Neighborhood Councils: Death by Meeting!

CityWatch, June 29, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 52

RETHINKING LA - Neighborhood Councils face many obstacles as they set out to “promote more citizen participation and make government more responsive to local needs” and the most formidable is the threat of “Death by Meeting!”

In many ways, Neighborhood Councils have become the enemy, taking on the bad habits that were the original seeds of discontent when the Battle Cry of Neighborhood Councils was “Let me in!” Neighborhood Council agendas look like City Council agendas, far from informative and even farther from inviting or interesting.

Neighborhood Council meetings look like City Council meetings, some going so far as to require sign-in sheets (in violation of the Brown Act) and identification of speakers (in violation of the Brown Act) because “That’s how they do it at City Hall!”

The loudest message that Neighborhood Councils can send to City Hall is not by email or by Community Impact Statement or by Board Resolution, it’s with behavior.

If Neighborhood Councils are committed to “promoting more citizen participation in government,” it will start with better agendas that actually inform the public and entice them to participating, not the current City Council knockoff that requires a bureaucratic decoder ring to figure out that ZA-2012-454-CE has something to do with that restaurant everybody is excited about and that ZA-2012-2258-CUB has something to do with the development that is causing much dismay.

When journalists cover Neighborhood Council meetings, they make them sound interesting by talking about the relevant topics that were discussed, the passionate speakers who participated, the delicious fare from local eateries that some councils feature.

Tiffany Kelly, now writing for the LA Times, had a knack for storytelling that turned ordinary and routine meetings into the local marketplace of ideas, stirring interest in her readers and prompting them to participate in local events.

The Woodland Hills Patch is able to convey the entire agenda of the Woodland Hills - Warner Center Neighborhood Council in simple language that makes it sound interesting, inviting, and even relevant.

If Neighborhood Councils are able to entice the public to participate, the next step to avoiding “Death by Meeting” is to make things interesting.

Even Walmart has a Greeter, someone with a special gift for saying “Hi!” If Neighborhood Council members hope to be treated with respect, it starts at the front door and requires that strangers get a big welcome when they give up their evening and venture into a Neighborhood Council meeting.

That greeting must be followed up with an introduction and a process that is inviting, not exclusive. Sign-In sheets and Speaker Cards are an option, not a requirement. Participation is the right of the public, not a privilege, and the process should reinforce that at every turn.

Once the public is in attendance, make the meeting interesting and avoid repeating the painful housekeeping tasks that kill a meeting.

Watching a Board debate corrections to meeting minutes is a sure-fire way to communicate “contempt of public” to an audience that is there to partner with the Council in making the neighborhood a better place for everybody.

Successful Neighborhood Councils know their audience and organize the agenda accordingly. Only the sadistic can look at a room full of people in attendance for an agenda item and hold them through all kinds of painful “business” while the energy in the room is depleted as a dwindling crowd waits for their topic.

Finally, if Neighborhood Councils have any hope for engaging the public and “making government more responsive to local needs,” it will start with a well-organized agenda that allows speakers and audience to plan their evening and know when their item will be heard.

Lots of people who present to Neighborhood Councils could attend two and three evenings if there were some method of actually organizing meetings so that presenters didn’t sit for hours looking at the agenda and wondering if they missed their moment of glory.

This isn’t about one person’s time being more important than another person’s, it’s about operating efficiently and with respect so that Neighborhood Councils can draw more, not less, interaction with City Management, Neighborhood Partners, local organizations, and the public.

The quickest way to end “Death by Meeting” is with agendas that are written for the public, programming that plays to the audience, and meeting time management that encourages participation.

Experts Split on Whether the Brown Act will Kill LA’s Neighborhood Councils

CityWatch, June 26, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 51

RETHINIKING LA - The mere suggestion that it might be time to revisit California’s open-meeting law with a Sunshine Ordinance draws two kinds of responses, best summed up as “It’s about time that common sense prevailed!” and “Have you joined the regulatory race to the bottom?” California’s Brown Act is currently under attack amidst charges that it is an outdated law that lacks contemporary teeth, allowing the more sophisticated municipal authorities to abuse it while the smaller community based parties find themselves encumbered by its complexity and liability.

On the one hand, the LA County Board of Supervisors acts with complete disregard for the Brown Act requirements that the people’s business be conducted in public. On the other hand, Neighborhood Councils close their Facebook accounts and create email firewalls out of fear that their digital conversations might qualify as a serial meeting in violation of the Brown Act.

As for Terry Francke’s suggestion that it might be time to follow the lead of other cities, both small and large, with an updating of the half-century old Brown Act, the feedback was both supportive and dismissive. And now it’s public!

On the one side came this message from a former member of the US Foreign Service who also participated in his local Neighborhood Council and points to the Brown Act as one of the reasons for dropping out.

“It seems to me that the spirit if not the letter of the Brown act could be preserved without “secret cabals and back-room politics”  if written communication between NC members (e-mail) was permitted as long as copies were sent to the NC archives.

“Anyone could read them there (even though it seems very few care about anything), and so the history of how a decision was reached could be preserved, without it all having to be done orally at NC meetings squeezed for time and often in confusion.

“None of the things an NC does are inherently secret, but having more time, over a matter of weeks instead of minutes, could result in better drafted resolutions with a chance to think about them and ponder unintended consequences for a while before a vote is taken.  Most of the problems I have seen come from the perceived prohibition on pre-meeting discussion of a topic.

Haste may make waste, but it also results in bad politics.”

Speaking for the other side came this response from a lawyer who is an expert in the Brown Act and the Public Records Act, both of which he relies on as he advocates on behalf of the people.

“Your complaint is that so many people violate the law that we should abolish the law.  If the law were stupid, like the pot laws, yes, but if the laws protect us from fraud and cronyism, then No. We need better education, but some people like ignorance.”

“If you tinker with the Brown Act for NCs, you'll find huge loopholes for City Councils, etc.  Already, the Brown Act is very weak on remedies.  The last thing this country needs to do is to encourage more fraud.

“Corruption and incompetence are the core evils that are killing LA and the nation as a whole.  In fact, corruption has spread far into Europe.  We need more ethical people and reducing laws that require them to act right even when they do not want to will never build a moral society.”

Whew!

While the debate over the Brown Act continues to simmer, it’s clear that the current scenario must be addressed with better education and enforcement so that those who are violating California’s Open Meeting commitment are held accountable while those who are acting appropriately can be relieved of the fear of liability and legal action.

Through it all, it is incumbent on our leadership to set the standard for compliance and for enforcement with their behavior.

In other words, it’s up to the people to hold the LA County Board of Supervisors accountable and for the City Council, Committees, and Commissions to demonstrate an inspired approach to conducting the people’s business in an open and transparent manner.

Will the Brown Act Kill LA’s Neighborhood Councils?

CityWatch, June 22, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 50

RETHINKING LA - When it comes to California’s Brown Act and Public Records Act commitment to open meetings and transparency, LA’s Neighborhood Councils are held to the same high standard as the LA County’s Board of Supervisors and LA’s City Council.

On the one hand this seems fair, after all, we’re all in this together and the spirit of the law is simply good governance.

But when the rubber hits the road, Neighborhood Councils are completely out-gunned and the result has had a chilling effect on grassroots democracy.
Neighborhood Councils continue to waste energy debating the impact of Facebook pages on their ability to engage in a public discussion without engaging in a serial meeting, a violation of the Brown Act. Unfortunately, the threat of liability has prompted some Councils to simply shut down their Social Media accounts as a solution to conducting their business openly and in accordance with the law.

Some Neighborhood Councils have been pummeled with Public Record Requests to the point that their solution is to simply refuse all documents and materials so that they can honestly respond to invasive and cumbersome requests by saying, “We have nothing!” which is an unfortunate result to the threat of liability.

Other Neighborhood Councils live in fear of violating the Brown Act through email conversations between Board members, resulting in firewalls that literally separate and isolate community members rather than bringing them together.

These three examples demonstrate the unfortunate outcome of the open meeting commitment: community members who disengage from their community and each other, all in response to threats of liability.

Terry Francke, President of Calaware, a non-profit committed to supporting and defending open government, dismisses the concerns by explaining, “The only concern of the Brown Act is that physical congregations or digital linkups, online or otherwise, not be used to build majority consensus about something the members should be reserving to meetings.  I don't know what kind of participation is contemplated, but if there's no contemporaneous or serial discussion by the majority of the same topic, there should be no risk.”

Francke knows what he’s talking about. He just settled a lawsuit with the LA County Supervisors in which he charged them with multiple violations of the Brown Act, including closed-door meetings and a conference call with the Governor, resulting in the Board paying $14,750 and including a statement regarding the September 2011 meetings in the official "Statement of Proceedings'' for the board.

On the one hand, large municipal bodies such as the County Supervisors and LA’s City Council repeatedly challenge the Brown Act and the Public Records Act with their behavior, supported by their deep pockets and their abundant legal counsel.

On the other hand, community volunteers find themselves vulnerable and overwhelmed by restrictions that have a chilling impact on their desire to engage the community and advise City Hall.

Francke suggests that it is time for Neighborhood Councils to enjoy some sunshine, in the form of a city Sunshine Ordinance.

“The ordinance would have to be done by initiative and would have to amend the city charter.  That's a tall order in terms of signature gathering, but Los Angeles residents have one advantage in such efforts that exists nowhere else in the state: the Neighborhood Councils. If most NC members, followers and alumni could agree on a common text for reform, they could provide an experienced and highly motivated corps of petition circulators to get the measure on the ballot.

“A Sunshine Ordinance could not only increase the visibility of what is done at City Hall and in the departments and the accountability of those who do it (or fail to), but address problems like the one you raise in your most recent column: the failure of adequate notice to the NCs of matters to be docketed by the council.  In broad terms, the Sunshine Ordinance strategy is pretty simple: Come up with a list of changes for which you can easily explain the need to the public, creating a reasonable agenda for public participation; present it to the council for adoption; watch the council attempt to water it down, stall its serious consideration or reject it outright; then launch signature gathering, citing the council's resistance to reform.

“I don't mean to oversimplify the task: it involves long, hard work, but for some sense of what voters will do when given a chance to play a role in controlling their own political institutions, look at the Sunshine Ordinance just placed on the November ballot in the tiny (18,000) City of Dixon, based on petitions circulated by an ardent civic watchdog and a relative handful of her friends.  You won't find a tougher upgrading of the Brown Act, Public Records Act and similar rules anywhere.  Another sunshine measure, on the Berkeley ballot, is not as demanding but does emphasize giving the public greater advance notice of items on city bodies' agendas.”

If Neighborhood Councils have any hope of keeping up with City Hall, they need a Sunshine Ordinance that keeps City Hall open and transparent without strangling the public in obstacles that can’t be overcome.

Are Neighborhood Councils Ready for Facebook?

CityWatch, June 19, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 49

RETHINKING LA - The great thing about participating in a Neighborhood Council is the fact that it provides a crash course in the Brown Act and in the Public Records Act. Unfortunately it's typically a literal crash, one that brings meetings to a screeching halt as members share anecdotal experiences, second hand information, and collective fears of legal action. Neighborhood Councils are currently debating the use of Facebook in the public arena, urged on by those who embrace the social media revolution and held back by those who fear Brown Act violations and Public Record Liabilities.

The irony of this Facebook debate is that it takes place in a city that is led by Social Media fans, including Mayor @Trutanich, City Attorney @Trutanich and LA's Facebook pioneer, former City Council President @Garcetti who was one of the first to max out his Facebook page with friends.

LA's City Leadership is so fond of social media that LA's Ethics Commission recently addressed the antiquated application of analog legal restrictions in a digital world. Politicians with active Facebook and Twitter accounts may soon be required to set up separate accounts for their political candidacy campaigns, a requirement that acknowledges the legitimacy of social media activity within City Hall and the need to address appropriate use.

Individuals with social media accounts have an obligation to keep their political work separate from their government work, a standard that applies to all they do, not just social media.

Groups with social media accounts, such as Neighborhood Councils, have an obligation to conduct themselves in accordance with Open Meeting Laws, a standard that applies to all public arenas and digital communications, not just social media.

The idea of a Neighborhood Council using Facebook to tell their story, engage their community, and invite stakeholders to events should result in a hearty round of yawns, after all, Facebook accounts are so common, they're almost passé.

But in some cases, simply suggesting that a Neighborhood Council operate a Facebook account as part of their outreach strategy results in shrill cries of "What about the Brown Act?"

Terry Francke, the Executive Director of CalAware and the lawyer who succeeded in his Brown Act case against the LA County Supervisors, reports that there is nothing unique about social media when it comes to the Brown Act.

Neighborhood Councils have much to contend with and threats of Brown Act and Public Records Act abuse simply has a chilling effect on the spirit of volunteerism.

LA's Mayor, City Attorney, and former City Council President have all utilized social media in their governmental work and have all demonstrated an ability to differentiate between appropriate governmental use and distinctly separate personal or political use.

Neighborhood Councils are definitely ready to follow City Hall down the same digital road.

LA's Ethics Commission stands prepared to grapple with need to address digital technologies and analog laws, removing the mystery from the discussion.

Again, Neighborhood Councils are definitely ready to follow City Ethics down that digital legal road.

The tools for communication will continue to evolve and if Neighborhood Councils are firmly grounded on their commitment to open and transparent governance, then they are ready for Facebook.

Can LA’s Neighborhood Councils Keep Up?

CityWatch, June 15, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 48

RETHINKING LA - Neighborhood Councils face an uphill battle as they attempt to fulfill their City Charter mandate to engage the public and advise City Hall, after all, they typically meet once a month while the City Council meets three times a week, making it tough to keep track of the issues and resulting legislation. Even the members of City Council, complete with dedicated staff and departmental liaisons, find it tough to keep up with the logjam of legislation, resulting in cries of “What are we voting on?” in a process that allows inaction to count as an affirmative vote.

Through it all, Neighborhood Councils are expected to monitor the delivery of city services and keep the public engaged in the process, a Sisyphean responsibility that challenges the capacity of the volunteer-driven Neighborhood Council system.

This prompts the question: “Can Neighborhood Councils keep up with the City of LA?”

If the City is serious about encouraging feedback from Neighborhood Councils, here are three things they can do to facilitate participation.

1. Plan ahead. Motions that have been simmering for years suddenly spring on to an agenda, leaving Neighborhood Councils 72 hours to wade through 15 pages of agenda to find the item and then mobilize and communicate with City Hall.

Councils can file Community Impact Statements on the general topic (“We like sidewalks!”) well in advance of the agendized legislation but the final action will typically have specificity (“Homeowners will pay for repairs by deferring costs until the property is sold.”) that defies official Neighborhood Council Board action. Volunteers that meet every month can’t respond to 72 hour notice with a Community Impact Statement that addresses the most recent iteration of long-simmering legislation.

Neighborhood Councils must get better notice when agenda items such as the Hollywood Community Plan are going to appear on the City Council agenda, especially if they have been in the process for years, so that community members can be involved in the journey all the way to the finish line.

2. Stick to the schedule. City Council agenda items are typically a moving target on agendas that are jammed with the full range of legislation, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. On some days, arriving a few minutes late means a wasted trip downtown. On others days, arriving on time means sitting for hours, never sure when a specific item will come up for comment and action.

The business of the people is important enough to schedule so that the public can participate without having to give up a day’s work for a minute’s commentary. The public’s ability to participate depends on the City Council treating the public with respect and the public’s time is a valuable asset that should not be squandered through sloppy management or underhanded machination.

3. Set a good example. Neighborhood Council leaders learn from the City Council, the Committees and the Commission. When members of the public are interrupted during public comment, it sets a bad example. When the public is required to sign in, a violation of the Brown Act, it sets a bad example. When the public is treated to agendas that are impossible to read, it sets a bad example.

If the City Council is serious about supporting Neighborhood Councils and engaging the public in the process, they will set an example by communicating well in advance, welcoming people to council chambers, offering informative agendas, and by listening during public comment, not interrupting or, even worse, simply ignoring.

As for the question, “Can Neighborhood Councils keep up?” the answer is yes, if the City Council is willing to partner with Neighborhood Councils in communication, organization, and respect.

Los Angeles: Are Neighborhood Council Elections Worth the Price?

CityWatch, June 12, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 47

RETHINKING LA - It’s Neighborhood Council election season, a period of time that is marked by the perennial  debate within City Hall over the high cost of representative government and the challenge “Do Neighborhood Council elections matter?” Elections are a Neighborhood Council’s most significant outreach opportunity, one that allows them to tell their story to their stakeholders, their potential candidates, the city as a whole, their neighborhood partners, and to City Hall. Most of all, it offers an opportunity to evaluate the past and to set a vision for the future.

LA’s City Charter calls on Neighborhood Councils to “Promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs,” a mandate that is best fulfilled with robust elections.

Simply positioning Neighborhood Council elections as an outreach event results in a firm “Yes, Neighborhood Council Elections matter!”

●●●●●●●●

(NOTE: The Education and Neighborhoods Committee will hear the CLA and CAO report on Tuesday on “the appropriate dollar amount for each Neighborhood Council to contribute toward conducting the 2012” NC elections. These funds would come out of individual Neighborhood Council budgets for 2012-13. Make sure your Neighborhood Council voice is heard on this issue. Info: Education and Neighborhoods Committee meeting, Tuesday, June 12, 2 pm. City Hall Room 1050)
●●●●●●●●

Elections also offer Neighborhood Councils an opportunity to “check their attitude,” a phrase used by airline pilots during landing who refer to their relationship to the ground as “attitude.” Pilots who want to avoid crashes will repeatedly “check their attitude.”

Neighborhood Councils who embrace robust and contested elections have an opportunity to revisit their story, their mission, and their relationship with the community.

Again, if Neighborhood Council Elections were evaluated simply on their ability to “check a council’s attitude,” the result would be “Yes, Neighborhood Council elections matter!”

Elections are a Neighborhood Council’s opportunity to connect with City Hall by engaging the community in a dialogue on the issues that matter to the people, whether they are voters or candidates.

City Hall’s commitment to responding to local needs is contingent on participation from the community. Candidates who can clearly address the issues that motivate them to run will give stakeholders a clear opportunity to communicate their priorities and their values.

This alone makes Neighborhood Council elections a worthwhile endeavor and the result is a clear “Yes, Neighborhood Council elections matter.”

Neighborhood Councils were created in response to local dissatisfaction with the delivery of city services and they came as part of a commitment to engage the people of LA with City Hall.

To that end, Neighborhood Council elections matter most to City Hall because, without them, City Hall’s commitment to involving the people in an open and participatory government is broken.

City Hall’s commitment to the people, as codified in the City Charter, is priceless. As a result, Neighborhood Council elections matter and they are worth the price.

Neighborhood Councils: Do They Matter?

CityWatch, June 8, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 46

RETHINKING LA - LA’s Neighborhood Councils are finally getting some respect, unfortunately it’s from admirers who live in cities such as London, Toronto, and Nagoya who look to LA and find inspiration.

As for hometown love, Neighborhood Councils find themselves struggling to get attention in a city that threatens their survival each budget cycle, challenges their purpose when convenient, and ignores them when they dare to advise City Hall.

As Neighborhood Councils kick off election season, the first challenge comes in the form of a yawn, first from City Hall and then from the community, followed by the tough question “Do neighborhood councils matter?”

The answer from fans in Toronto is “Yes!” and a picture of the front door of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment is part of an exhibit called “The Fourth Wall” which is challenging the notion that government takes care of the people’s business while the people play the role of spectator.

In London, activists and politicians cry “Yes!” and are looking to LA’s Neighborhood Councils for inspiration as they embark on a mission “to rediscover London as a collection of villages" and to address the budgetary tug-of-war between City Hall and the 32 borough councils.

The Mayor of Nagoya yelled “Yes!” and left his career in national politics to move into the real source of power, the local level, embracing LA’s Neighborhood Council concept and making it his own, demonstrating that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Meanwhile, Neighborhood Councils in the City of LA find themselves at a fork in the road. If they don’t act decisively, the answer to the question will be “No, Neighborhood Councils don’t matter.”

But if the people of LA step up, the answer will be a resounding “Yes, Neighborhood Councils matter!”

Neighborhood Councils are simply people. They are you. They matter if you matter and they matter if you believe in an engaged community, in transparent governance, in a direct route to City Hall, and in seizing the opportunity to hold city government accountable.

“Yes, Neighborhood Councils matter!” they matter because the people of LA matter and Neighborhood Councils are a tool for bringing individuals together so that they can address City Hall with a collective voice, one that comes with a City Charter mandate to hold City Hall accountable.

But the real answer to the question “Do Neighborhood Councils matter?” comes from you, the individual who must ask yourself the tougher question “Do you matter?” If the answer is “Yes!” then Neighborhood Councils matter because they are you and they are your best opportunity to ensure that City Hall listens to you, treats you with respect and delivers the City Services that you pay for.

Really, it’s all about you!

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS NOTICE:

The Education and Neighborhoods Committee will be hearing two important issues this Tuesday pertaining to Neighborhood Councils- 1) A CLA recommendation on how much NCs should be docked toward the cost of NC elections; and, 2) A detailed DONE report on who’s in and who’s not on Neighborhood Council Elections.

Councils should be monitoring and participating in these decisions. E & N Committee Meeting … Tuesday, June 12 … 2 pm … City Hall (Room 1050). Agenda details here.

Los Angeles: The People Must Come First

CityWatch, June 5, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 45

RETHINKING LA - Los Angeles will take its place as a Great City when it shifts from a complaint-driven system to a standards-driven structure, putting the people of LA first and positioning respect as the foundation for developing powerful relationships between the public and those in public service.

This simplistic statement amounts to a proverbial fork in the pothole-laden road for Los Angeles, one where the city can continue to instruct the public to call 311 to report potholes or one where the city develops a standard for its streets and then sets out to bring the streets up to standard.

In more general terms, it would free the public from being responsible for spending inordinate amounts of time requesting the most basic of city services and allow the public to actually partner with City Hall, working together to improve the quality of life in the community.

1) Open the front doors of City Hall to the public. Reward those who take the Metro to the Civic Center station and then walk to City Hall, put out the welcome mat, turn the courtyard into great public space, and send a message to the public that City Hall is their home. City Hall is a beautiful building but asking the public to use the back door is simply unacceptable.

For all of the money being spent on the 12-acre Grant Park that is being built to the west of City Hall, it still connects to doors that are closed to the public.

2) Position a concierge at each entrance and greet the public, offering real information and real answers. Tone down the oppressive security gauntlet, get rid of the stickers, lose the irrelevant sign-in sheet and dispense with all of the unnecessary labor. It's City Hall.

The most significant violence in recent history to occur on city property was committed by city employees so the inconsistent security standard simply positions the public as 2nd class while the staff are 1st class. Open the doors, treat the public with respect, put customer service first and hire those concierges!

3) Listen to the public, not simply as a demonstration of endurance, but as an opportunity to take notes, to engage, to incorporate public comment into the active-solution process. Public comment is not simply a Brown Act obligation, it is the essence of the relationship, it is the minimum standard and any real leader will transcend minimum and look for optimum.

Engage the public, ask for input, make feedback an integral element of moving forward. Anybody who takes a half day of their time to travel to City Hall should be thanked for caring enough to participate, rewarded for the investment of time and enlisted as a partner in making LA a Great City, not simply dismissed as 2 minutes of noise.

4) Instill an "Every door is the right door" policy so that the public never ever has to navigate the Department of "No" journey that fatigues the hardiest and consumes inordinate amounts of energy and time.

From the Mayor to the intern, treat every request as an opportunity to be of service. Find the answer, find the department, find the solution but never, ever send the public away with an admonition that they asked the wrong person or the wrong question or the wrong department. City Hall exists to remove obstacles.

I'm often convinced that there are those in power who think that it would be a lot easier to run the City of Los Angeles if it wasn't for all of the people.

This attitude seems to originate in City Hall and then waft through some of the departments and offices, resulting in staff who seem to think that transportation would be a lot easier to manage if it wasn't for all of the traffic, that social services would be easier to handle if it wasn't for all of the needy people, that emergencies would be easier to address if they would just take place between Monday and Friday.

It's simple to suggest that the City of Los Angeles could take a lesson from Disneyland or Nordstroms or Trader Joe's or Southwest Airlines or Rackspace, companies that put a focus on customer service in good times and then double down when things get rough. But the immediate response tends to be "That's different, we're in the public service sector!"

Fair enough but one of the most successful change agents has been busy at work in Los Angeles over the last couple of years and the City of LA let him get away.

The Metrolink’s CEO, John Fenton, just took a job in Florida after spending two years turning Metrolink around. He arrived in the wake of the deadly 2008 train crash that took the lives of 25 passengers. He transformed a demoralized organization into a tight team that focused on treating passengers like guests, not cargo.

Fenton took a train system that spans 500 miles and services 6 counties, hobbled with budget constraints and bad press, and the world took notice.

While others were courting John Fenton, the City of LA debated the hold music on 311 and the background music on Channel 35.

The City of Los Angeles exports talent, from our schools, from our companies, from our public works partners, and from our municipal ranks.


When John Fenton arrived in town he declared  "Everything we do, we do for people. If we forget the human element, we will fail!"

We let Fenton get away but his words belong in City Hall. City Hall exists to serve the people of LA and if Los Angeles is to become a City that Works, it will be because the people of Los Angeles come first.

High atop City Hall in the Tom Bradley room, the words of Thomas Jefferson are inscribed on the wall. "That government is the strongest of which every man feels a part.” I propose that the Mayor and the City Council have a basic mandate and that is to make sure that every man and woman feels a part of the City of Los Angeles.

City Hall’s Welcome Mat Says It All

CityWatch, June 1, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 44

RETHINKING LA - To live in Hollywood is to assume the role of tour guide. On a daily basis I am reminded that I live in a great city, one that attracts tourists from around the world who come here to experience the stories that Los Angeles tells, some true and some fiction, but all of them compelling.

I frequently meet strangers who have that lost look on their face and it’s my habit to make eye contact and give them the nod, indicating that it’s okay to ask for directions. That brief moment of wayfinding costs me nothing and yet it has such an impact. All it takes is a moment to point them to the best place to photograph the Hollywood sign or visit the Griffith Observatory or find the Hollyhock House or travel on the Walk of Fame.

I rarely speak the correct language but it never matters, even when they’re on the wrong train, headed to North Hollywood in search of the Kodak, or on Santa Monica Boulevard looking for the sandy beaches. A bit of pantomime, directions to a map, a quick sketch on a scrap of paper, even a brochure from one of the many racks, and my work as an ambassador is complete.

Tourism is the number one jobs generator in Los Angeles so it makes sense to take care of our tourists and it certainly reminds me on a daily basis that I live in the center of the universe when it comes to culture, the arts, history, the entertainment industry, education, and all of the things that attract people from all over the world.

Local businesses capitalize on the opportunity by reaching out with information, some by passively hosting brochure racks and others who fill the sidewalks with flyer patrols who compete with hawkers and buskers.

Through it all, they communicate loudly and clearly, “Welcome to LA, we’ve been waiting for you!”

Walt Disney wrote the book on hospitality and central to his philosophy was the simple rule that your number one responsibility was to care for the guests, no matter what your position. The people who sweep the streets of Disneyland are typically the first person a lost child will encounter so their training starts with learning the names of the Seven Dwarfs, not with principles of sanitation.

This focus on “corporate culture” means that everybody in the Disney organization is trained to understand that their professional competence can be evaluated by their ability to communicate successfully with a lost child.

Imagine if that commitment to guest satisfaction were part of LA’s “civic culture” and an expression of City Hall’s core purpose and core values.

Visitors to City Hall, whether local or tourist, would be able to wander through City Hall and be greeted by friendly and helpful hosts who are ready to offer directions, tell a story, comfort a lost child, and steer the public through the City Hall experience.

Dave Meslin of Toronto has taken to acting like a tourist in City Hall, asking the first person at the first counter for directions to the brochure rack, to the information kiosk, the tour guide. He typically gets a blank stare but he is determined to remove barriers to civic engagement.

If City Hall is serious about conducting the business of the people in a transparent and inclusive manner, it will start by treating locals the way Walt Disney treats tourists, like honored guests.

LA’s City Council Needs a Maître d’

CityWatch, May 29, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 43

RETHINKING LA -One of City Hall’s best defenses against public participation is its charming tradition of vagueness with regard to the business of the people.

With great regularity the City Council acts with firm authority and calls on city departments to conduct surveys, to issue reports, and to return with proposals and drafts suitable for further pontification and public dissemination. Eventually the activity begins to wane and the original action dies the most humiliating death, it gets smothered by dust and simply fades into irrelevance.

As for the members of the public who were engaged in the initial action, their patience has been tested, their time has been wasted, and their confidence in the efficacy of civic engagement has been depleted.

When controversial issues continue to draw the attention of the public, much to the dismay of the Council Members who would like to see actions take place in empty chambers, free of the noise that comes with enthusiastic public participation, the best way to shake the crowd is to hold it in limbo until it finds its way on a busy agenda and slips through the system silently.

It requires dedicated and diligent trackers to catch these items, some of which languish for months before they race for the finish line on agendas that are typically surrounded by distractions.

When the trackers catch these stealth City Council actions and alert the community, turning out the crowd that insists on speaking in public and drawing attention to the controversial issue, the next sleight of hand takes place as the agenda is shuffled and the meeting is drawn out to such lengths that time runs short, public comment is reduced to the minimum, and the item in question is held until anything and everything else is resolved. Hours later, even the hardiest of community members has had time to rethink their commitment and their hope for meaningful civic engagement.

Observers of LA’s City Council agenda machinations fall into two schools, those who believe in conspiracy and those who attribute it all to incompetence.

Conspiracy buffs point to the scheduled absences of Councilmembers and note the issues that come up while they are gone, a pattern that allows them to maintain the neutral high road as controversial actions slide through the system.

The current Hollywood Community Plan is an example of a hot-topic item that is floating, prompting community members to track Hollywood Councilmember Eric Garcetti’s scheduled absences in the hopes of determining when the controversial issue will surface in City Council.

Those who dismiss the foibles of City Council as simple incompetence need only point to the familiar refrain “What are we voting on?” that is heard with alarming regularity from a body that gets better press for debating the background music on the City’s Channel 35 than for actually running the city and delivering the services that the people depend on.

Through it all, it’s fair to ask “What can we do?”

The answer is quite simple, run City Council like a decent restaurant. Hire a host, take reservations, announce specials in advance, greet the public, offer them a menu, stick to a schedule, deliver what is promised, check back to ensure satisfaction, and get paid based on prompt and satisfactory service.

As simplistic as this sounds, having a host run the agenda would allow people to check in, determine when their item would be scheduled for hearing, and return when appropriate.

Currently, the public sits for hours, afraid to leave for fear their item will be taken out of order.

From London to Toronto, community activists are calling on their city leadership to introduce respect and empathy into the civic engagement process by embracing scheduling as a foundation for robust meetings and hearings.

As for LA, there’s nothing wrong with City Hall that can’t be fixed by a decent maitre d' and a commitment to serve the people on time and efficiently.

City Hall: Everybody's Talking, Nobody's Listening

CityWatch, May 25, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 42

RETHINKING LA - Brown Act be damned, it takes a skilled tracker to navigate the City of LA's Byzantine process for communicating announcements, policies, meetings, hearings, agendas and actions.

Veterans of the bureaucratic jungle typically develop tracker instincts that allow them to monitor the subtle signs of City Hall activity and stay informed of impending actions on behalf of the people.
It shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't require such diligence to stay informed, to get involved, and to monitor City Hall as it engages in the business of the people.

Dave Meslin, a Toronto based artist and activist, contends that typical municipal communications come wrapped in a web of barriers that alienate everyday people. Meslin contends that public participation would increase if City Hall employed the same successful standards for communication that can be found in the private sector. After all, that's where businesses die if they keep old customers informed while engaging new customers.

"Public notices should be completely redesigned as marketing materials," says Meslin, "instead of the traditional documents that are characterized by small type, lack of color, lousy graphics (or none at all) and oodles of bureaucratic gobbledygook."

It may seem like a tall order to expect the folks within City Hall to turn into marketing experts overnight but the evidence demonstrates they already have significant skills.

The hallway to the DWP's cafeteria is crowded with colorful posters that are tastefully displayed on easels, all announcing retirement parties and featuring photos and hard to resist invitations to party one more time with a beloved co-worker.

When it matters, people know how to throw a party and to invite the guests with lots of time to prepare. If only those skills were put to work on the people's business.

City Hall has a big poster announcing the City Clerk's road trip to Harrah's Casino. It's colorful, enticing, and has a big headline announcing the "End-of-Year Celebration."

Perhaps if the people's business was treated as a celebration rather than an obligation, we'd see colorful notices that entice instead of confuse.

The bulletin boards at City Hall are full of well designed flyers that clearly communicate car pools in need of passengers, social events in need of participants, retirement parties in search of celebrants, and exercise clubs in pursuit of moral support.

Again, they're fun, well designed, and they successfully compete for attention in crowded hallways on cluttered bulletin boards.

The skills exist in City Hall, but the habit of erring in favor of the legal minimum when it comes to announcement, agendas, actions, and policies has resulted in what Meslin refers to as an insurmountable wall of obfuscation.

When it matters, the people within City Hall have the skills necessary to communicate as if they really wanted you to know what was going on and why you should be there if the City Council meetings were given the same enthusiastic billing.

It's up to the people of LA to demand that City Hall communicate with the public with the same degree of respect that the carpoolers, the stair masters, and the bingo junket riders get.

LA’s City Hall: Too Many Departments, Not Enough Light Bulbs

CityWatch, May 22, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 41

RETHINKING LA - Austin Beutner, while still stumping the Mayoral campaign trail, told a story of how many City of LA Departments it took to change a light bulb. In this case a light bulb on a light pole.

Apparently it takes the Department of Water and Power because they control the electricity to the bulb. It also takes the Bureau of Street Services because they are responsible for the actual street and sidewalk that hosts the light pole. Add to the mix the Department of Transportation because they are responsible for controlling traffic as the heavy equipment blocks the street. Rounding out the effort is the Bureau of Street Lighting, the folks who actually install the light bulb.

If the light bulb is being replaced as the result of a motor vehicle collision, a fairly common occurrence in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department may end up investigating a traffic collision that will then require the Bureau of Sanitation to send a team to clean up the debris in the street.

Beutner made much of this multi-departmental dance that demonstrates LA’s commitment to maintaining siloed departments that have their own language, their own communication style, their own rules, and their own authority. Heck, some of them have their own police force.

When Beutner told his story, it drew chuckles. After all, it’s a light bulb joke!

But when it happens to people who live in Los Angeles and who expect the City of LA to efficiently deliver City Services to the people of LA, it is no longer a joke. It is a crisis.

Recently, a resident of an R-1 home engaged in a bit of Spring Cleaning and found himself with a big load of trash that would not fit in the single black trash bin given to him by the Bureau of Sanitation and picked up on a weekly basis. So, he did what works.

The resident made several trips across the street to deposit the loose trash on the sidewalk outside the local church. Why? Because if he called Sanitation, they would charge him for an extra bin as a long term solution or for the additional trash if he wanted a one-time extra pickup.

Instead, the resident engaged in a misdemeanor act of “illegal dumping” that carries with it a first-time penalty of $500. This misdemeanor doesn’t have to be witnessed by a law enforcement officer, and in this case, it didn’t take much to determine guilt. Items with the resident’s name and address were found in the trash as well as his ID card and then he confessed, twice, to the illegal dumping.

Here is where the City of LA’s multi-departmental approach to changing light bulbs, or in this case, taking out the trash, gets convoluted and ultimately fails the people of Los Angeles.

The pastor of the church sees the trash and calls 311. He also sends an email that alerts the City Council office to the ongoing problem on this street and activates neighbors who call the Senior Lead Officer of the LAPD.

311 is supposed to be the “one phone call is all it takes” solution to the byzantine morass that is the City of LA but the reduced hours of operation, the long hold time when a call is placed, and the slim chances that the call will activate the correct department are all evidence that 311 is not a solution.

The 311 operator took the call and sent the Bureau of Sanitation to clean up the illegal dumping mess. A neighbor had already pulled the identifying elements from the trash heap and set them aside for the investigators.

After the Bureau of Sanitation cleaned the site, the Bureau of Street Services arrived to conduct an investigation. They have enforcement authority, including citation and arrest, but if they get to the scene after it has been cleaned, it’s tough to investigate or prosecute.

In this case, there was still evidence because the Bureau of Sanitation only took the larger debris, leaving behind the illegal dumper’s identification card from his Law School. (so much for the “I had no idea!” defense)

The plot thickens though because the LAPD’s Senior Lead Officer had already knocked on the illegal dumpers door and accepted the “Sacre Bleu!” defense, allowing the resident to call 311 and demonstrating a disconnect from municipal code and Sanitation charges.

While it is hardly incumbent on a SLO to know the minutiae of LA’s sanitation billing, it is their responsibility to know the laws that impact the quality of life issues that a SLO deals with. In this case, illegal dumping on street where it is a common occurrence would suggest that a SLO with a decade plus of experience might know the difference between an apartment building and a house or bulky items and loose trash.

Further adding to the confusion at the trash heap is the charming habit of the local Councilman to send a truck he has commandeered from the Department of Public Works around the neighborhood, picking up trash and focusing on the symptom of illegal dumping rather than the solution.

Instead of actually running the city and addressing the systemic issues that result in massive budgets that fail to deliver city services, his solution is to send a Council Deputy in sandals out in a City vehicle with a driver to pick up evidence of illegal dumping, further thwarting an effective investigation.

Missing from this heap o’ departments at the trash pile is the City Attorney’s office which has a Neighborhood Prosecutor standing by to address quality of life issues such as the long-term residents who know how to game the system.

Of course, there is not much the Neighborhood Prosecutor can do if the Senior Lead Officer is busy yelling at residents “I don’t know what else I can do!” and “I don’t know why this is such a big deal!”

Added to the failure is the ease with which the Bureau of Street Services Investigator accepted the resident’s story without simply calling 311 to verify the accuracy of their defense. That would have required the investigator to breach the silo walls, talking to a 311 operator and Bureau of Sanitation staff.

The bottom line is this, the City of LA is incapable of addressing an illegal dumping incident, one that is actually part of a pattern of abuse on this same street.

Of the many departments involved here, it is apparent that LA’s City Hall has become the Tower of Babel.

The Bureau of Sanitation is a mysterious entity that requires an insider’s password in order get to those responsible for operations.

The Bureau of Street Services only takes voice messages that are then written down by the receptionist, explaining where those old “Missed Call” message pads were sent.

The City Council office sent instructions that contradict the 311 advice of old and ensure job security for the “Trash Truck” Deputy, calling on residents “in the know” to simply go directly to the Council Office to get trash picked up.

Through it all, the SLO instructs the local to organize cleanups because “As you know it is up to your neighbors and the entire neighborhood to get involved and keep your area clean.”

Meanwhile, the beleaguered 311 operators take calls from harried Angelenos who spend too much time on hold and not enough time seeing results. If 311 is only open when people are busy getting to work, working and getting home from work, it’s safe to say that the system is not meeting people where they need to be met.

If there is a budget crisis in Los Angeles, it is because too many departments are protecting their siloed turf and antiquated communications systems while the residents of LA stand by and wonder why it takes so many departments to change so few light bulbs.

Why Does Illegal Dumping Take Place in Hollywood? Because it Works!

CityWatch, May 18, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 40

RETHINKING LA - The Pastor of a local church arrived at his office to find a large pile of debris on the sidewalk next to his church property. It consisted of some furniture, some busted boxes of personal belongings, some trash, the kind of debris that is typically left behind when somebody moves.

The Pastor called 311 and then sent an email with a picture of the illegal dumping to some neighbors and to the City Councilman asking “What are people thinking?”

The answer is simple. They are thinking “If I carry my trash across the street, I won’t get charged for the pickup of the bulky items.”

In other words, people dump their junk on our quiet street because it works.

The Senior Lead Officer responded by sending an email saying “One idea would be is to contact the Department of Sanitation and have them remove the trash. I will put in a request for you but in the future you can contact 311 and place a request for a cleanup. Another idea, if you are interested, is to organize your neighbors and do a cleanup day in your neighborhood. I can contact operation clean sweep and request cleaning supplies. If you have further questions please feel free to call me.”

The problem with this advice is that it rewards the person dumping the trash by removing it without an investigation, and makes it the neighbor’s responsibility to do the dirty work. In other words, it works. 

The Council Office responded by sending an email (two days after the illegal dumping) “I have sent this to our beautification crew and have requested that they go out today and remove the items. In the future, please send it directly to me as well so that I can forward it on to the appropriate beautification staff depending on the day.”

This solution is equivalent to wiping the blood off the wound. It doesn’t stop the problem it simply cleans it up for a few moments. Again, for the person dumping, it works.

The Department of Sanitation responded by sending a crew that picked up the bulky items, leaving behind the broken glass and small debris that would require a broom or a shovel and a little more attention.

This solution is paid for by the “Multi-Family Bulky Item Fee” that is charged to all residents of apartments with 5 or more units per building on a monthly basis on their utility bill. In other words, two-thirds of the city pays for bulky item pickup while the other third pays if they call for a pickup. This is what motivates people to carry their trash across the street and to dump it in front of apartment buildings or in this case, a church.

The Bureau of Sanitation responded to the 311 call by sending a truck and picking up the larger items, leaving behind small bits of debris that included the ID card for the person who ended up confessing to the illegal dumping.

This solution keeps the Department of Sanitation busy cleaning our streets but it does nothing to stop those who do the dumping. In fact it does the opposite because it sends a loud message that “Illegal dumping works!”

The Bureau of Street Services is responsible for investigating illegal dumping but they don’t get notified when a resident calls 311 unless the party calling knows that Sanitation cleans while Street Services investigates. (Even our Senior Lead Officer didn’t know this!)

The person who dumped the trash on the sidewalk outside the church left several items in the trash that contained their name and address. (Across the street!) They left packaging from recent Amazon purchases and their final examinations from Law School. These items were given to the investigator from Street Services who took another look and found the ID card.

Meanwhile the Senior Lead Officer is convinced that no crime had been committed because the person who did the dumping says they called 311 for a pickup. The SLO was happy with the explanation, missing the “defrauding the city” and “illegal dumping” possibilities along with the trash that remained on the street.

The City of LA has Neighborhood Prosecutors who respond to quality of life issues, they simply need the cooperation of the LAPD. The LAPD has Senior Lead Officers but if they are limited to suggesting that residents do a better job of cleaning their streets, there is little hope that the Neighborhood Prosecutor will get LAPD support.

Sanitation cleans up big and bulky things but is not so good at the detail work. Meanwhile Street Services investigates illegal dumping and could balance the city’s budget crisis just by tracing the trash before it gets picked up and charging the offending parties the appropriate penalties.

As for Hollywood, it is your dumping ground. Your trash will be blamed on the renters, the Council Office will send the Beautification Team, the illegal dumping will get picked up for free, and the Senior Lead Officer will come around to suggest that the locals sweep the street up after you.

Seriously, illegal dumping takes place in Hollywood because it works!

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.)

Beutner defends his record in City Hall...Efficiency, Accountability, Connectivity

CityWatch, Feb 28, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 17

LA MAYOR'S RACE 2013 - Austin Beutner arrived fashionably late for his AIA/LA Mayoral Candidate Forum, a conversation moderated by Bill Roschen, President of LA’s Planning Commission, and Christopher Hawthorne, Architecture Critic for the LA Times, with an audience made up of architectural and planning professionals, City Hall insiders, transportation advocates, and community activists.

Faced with an opportunity to either demonstrate his architectural chops or to defer to the professionals and commit to partnering with experts, Beutner instead chose to speak confidently but superficially, expressing common platitudes but without solutions.

When talking about transit, Beutner pointed at the folly of a Green Line that doesn’t get to the Airport but failed to offer a solution or to comment on other struggling options such as the Flyaway.

Beutner took the time to point out that the Subway to the Sea doesn’t actually go to the sea but failed to address solutions or to demonstrate an understanding of the transit planning process or to even simply acknowledge that there is a difference between the Metro and the Metrolink.

Both Roschen and Hawthorne went to great lengths to establish the connectivity between land use, urban design, and mobility but Beutner failed to position himself as someone who could get LA moving.

“I wasn’t prepared to be so disappointed,” exclaimed the Transit Coalition’s Bart Reed, “but this guy has no idea how mass transit works or how it’s funded!”

Beutner riffed on Downtown’s Broadway Streetcar (it’s about managing resources), Leimert Park’s Train Station (it’s about good choices), High Speed Rail (it’s about priorities), and light rail down freeways (it’s about common sense).

Along the way he fumbled by referring to Streetcar/Leimert Park funding as fungible, by missing the recent developments in High Speed Rail planning, and by failing to recognize that light rail down freeways is typically disconnected from walkable communities.

While Beutner’s transit cred left his potential audience scratching their collective heads, his low-key style is likable, as are his anecdotes that come close to positioning him as the guy next door.

Beutner refers to himself as a simple guy who washed dishes, drove a truck, went to college, worked hard and gave proof to the validity of the American Dream by creating a company that went public and made him comfortably rich.

When asked about his four kids (aged 8 to 15) and if any of them had expressed an interest in becoming architects, he answered “They’re in their deconstruction phase.” This prompted an audience member to declare “Perfect for an LA architect!”

While telling a story of his early days, Beutner is quietly charming as he refers to himself as the original Twitterer, driving a floral delivery truck and sharing gossip from one customer to the next.

Along the way, his folksy tone fails him. His commentary on governmental absurdities is the equivalent of having a nutritionist point out that hot dogs come in packages of ten while buns come in packages of eight. It’s true but hardly a significant observation and completely irrelevant unless it comes with a plan for action.

“The City of LA has custom built trash trucks,” he notes, failing to point out the relevance, his solution or how this relates to the recent developments in commercial trash hauling in Los Angeles.

“Chicago’s Mayor Daley simply took bulldozers and did the work in the middle of the night,” he pointed out admiringly, while failing to make it clear if he was that kind of “get it done” candidate for Mayor.

“The City of LA owns loads of prime real estate that should be park space,” he observes, while failing to address how he would facilitate the transfer of property or fund the development and maintenance of parks or if he would simply well it off to balance the budget.

“Our sidewalks and our streets are collapsing,” he notes, drawing the audience in for an empathetic embrace, then leaving them hanging as he passes on the opportunity to present a plan for funding, for repairing, or for invoking the spirit of Daley in declaring himself as the guy who will get it done.

Granted, the AIA/LA is a tough audience, seasoned veterans of LA’s urban design battlefield who are well versed in community plans, zoning code, funding obstacles, and the democratization of land use policy and implementation.

But the AIA/LA crowd are also optimists, die-hard visionaries who still believe in transformation and winning them could have been as simple as invoking the skyline that must be protected but when challenged as to the identity of those buildings that must be protected, he came up empty.

Given another chance for historic preservation redemption, he again came up empty when asked what buildings we have lost that should have been protected.

Beutner spent 15 months inside City Hall, reportedly running the city for all practical purposes, an experience that armed him with enough anecdotes to fill the typical Candidate’s Forum and this was no exception.

When asked about the Planning department, he told a story about the LAPD.

When asked about the streamling City Hall, he told a story about homelessness.

When asked about appointing General Managers, he told a story about how many city departments it takes to change a light bulb.

When asked about the role of architecture in our community, he told a story about the ability of the Broad Museum to draw in the community and the world.

Austin Beutner has a fairly unique vantage point in the Mayoral race, with three City Hall insiders to one side and a grassroots outsider on the other. It is up to him to clearly identify himself as the candidate who brings charismatic presence to the role, or as the candidate who is incredibly aware of the intricacies of City Hall, or as the candidate who can tap into the world’s experts and manage them as they run the city or any of a number of combinations but he simply fell short.

He failed to work the room and to demonstrate the ability to charm individuals or read an audience.

He failed to demonstrate a mastery of the details of land use, urban design, planning policy, and mobility issues or to communicate, leaving the audience wondering if this is the candidate who can connect LA, literally and figuratively.

He relied on information from handlers and briefers that was superficial if not incorrect, leaving the audience to question his judgment and his ability to tap into LA’s pool of experts.

He referenced Great Cities from around the world, all of them led by charismatic characters who charm the masses or municipal powerhouses who fund and execute visions or great coaches who wrangle the best performances from teams of geniuses.

Beutner’s opportunity was to communicate that he was one of these three styles of leader and his performance fell short. Granted, he is a significantly successful man who is quite comfortable in many arenas and he speaks confidently and assertively.

He tells a story of his first days as Deputy Mayor, when he picked up the phone and called Steve Samples of USC and Gen Block of UCLA. The point of the story is to illustrate his wisdom in calling the two largest employers in LA as well as to ask for their help. “Nobody had ever called them before,” Buetner points out, “and this is where the expertise is found.”

Missing from this anecdote is the fact that two thirds of LA’s local economy are small businesses and the opportunity for Austin Beutner the Mayoral Candidate is for him to connect with individual operators, either as the charming charismatic candidate, or the municipal expert, or as the local guy who can lead professionals in the delivery of city services.

The LA chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA/LA) is committed to promoting the role of Architecture in LA’s municipal battlefield as the public grapples with urban design, planning, mobility, and land use policy issues.

The AIA/LA believes that the Mayoral race of 2013 is an important opportunity to engage the candidates in a conversation that allows the architectural community to communicate its priorities and the candidate to present their architectural street cred.

To this end, the AIA/LA is hosting a five part weekly series that allows each of the five leading Mayoral candidates to engage in a conversation about urban design, mobility, architecture, and LA’s built environment.

There are three more AIA/LA Mayoral Candidate Forums taking place over the next four Friday evenings. Kevin James is scheduled for Friday, March 2, followed by Wendy Greuel on Friday, March 9.

Visit City Watch LA for video of the evening as well as for highlights that feature Beutner’s comments on his role in City Hall and the need to address overlaps between city departments.

For more information on future AIA/LA Mayoral Candidate Forums, visit the AIA/LA website.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.)

“Mr. Brown” Takes His Act to City Hall

RETHINKING LA - This past Tuesday, “Mr. Brown” headed over to LA’s City Hall in order to attend the City Council’s regularly scheduled public meeting. He never made it.

Mr. Brown knew that parking opportunities downtown were expensive and limited so he took the Metro, arriving at the Civic Center station and walking east, pausing to admire the impressive architecture of the Times building, the LAPD Headquarters, and the Caltrans building.

As Mr. Brown followed his map to 200 N. Spring Street, he turned north and stood across the street from City Hall, a building so awe inspiring, he found himself simply standing and looking up at the world’s tallest base isolated structure. This was were he committed his first mistake of the day.

Mr. Brown crossed the street, using a crosswalk decorated with the LA City Seal and a peace dove, and walked up the granite steps, through the huge arches and into the Romanesque forecourt.

He paused to read the inscription over the doorway, “Righteousness Exalteth a People,” and emboldened by the words of Solomon he continued walking toward the front door of LA’s City Hall.

Again he paused, this time to examine the bronze bas relief carvings that memorialize half a dozen key events in LA’s history, including one with Commodore Robert Field Stockton and Major John Charles Fremont saluting the flag in “American Occupation 1846.”

Mr. Brown opened the door and took a couple of steps, pausing to allow his eyes to adjust to the sudden shift from the sunlight to the dimly lit atrium. He was greeted by a man in uniform, complete with a badge and a gun, who stood in his way.

“You can’t come in here.” said the uniformed greeter.

“I’m here to attend a public meeting.” explained Mr. Brown.

“You have to exit, go around the building, and enter through the back of the building. The front entrance is only for City of LA staff and officials.” said the doorman as if he was guarding LA’s most exclusive club.

“But I’m a member of the public here to attend a public meeting.” repeated Mr. Brown.

“Back up, go around the building, and use the back door.” repeated the officer from LA’s Office of Public Safety, this time a tad more gruffly than the first time.

Mr. Brown exited and circled the building, and entered through the back door where he was greeted by a full contingent of OPS officers who were operating screening equipment.

He placed his personal belongings on the conveyor belt and waited while a little old man was repeatedly sent through the screening machine, each time eliciting a beep that prompted the OPS officer to repeat the instruction “remove all metal objects.” The little old man would shift his cane from one hand to the other as he patted his pockets and searched for the offending security violation, coming up empty each time.

Eventually, the OPS officer and his partner noticed that the little old man was wearing suspenders, an oversight that prompted them to give him a lecture on the need to declare his suspenders in the future.

Mr. Brown was screened with no problems, and as he followed the little old man with the cane, another OPS officer bellowed “Come back here, I need to see your ID.”

“I’m here to attend a public meeting.” explained Mr. Brown.

“I need to see your ID.” repeated the OPS officer from behind the counter.

“Am I being detained?” asked Mr. Brown.

“No, you just need to show me your ID so I can give you this sticker.” said the OPS officer who was responsible for a clipboard filled with names and a sheet of stickers.

“Then you don’t need my ID, I’m here to attend a public meeting.”

“Oh!” said the OPS officer, “You’re using the Brown Act. You need to tell me that you’re using the Brown Act.”

“Actually, there are no magic words or passwords or special phrases needed in order to attend a public meeting under the Brown Act,” explained Mr. Brown, “One does not need to know the specifics of the Brown Act in order to be covered by the Brown Act. I’m here to attend a public meeting, you know it is covered by the Brown Act, and it is your legal obligation and sworn duty to allow me to attend without demanding ID.”

“Why are you giving me a hard time?” the OPS officer said, apparently a rhetorical question that was certainly beneath her role as a Sergeant with LA’s Office of Public Safety.

“Actually, it is you who is giving a member of the public a hard time,’ responded Mr. Brown, “first by ‘demanding’ identification from a member of the public who is simply trying to attend a public meeting and then by requiring a ‘magic phrase’ in order to invoke the Brown Act. You’re not only giving me a hard time, you’re committing a misdemeanor in the presence of law enforcement officers.”

Mr. Brown took his sticker from Sgt. “M” and began to walk toward the elevators when he thought twice and decided to talk to a supervisor. He asked a different OPS officer (budget constraints be damned, there were six OPS officers in the lobby of City Hall) and a radio request went out for the Watch Commander.

The Lieutenant on duty sent over a Sergeant, a large man who would definitely benefit from a few days in charm school. His disdain for Mr. Brown was palpable and his interest in the Brown Act guarantees was minimal, if any existed at all.

“I’m sure that if we were doing something wrong, the City Attorney would tell us.” Sgt. “L” explained, turning as if his confidence in the status quo was sufficient to end the conversation.

“But your officers seem to think that a demand for ID is acceptable and it isn’t.” explained Mr. Brown. “Further, they seem to think that there is a Brown Act password that must be exercised in order to invoke the Brown Act. That’s also not true.

“I’ not sure of any of the details of the Brown Act,’ Sgt. “L” explained, casting doubts on the efficacy of OPS supervision, “But the City Attorney tells us what to do and we do it. I’m sure if the City Attorney has a policy, it’s a legal policy.”

Mr. Brown realized that conversation with Sgt. “L” was going nowhere so he asked if he could file a complaint. Sgt ”L” said he had to go to his car for the form, a trip that took 20 minutes, resulting in the return of an empty-handed Sgt “L” who explained that he would have to go to Headquarters for the form. (OPS HQ is across the street)

In light of the time it took Sgt. “L” to simply get to his car which was parked at the curb, Mr. Brown considered how long it would take Sgt. “L” to actually cross the street and chose to visit OPS HQ himself. He crossed the street, entered the underground mall and found the OPS HQ, just past the Togo’s and to the right.

The OPS Watch Commander listened attentively with just a hint of fatigue and acknowledged that the City Attorney had performed Brown Act training, that the OPS request for ID is just a request, that there is no “magic phrase” that invokes the Brown Act, and that the City Attorney had distributed training materials to the OPS officers.

Mr. Brown asked for a copy of the Brown Act training materials, a request that brought a look of pain to the Watch Commander’s face. He shuffled a few stacks of documents and asked a Sergeant at the front desk if there was a copy of the Brown Act training procedures anywhere in the office. There was none.

After a bit of a search, he offered a substitute, a one-inch thick OPS Policies and Procedures Manual, complete with bright red cover that surely signified its importance.

Mr. Brown scanned through the manual and quickly located the section of the manual that addressed visitors who “either do no (sic) have identification or refuse to present identification upon request. Officers should not deny access to any person as long as they have been properly screened and their bags inspected (Refer to Chapter 6 Section XX-D).”

It was immediately apparent that nobody had actually read the manual because the manual directed the reader to Chapter 6 Section XX-D that is entitled “Dangerous Animal Escape and Response.”

This explains the look on the face of Sgt. “L” as he parked his car curbside and entered LA’s City Hall. He was apparently prepared for an encounter with a “Dangerous Animal Escape.”

While the line between “members of the public” and “dangerous animal escape” may be extremely thin in the eyes of City Hall’s security detail, California’s Brown Act still prevails and the public has the right to attend public meetings without fear of being treed, tranquilized, or chased by Animal Control.

Mr. Brown took the time to point out the typos in the OPS Manual, including the fact that OPS officers are told to give a Blue sticker to people who show their ID and Red stickers to the other members of the public, then offering contradictory instructions.

First “Officers who then observe a person wearing a red visitor badge should be cognizant of the reasons why it was issued.”

Then “However, officers should not treat the wearer with any unwarranted suspicion.”

The OPS Manual concludes by instructing “Officer must be mindful that City Hall is a public building, and therefore balance the duty to provide for the safety of the occupants with the duty to protect the rights of those wishing to attend public meetings.

Mr. Brown thanked the Watch Commander for his time and sent a request to the City Attorney for a copy of the Brown Act training materials that are used to instruct the Office of Public Safety officers. The request has so far been ignored.

As for the City Council meeting that Mr. Brown wanted to attend, he returned to City Hall but the doors to Council Chambers were locked and LA’s part-time City Council was gone for the day.

Mr. Brown has been taken to task by those who contend that asking for ID at the front counter of City Hall is such a small injustice, one that doesn’t warrant such a stubborn demand for adherence to the Brown Act.

Mr. Brown explains “If the City of LA doesn’t know enough about the Brown Act to allow the public to simply enter the building legally, then it is certain they are not aware of the other provisions of the Brown Act such as proper notification, informative agendas, making materials available to the public, and allowing appropriate public comment.”

It has been 59 years since the Ralph M. Brown Act was passed by the California State Legislature and it guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.

When the Brown Act was originally introduced, the Sacramento Bee wrote “A law to prohibit secret meetings of official bodies, save under the most exceptional circumstances, should not be necessary. Public officers above all other persons should be imbued with the truth that their business is the public’s business and they should be the last to tolerate any attempt to keep the people from being fully informed as to what is going on in official agencies. Unfortunately, however, that is not always the case. Instances are many in which officials have contrived, deliberately and shamefully, to operate in a vacuum of secrecy.”

Those words are as true now as they have ever been.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.)

LA: City Where the Buck Never Stops

CityWatch, Feb 21, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 15

NO ONE IN LA EVER TAKES THE BLAME - Mayor Villaraigosa, the 11% Mayor who could balance the budget with his frequent flyer miles, has a long tradition of empowering a rotating cast of Deputy Mayors and General Managers in an effort to distance himself from his legacy of non-performance.

The City Council, completely impotent in its ability to direct city staff, resorts to motions ordering studies and reports as tools of coercion and then settles for the City of LA tradition of dividing the spoils by 15, regardless of need or relevance.

Commissioners, appointed by the Mayor, posture and pontificate, sometimes with acknowledged irrelevance and sometimes with significant political power but most often with Mayoral direction and benign neglect. Claims of significance are often challenged by reality.

General Managers, also appointed by the Mayor, find themselves caught between a term-limit restricted Mayor and a Civil Service hard place. Critics claim that they often serve as simple cannon fodder and Mayoral expeditors.

Navigating the treacherous press conference waters of LA’s City Hall operations are the “clients” who make the city run, the developers, builders, architects, engineers, transportation specialists, land use lawyers and consultants who advise the Mayor and his team.

Consider the latest dust-up at LA’s Department of Building & Safety (LADBS).

First, a local community member games the LADBS and initiates almost 200 Fence Height complaints against his neighbors, resulting in fees, fines, and penalties that then draw threats of garnishment, liens, and other legal action.

Then Council President Eric Garcetti intervenes and introduces a Council Motion that proposes solutions. He also sends a letter to LADBS General Manager Bud Ovrom “asking” him to hold all cases in abeyance while the issue is resolved in City Council.

Four months later, Bud Ovrom finds himself in hot water when Code Enforcement Bureau Chief Dr. Grace Harper, a 33 year veteran of LA’s civil service, simply rejects Garcetti’s request without notifying him, responding with an explanation, or even acknowledging receipt.

“It’s simply illegal for our department to hold code enforcement cases in one area in abeyance while still pursuing cases in the rest of the city,” Harper explained, “because that would result in charges of selective prosecution.”

While the irony of responding to charges that complaint driven code enforcement results in selective prosecution was lost on Harper, she defended her department’s actions by referring to their legal mandate to investigate all complaints but could not identify any statute or code that supports her position.

As for Ovrom, formerly the Deputy Mayor responsible for two of the city departments currently under Federal investigation, he finds himself navigating tough political waters. He has the Mayor on one side who simply needs to get to the end of his term, he has a City Councilman on the other side who needs to show the world that he is a credible candidate for Mayor, he has the Feds behind him investigating his department, and he has a retaining wall of civil service protected lifers in front of him that know he will soon be gone and it will be business as usual.

Off to the side are the “customers” who are the “business as usual” and they are known as the Development Industry Advisory Committee (DIAC). From Latham and Watkins to Gensler to California Home Builders to Englander, Knobe & Allen, these are the folks who meet regularly with Deputy Mayor Matt Karatz and GM Bud Ovrom to steer the ship.

Meanwhile, Councilman Eric Garcetti has tendered a City Council President-to-General Manager request that flatly gets ignored, he has trusted Council District staff who reassure him that all is well, and he has dismissed complaints from the community because he naively thinks the system is working.

It isn’t.

The Mayor’s office accepts no responsibility for the upside-down priorities that classify the developers and consultants as the “customers” while balancing the budget on the backs of the people who invest in homes and businesses in the community.

The Commissioners are hardly representative of the public, serving at the Mayor’s pleasure (and sometimes at his displeasure), typically handling consent agendas filled with fodder for press releases.

The City Council is tolerated by Departments that still divide the city into 15 regions, assigning a “handler” to each Council District to keep the politicos at bay by dispensing constituent treats equally. These buckets of asphalt and hot-spot support activities keep City Council incumbents seated and sated.

The General Manager is a political hire, serving at the Mayor’s pleasure. Sometimes the Mayor sends in a Deputy Manager to take over as GM to calm the troops in the wake of a disaster or Federal corruption investigation. Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega left City Hall and walked across the street to take over the LADOT and Deputy Mayor Bud Ovrom left City Hall to “handle” Villaraigosa’s attempt to “build our way out of this recession!”

Councilwoman Jan Perry looks at the revolving door of political impotence and complains that the problems stem from term limits. She points out that it is impossible to have a long term vision for the City of LA if all the work must be done in two mayoral terms.

Perry notes that term limits destroy any institutional memory and empowers lobbyists who have been around for a long time, elevating their insight and guidance in value.

Meanwhile, LA’s Code Enforcement is a General Fund activity, one that is subject to the Mayor’s cost recovery mandate, resulting in a predatory relationship with the people the City of LA is supposed to serve.

It is against LA’s municipal buck-passing landscape that the public must ask some tough questions:

Why is the LADBS rejecting requests from the public to participate on the LADBS and Planning advisory committees while Primestor Development, KPFF Engineering, California Home Builders, and RA Build Commercial LL enjoy unfettered access?

It’s because they see the developers as the client and the public as an obstacle.

Why won’t LA Deputy Mayor Matt Karatz and General Manager Bud Ovrom find the time to meet with the public, the residents of Los Angeles, the nearly four million people who are the reason for City Hall?

It’s because they know that there is no penalty for ignoring the public.

How does Eric Garcetti hope to position himself as a credible candidate for Mayor if he can’t get the GM of LADBS to acknowledge his communications, if he can’t get LADBS to accommodate his request for an abeyance, if he can’t get his staff to keep him informed of the reality on the streets, and if he can’t solve a simple Code Enforcement problem in his district.

He can’t, because he is unable to establish himself as LA’s “The Buck Stops Here!” candidate.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.)