woes.

Community Gardeners are the latest victims of the "Full Cost Recovery" shakedown and their plight has prompted the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition to call on the Rec and Parks Commission to rescind a plot fee rental increase of 380% that is scheduled to take effect in January of 2011.

During the most recent Commission hearing, it became apparent that the Department of Recreation and Parks doesn't know what costs are involved in operating community gardens yet it has set its sights on the people of LA and is about to pull the "Full Cost Recovery" trigger. When a Charter Department is unable to account for its responsibilities, its areas of oversight, and its expenses, it becomes evident that all the talk of cost recovery is simply a smokescreen.

If the City of Los Angeles is going to have a discussion of cost recovery, it must start with an honest audit of the real costs of each department and of each service. Regardless of how the "Full Cost Recovery" debate plays out, the benefits of open and transparent operations are tremendous and would provide the first step to real accountability at City Hall.

It has also become apparent that the Department of Recreation and Parks doesn't know what costs would be incurred if LA did not have community gardens operating in different areas of the city. In some cases, the community gardeners provide services to the city by maintaining common space that would need to be serviced by the city if the gardeners were gone.

In other cases, blighted land was cleaned up by community gardeners and their presence results in a public safety savings. Another garden was built as a water reclamation project to save a hill that was eroding, resulting in a public works savings and demonstrating again that the presence of a garden can cost less that the absence of a garden.

If the Los Angeles is going to have a real discussion of cost recovery, it must include an honest evaluation of costs and benefits of LA's programs and services before bureaucrats are able to simply refer to everything as a liability and an opportunity to start dispensing invoices.

Through it all, it is apparent that the Mayor's "Full Cost Recovery" plan is responsible for generating false revenues as city departments charge each other and count as revenue the circular exchange of services and goods that all belong to the City of LA.

The plight of LA's Community Gardens remains to be resolved and the issue is working its way through City Hall. Through it all, the Rec and Parks Commission has directed staff to develop an inventory of assets, an accounting of real costs and benefits, a comparison to the expenses of other cities, and a real analysis of the economic impact of community gardens on the department and on the city.

Community Gardeners are simply fighting for their gardens but in doing so, they have triggered a process that could set a standard for City Hall access, transparency, and accountability that could have greater positive impact on LA's financial woes than any "Full Cost Recovery" invoice.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

CityWatchLA - Aussies: Same Challenges, Different Solutions

CityWatch, Aug 25, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 68

Two weeks into my Australian Walkabout, I'm wandering the wilds of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, following the storylines of my family and connecting with the history of my country. I am, after all, an Australian by birth and an Angelino by choice.

It's apparent I've arrived just in the nick of time. This continent is populated by a stubborn bunch, all clinging to silly traditions and I've got my work cut out if I'm going to impart the wisdom of Los Angeles to my Rellies Down Under.

For example, here are five areas where Melbourne is simply upside down on its approach to some common opportunities:

1) In Melbourne, a city of 4 million people, they're completely unschooled in the fine art of moving motor vehicles. Boasting the world's most extensive Tram Network, supported by a significant Train System, complemented by an efficient Bus System, Melbourne has the audacity to throw cyclists and pedestrians into the mix, positioning motor vehicles at the bottom of the food chain. The fact that their scheme works brilliantly, efficiently, safely, and effectively is completely irrelevant as is the bustling street life and thriving economic environment.

The simple fact that the people of Melbourne would dare to challenge the primacy of the single occupant motor vehicle with such impunity and, of course, success, clearly demonstrates that Melbourne is no match for Los Angeles when it comes to mobility.

2) Melbourne simply fails to get in touch with its hugeness. Los Angeles and Melbourne are so similar in population and in size that they could be fraternal twins! The difference is this, Los Angeles is more mature and has grown comfortable with the fact that it's "built-out."

LA's leadership resists innovation, claiming that the city is simply too big and too cumbersome to manage, let alone change. Rarely does a departmental meeting take place without the twin paradigms of mediocrity (LA is a battleship that can't be turned quickly and true progress occurs slowly and in small increments) being advanced as excuses for inactivity and mediocrity.

Melbourne, on the other hand, has streets and buildings older than Australia, yet it embraces change and innovation as if there were no limits to progress. Dangerous stuff, this Heritage Preservation coupled with Urban Re-Purposing, topped off with parks and bike lanes and traffic circles and shared streets and traffic calming and all sorts of impossibilities!

If Melbourne continues to fix streets, sweep sidewalks, treat residents with respect and act with the municipal dexterity of a small village, it can only serve to destroy LA's excuse for stagnation. "We're just too big!"

3) Melbourne completely misses out on political opportunities by focusing on practical solutions. In addition to the many significant environmental challenges any large city faces, Melbourne finds itself in the 13th year of a severe drought. Water is in such short supply, crop irrigation has actually been threatened and bush fires have ravaged communities with tremendous loss of life and property.

Rather than pursue LA style "big-picture" political solutions that advance careers and enrich city coffers, Melbourne thinks little.

Everybody is Melbourne is an environmental steward and the resulting "swarm" of solutions includes smokers not butting in the gutter (to avoid rainwater runoff contamination) to residential rainwater collection. (my Rural Uncle brags that his tanks have sustained him for the last six months)

Water "polling" has become a point of pride and my Urban Aunt shared her water records with us, competing against her history and her goals to reduce her water usage. Toilets have half-flush features, water reclamation is routine, peer pressure drives conservation and the public good is evidently of greater value than personal excess.

Through it all, Melbourne maintains parks with drought resistant native plants, uses creative and natural ground cover and plants trees at a speed that seems designed to be the metric equivalent of San Antonio's Million Tree Campaign. (I'm betting they're planting at a rate 2.2 times that of LA!)

At the end of a hard day of environmental stewardship, Melbourne residents return home to power outlets that are turned off when not in use, to rooms that are not heated or cooled unless occupied and to lighting that is low energy and heavy-metal free.

This practical approach flies in the face of the LA Municipal model which relies on consumption in order to fund the city machine. Melbourne has so much to learn from LA, including the simple fact that there's money to be made by encouraging bad behavior!

Imagine if Melbourne invested in muni parking lots, sold more gas, used more power, consumed more water, polluted more air, produced more trash! Why, it would be a filthy rich city with a balanced budget, just like Los Angeles!'

4) Melbourne claims English as the native tongue but conversations are sprinkled with colloquialisms that require a bit of translation. For example, "living wage" means a basic wage that is suitable for...well...living on. "Affordable housing" refers to housing that is accessible and affordable to those earning a "living wage." Servers in restaurants blush when tipped, after all, they've "already been paid quite nicely, thank you!"

This honesty in communication, while refreshing, deprives the City leadership of the wiggle-room that the Los Angeles style of double-speak provides. Left unchecked, this Melbourne style of “Strine" could result in an expectation that "public servants" actually serve the public! Where's the political future in that?

5) Aussies love their sports. But they take it a little too far! They love to play, they love to watch and they love to gamble. They are so competitive, they turn everything into a challenge and they always know the score.

"The Eureka is the tallest residential building in the Southern Hemisphere, the Southern Star is the largest observation wheel in the Southern Hemisphere, the Melbourne Cricket Ground has the largest retractable roof in the Southern Hemisphere."

This competitive spirit starts to get old, especially when everybody turns into a scorekeeper. The Transit authority posts their goals and performance numbers at the stations. The local authorities post their budgets and follow up with an accounting of the funds. Public Works leaves the price tag on their projects for all to see.

Melbourne would do well to relax a little, to learn from the leadership of Los Angeles who embrace a "softer" style of accountability based on intentions and motivations and efforts.

The Aussie approach translates into a style of governance that is so much more performance based with acute sensitivity to evaluation based on the numbers.

From Town Hall to the Train Station to public works, those involved in serving the public can tell you how they're doing based on the numbers. Where's the future in that?

In conclusion, I acknowledge that my Walkabout is not quite traditional, after all, it would typically take place in the outback, not in City Centre Boutique Hotels. Sustenance would most likely be bush tucker, not family reunion feasts. But who am I to get hung up on ritual when the real opportunity is to immerse myself in the journey of discovery and to explore the elements of Greatness that abound literally everywhere I walk.

As I wander, I recognize much that connects me with my past and I realize much more that will shape my future in Los Angeles. The Aussies are experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities but their actions are a little different and this is the inspiration and connection that gives my Walkabout meaning.

In deference to my loved ones in Melbourne and in keeping with the spirit of a true blue Walkabout, I pass up opportunities for validation in favor of inspiration and I focus on my journey Down Under.

So it is that I find myself reconnecting to my people, my history and to the spirit of greatness that accepts no excuses and knows no limits.

(Stephen Box’ birthplace is Australia. He and his wife Enci have made Los Angeles their home. Box is a transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) Photo credits: StreetsBlog.com. ◘

LADOT Reality Check

The LADOT Bikeways staff reported to the City's Transpo Committee that their three most significant bikeways "successes" are:

1) The LA River Bike Path. Apparently by success, the LADOT was referring to:

a) Successful litigation! The City of Los Angeles is flush with victory after fighting all the way to the State Supreme Court to avoid taking responsibility for the design and maintenance of the LA River Bike Path. The City of LA rejected the claims of an injured cyclist who was injured on the gate/chain link fence at the Victory end of the bike path. The City of LA fought the claim arguing that the City of LA is immune from any liability for the bike paths, that anyone who rides on a bike path does so at their own risk and that they are recreational facilities and not transportation facilities.

(No attempt was made to reconcile the fact that the LADOT apparently calls the LA Bike Path a transportation facility when seeking funding and then a recreational facility when looking for immunity.)

The bottom line is this; cyclists riding the LA River Bike Path do so at their own risk, (there's a sign just N of the Los Feliz bridge informing cyclists of this limitation) and the LADOT has argued successfully that riding a bike is a recreational endeavor inherent with the risks that come with such dangerous pursuits. Hunting bear? Jumping out of a plane? Swimming with sharks? Wrestling Gators? Riding a bike on the LA Bike Path? You are a daredevil and you are on your own!

b) Successful communication! Cyclists on the LA River Bike Path often find themselves at odds with other user groups and mistakenly take the term "Bike Lane" to mean "Bike Lane." That's not the case. The LA River Bike Path is actually the LA River "Mixed Use" Path and is fair game for dog-walkers, roller-bladers, joggers, pogo-stickers, ballroom dancers, hop-scotching, jump-roping, shopping cart pushing, picnic basket carrying, non-motorized vehicular travelers of all flavors and speeds! Of course, that's a mouthful to put on a sign so the LADOT continues to post "Bike Path" signs because it's simpler that way.

c) Successful eradication of light pollution! Apparently the wildlife in the LA River were kept awake at night by the pesky Bike Path illumination. No Worries. Freelance wildlife fans liberated all of the copper from the bike path electical system (twice!) leaving the Bike Path in the dark and the wildlife free to do whatever they do when it's dark.

2) The Orange Line Bike Path. Apparently by success, the LADOT is referring to:

a) The Metro's successful Orange Line Bike Path. In a classic demonstration of "Success has many parents, failure is an orphan." the LADOT is more than willing to glom onto the success of the Metro's OL Bike Path when discussing success but when it comes to taking responsibility for the maintenance of the Bike Path, the LADOT fought for two years to avoid signing the paperwork, insisting that the Metro hasn't completed the project.

b) The Chandler extension which consists of bike lanes (yea for magic paint and the BSS who actually did the work!) and the Chandler Bike Path which was in the news recently as the location of the collision between a roller blader and two League of American Bicyclist licensed instructors, resulting in broken bones for both cyclists and yet another confusing debate over the use of the term "Bike Path" vs. the use of the more appropriate term "Anybody-but-that-motorist-Path." The LA section of the Chandler Bike Path is distinguishable from the Burbank City section in that the LA side features drought resistant (dirt) landscaping while the Burbank section uses reclaimed water and is actually landscaped and green and feels like a parkway.

3) The Expo Line Bike Lanes/Path. Apparently by success, the LADOT is referring to:

a) The future? Is the list of accomplishments so short that by #3 the LADOT has to start pulling out the list of hopes, dreams and good intentions? The report started off with "We've been doing a number of things..." and then shifted into the future of the Expo line, a facility that is a Metro project. Telling other agencies how to do their business seems to be the major "success" of the LADOT Bikeways Department.

b) The opportunity? Perhaps this time around, the cycling community will have the opportunity to forge a relationship with the Metro, developing and refining on the bikeways design standards and establishing safe and effective accessibility to the Expo line for cyclists. As for the role of the LADOT in the development of the Expo Line, one need only look to the streets surrounding the Orange Line and Van Nuys Blvd. for a demonstration on the LADOT's commitment (or lack of commitment) to connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians. (Busted curb lanes, missing crosswalk, parking for 18 wheelers? Is this an industrial zone and traffic sewer or a transit hub?)

At the end of the day, it is excruciatingly apparent that the LADOT operates with little if any accountability or obligation to lay down real goals, actual accomplishments and any sense of accountability. This meeting, just like all the others, included an LADOT call for more staffing in order to continue with the Transportation malpractice that is inflicted on the people of Los Angeles.

All totaled, there are 11 people currently working on the secret projects that purportedly are the future of LA's Network of Bikeways. As our City leadership is scrambling to find opportunities to cut the City budget, the Bikeways department brazenly steps up to the mic and acknowledges that they can't think of three things they have done that would justify their existence. Bold, cavalier and utterly contemptible!

This would be a great time for the LADOT Bikeways Department to start preparing the "stuff-we-did-this-year" report for the upcoming Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, December 2, 2008. As usual, we'll be "Storming the Bastille" and asking for accountability in measurable terms.

"See you on the Streets!"