CityWatchLA - LANCC defends DWP Reform funding

CityWatch, Nov 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 89

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) entered the DWP Reform fray, voting unanimously to condemn last week's revision to the City Council’s proposed ballot measure, calling anything short of a fixed funding commitment "a poison pill" that will ensure failure.

At issue are the City Council’s parry-reposte moves that both advance a plan for governance and oversight of LA’s Department of Water and Power while pulling the funding rug out from underneath the yet-unformed Office of Public Accountability.

The Perry/Parks motion of last week would "delete the provision that requires the Office of Public Accountability (OPA) to be set at a minimum or one-tenth-of-one-percent of annual LADWP revenues, and instead require the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), in consultation with the LADWP and other departments necessary, to prepare the budget for the OPA...submitting it to the City Council for approval."

Chuck Ray, Vice-Chair of the Neighborhood Councils DWP Oversight Committee and a member of the DWP’s Ratepayer Advocate Advisory Panel, says "the last minute motion removes the fixed amount of funding...and substitutes the judgment of the CAO, a political appointee. Structured this way, the City Council is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Ray pointed out that the budget debate comes down to Independent Oversight vs. Political Oversight.

The LADWP is the largest municipal utility in the United States but it operates without the independent oversight that is common in both the public and private sector. Typically, utilities answer to agencies and regulatory powers that vary in structure but include stakeholders, stockholders, bondholders, ratepayers, and a variety of commissions, boards, committees, and authorities.

Critics contend that the LADWP and its politically appointed Commission operate independently and without oversight, resulting in a consolidation of power that works to advance the interests of the DWP at the expense of the ratepayers in the City of LA.

Efforts to advance LADWP governance and oversight have wide support from both the neighborhood council advocates and city hall insiders.

Jack Humphreville, President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and the Ratepayer Advocate for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, has long advocated for "a well funded, empowered and truly independent RPA to oversee the operations, finances, and management of DWP on a timely and continuous basis."

Councilman Greig Smith called for an "Inspector General position to independently review and report on the operations, administrative and management actions of the Department of Water."

Council President Eric Garcetti joined in the call for DWP oversight and noted that the City of LA has spent over $1.5 million on consultants in the last year, simply investigating, researching and advising the City Council on specific LADWP issues, but with no comprehensive oversight role.

DWP Interim General Manager Austin Beutner acknowledges the need for oversight but says a Charter Amendment is unnecessary, arguing that "a rate informer, office of public accountability or whatever the vernacular used could actually be formed by actions of the department, together with this council."

City Council is wrapping a year-long discussion of LADWP reform, including Councilwoman Jan Perry's latest motion giving budget authority to the CAO, and moving forward with putting the creation of an Office of Public Accountability on the March 2011 ballot.

Concurrently, a City Hall discussion is taking place on the structure of the LADWP, including opportunities for the public to participate in the governance and oversight of the LADWP Commission and the General Manager.

Meanwhile, over on Hope Street, the LADWP General Manager and Commission are engaged in the development of a non-profit corporation that will operate under contract with the City of Los Angeles, offering oversight and governance, with a Board of Directors that has three business seats, three neighborhood council seats, one labor seat, one non-profit seat, and one environmental seat.

Humphreville compares the two independent RPA proposals by saying "There's no comparison. Anything short of a Charter Amendment with guaranteed funding levels for the RPA's office is a false start with built-in vulnerability."

The next step for the City Council sponsored Charter Amendment is the fine-tuning of the current document in a race to the November 17th deadline, at which point the pro and con arguments will be written.

The next step for the City Council sponsored revisions to the LADWP Commission structure is a vote at the Monday 8th joint meeting of the Rules & Elections committee and the Energy & Environment committee, then on to the City Council for a final recommendation. (the committee meeting may qualify as a full City Council meeting if enough members show up)

The next step for the LADWP sponsored "Corporation for the Office of the Ratepayers Advocate" is a presentation of the proposed by-laws, the model contract, and the names of the proposed directors at the December 7th meeting of the LADWP Commission.

The current board nominees are: Stuart Waldman and Carol Shatz - business seats, Kirsten Eberhard - environmental seat, Jack Humphreville, Chuck Ray, and Tony Wilkinson - neighborhood council seats. There are no current nominees for the open business, labor and non-profit seats.

(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 - LA Transpo’s Inaction Sparks Greig Smith Overreaction

Photo by Joe Linton, LA Streetsblog

CityWatch, Sept 14, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 73

Councilman Smith's recent motion directing neighborhood councils to provide recommendations on bicycle infrastructure before its implementation is either a strategic coup de grace or a triple-scoop of unintended consequences.

The incident that provoked the ire of Smith was innocent enough, a simple Bureau of Street Services street resurfacing project and an equally simple LADOT "road diet" restriping project. Under normal conditions this activity would fall under the category of "improvements" and would be conducted with the approval and gratitude of the local residents.

But such was not the case.

Northridge West residents came home to find Wilbur Avenue resurfaced and with preliminary striping that indicated a loss of travel lanes. This prompted fears of traffic congestion, cut-through traffic, loss of crosswalks and other negative impacts. The LADOT's failure to communicate with the community left a vacuum that saw neighbors protesting on the blogs, to the council, to the press.

The LADOT's failure to act prompted Smith to overreact. (see Smith motion here in pdf)

It's commendable that Smith believes in the neighborhood councils enough to require NC recommendations for any bikeways improvements. But the motion falls short for four reasons:

1) If it was the LADOT's failure to engage the local community in roadway improvements that prompted the motion, then write it so that neighborhood councils must offer recommendations on all "improvements" including speed limit increases, loss of crosswalks, street widenings, street closures, and traffic signalization. Don't limit the NC authority to bikeways facilities, empower neighborhood councils to partner with the LADOT on all issues related to the development of Safe Streets!

2) If it was the LADOT's failure to communicate that caught Smith's attention, then demonstrate a real commitment to communication by embracing one of the two recent NC/LADOT Memorandums of Understanding that have been rejected by LADOT General Managers.

Other departments are somehow able to partner with the neighborhood councils on the delivery of city services but the LADOT has proven to be the most elusive.

3) If it was the LADOT's failure to synchronize with other departments that caused a 30 day window of hasty and ill-advised activity, perhaps the real issue is departmental redundancy and inefficiency.

The BOSS communicates resurfacing plans well in advance with other departments but there are three sections within the LADOT that have to work together to put down a simple bike lane, Operations, Geometrics, and Bikeways.

The fact that they are unable to pull it off is a cry for simplification, not an indictment of road stripes.

4) If it was the LADOT's failure to perform its duties in such a way that the local neighborhood council could simply perform its City Charter mandate to "advise on the delivery of city services" then address the behavior of the LADOT.

BUT the current motion is a small but significant step toward invoking the Federal Voting Rights Act, something the city Attorney has pointed out through the Charter revision process and even after it was approved in 1999.

Positioning the neighborhood councils as a final decision-making authority, something normally reserved for the City Council, could trigger the (un)intended consequences of NC financial disclosures, boundaries based on population, and redefined stakeholder definitions.

The opportunity to impose the illusion of LADOT transparency while redefining the NC system and limiting the implementation of the 1996 Bike Plan may appeal to some, but it is hardly an effective or meaningful action.

In fact, it is a poorly positioned over-reaction to the LADOT's failure to participate as partners with the public in the improvement of the streets of Los Angeles.

Several years ago, USC's School of Policy, Planning, and Development conducted an analysis of LA's neighborhood council system and the resulting relationships with the city departments. LADOT ranked third from the bottom on responsiveness.

Since then, not much has improved. LADOT staff currently travels to Chattanooga, Chicago, and Sacramento to address non-constituents on the wonders of LA's streets, but somehow the trip to Northridge is simply too far.

If the resolution of the Wilbur Avenue restriping brouhaha is to result in meaningful improvements to the delivery of city services, let it start with a City Council directed initiative that requires the LADOT to tear down the silos that prevent them from partnering with Public Works, City Planning, the LAPD and all of the many departments with influence over the streets of LA, including the neighborhood councils.

(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.)