Time to Implement a Competency Test for City Hall

CityWatch, Feb 7, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 11

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA is preparing to engage in another round of budget triage, an annual charade that more closely resembles Three Card Monte than an actual commitment to accountability, performance, and delivery of city services. As the Mayor’s cost recovery mandate continues to reward departmental gouging of the public, the issue of competent performance continues to fall by the wayside. In fact, it appears that competency has been defined as the ability to generate revenue and justify staff positions, not to actually improve the quality of life in LA or deliver services more efficiently.

I offer a few examples.

1. As communities vie for Safe Routes to School funding, federal and state money that is meant to improve our communities so that it is safer for kids to walk and ride to school, the LADOT staff responsible for the process is unaware of the actual laws governing the process of crossing the street on foot.

To hear LADOT transportation engineers repeat jaywalking mythology while demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge for the law is confirmation that the people in charge do not have the necessary competency to perform their duties.

2. As bond money is spent building police and fire stations throughout the city, those in positions of oversight have deep pockets and a commitment to job security, priorities that are at odds with efficient and effective management of the building programs.

To hear BOE engineers defend their building code violations by referring to their “Cliff Notes” summary version of the building code is confirmation that those in charge are comfortable with their limited knowledge of the code and an expensive “do over” approach to construction and code enforcement.

3. As transportation funds are spent repairing our streets, the Bureau of Street Services and the Department of Transportation continue to trip over each other, first striping the streets and then covering them with a slurry seal, demonstrating a systemic inability to manage multi-departmental projects.

To hear LADOT and BSS staff explain their Tower of Babel approach to squandering public funds while undoing each other’s work is to hear a strong case for departmental consolidation and a commitment to competent leadership that is judged based on results.

4. As the debate over fences disrupts neighborhoods, an appeal to the General Manager of City Planning elicited a feeble sidestepping that included a plea of ignorance, “short of changing the LAMC, I cannot waive the fence requirements.”

To hear a veteran zoning professional profess ignorance of a decade old provision for Over Height Fence Districts is to hear a claim of incompetence, especially disturbing because it came in response to a plea for help from a group of community members.

5. As our elected officials take the oath of office, they swear to uphold the law of the land, apparently unaware that the oath includes federal and state law.

To hear the City Attorney advise the City Council that local legislation trumps state law is to witness a defense of incompetency as a substitute for upholding the law of the land.

The people of LA deserve a City Hall that is committed to competent performance but there is no process for evaluating outcomes or challenging performance.

As the Mayor engages the public in the budget survey process, asking for feedback on the delivery of city services, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate how he will evaluate performance.

Most importantly, especially in light of the rumor that these evaluations have already taken place and are simply gathering dust, the Mayor must produce a plan for separating the wheat from the chaff, the performers from the incompetent, the people who are moving LA forward from those who are obstacles to progress.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)

LA’s Apron Parking Decision: More Questions Than Answers

CityWatch, Oct 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 85

RETHINKING LA - In an all-too-common demonstration of synchronized confusion, the City Attorney’s office has directed the LADOT to suspend enforcement of the city’s Apron Parking ban, reversing its prior position and leaving more unanswered questions in its wake.

For those people who have been cited but have not yet resolved their citations for violating the City Attorney’s creative interpretation of the “parkway parking” ban, do they still have to pay their tickets for an offense that is no longer offensive?

For those people who have been cited but did not pay their citations, triggering late fees and penalties, does the moratorium apply to the collection activities that include credit reporting and legal action?

For those people who park parallel to the curb line, in their driveway but without blocking the sidewalk or the travel lane in the street, are they also included in the moratorium?

For those people who have received citations for apron parking and who have paid their $58 tickets, are those debts forgiven and are they entitled to a refund?

The City Council is to be commended for acting decisively to address the debate over Apron Parking with a resolution to suspend enforcement while the definitions are debated and clarified. This allows residents (who are aware of the action) to use valuable real estate in congested neighborhoods to park vehicles, all while leaving the sidewalks open and clear for pedestrians.

Of course the term “decisively” in this case actually amounts to allowing the debate to roll along for years until it reached a crisis point that saw community members take to the streets with picket signs, calling for their council representative to act with resolve.

At issue is the practice of parking personal vehicles in residential communities in the driveway, between the street and the sidewalk or between the sidewalk and the garage, a common time-honored practice that maximized parking capacity on private property.

The controversy over Apron Parking resulted from the overzealous use of driveways for parking, especially in Westwood, that resulted in blocked sidewalks and triggered an ADA complaint against the city for allowing violations of the California Vehicle Code prohibition (CVC 22500) against blocking the sidewalk with a parked vehicle.

Rather than simply enforce the CA vehicle code violation against blocked sidewalks, (one that even clarifies how much vehicle can protrude - Lights, mirrors, or devices that are required to be mounted upon a vehicle under this code may extend from the body of the vehicle over the sidewalk to a distance of not more than 10 inches) the City of LA pursued a Municipal Code ban on “Parkway Parking” that prompted a debate over the city’s contradictory definitions of “parkway” and “driveway” and “apron” and “common sense.”

As of last week, the LADOT’s General Manager, Jaime de la Vega has instructed the LADOT’s parking enforcement officers to cease enforcement of LA’s apron parking ban (LAMC 80.53) and informed the City Council that “any citations issued in error under LAMC section 80.53 on October 12, 2011 or later will be administratively canceled.”

No mention was made of those cited over the last few months, in the period of time between the City Attorney’s first instruction to enforce LAMC 80.53 and the City Attorney’s second instruction to suspend enforcement.

The residents of LA were in the dark when the controversial enforcement of LAMC 80.53 began and were effectively left in the dark when enforcement was suspended. Those left holding receipts, citations, penalties and collections notices deserve resolution that recognizes the flawed process and the uneven application of the law.

Most of all, the residents of LA who live in properties with long driveways and apron parking spaces deserve real answers that allow them to live their lives without being left in limbo when it comes to parking their vehicles.

For a recap on the “parkway” controversy, read “Time to Curb LA’s City Attorney,” and “The Public’s Search for Parking, Nuch’s Search for Revenue.” To follow the journey of two neighborhoods through this drama, visit StopLADOT and PalisadesParkingPatrol.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

Time to Curb LA’s City Attorney

CityWatch, Sept 9, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 72

RETHINKING LA - LA’s City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich, is a solution in search of a problem and his heavy-handed response to LA’s “apron parking” drama demonstrates that it is “Nuch” that needs to be curbed, not the Angelenos who park their cars in their driveways between the street and the sidewalk.

For as long as there has been a shortage of parking, Angelenos in densely populated neighborhoods such as those around UCLA have parked in their driveways, between the curb and the sidewalk or between the sidewalk and the building. As the number of vehicles increased, some residents started parking on the sidewalks. Eventually the fine line between parking on the apron and blocking the sidewalk got blurred and now that the City Attorney has entered the fray, he has come down on the wrong side of the line.

This practice of blocking the sidewalk with a parked vehicle is prohibited in the California Vehicle Code in a section that clearly articulates the violation: CVC 22500 No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended...(f) On any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle extending over any portion of a sidewalk...

Unfortunately, the LADOT has had more important issues to address and their failure to enforce simple “blocked sidewalk” violations has resulted in a pedestrian hostile environment in some communities, one that is literally unbreachable to those with limited mobility. It has also resulted in a legal action against the City of LA that invokes the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which holds municipal authorities responsible for maintaining ADA compliant infrastructure in the public right of way.

The City Attorney, on the receiving end of the ADA legal action, jumped in feet first and started giving legal advice and operational direction to the LADOT, resulting in a strange sequence of actions that raises a few questions and fails to effectively address the blocked sidewalks of Los Angeles.

1) Does the City Attorney give legal advice to the City’s many Departments or does he actually direct them?

The recent actions of the LADOT does not seem to reflect a General Manager acting on the advice of the City Attorney but a Department that gets its marching orders from the City Attorney. When did this shift in authority take place?

Not even the City Council “directs” the LADOT on operations, instead relying on recommendations and requests for reports, reviews, studies, and other “nudges” that typically consume energy and staffing but fail to direct the General Managers who answer to the Mayor.

In fact the City Council attempted to address the “apron parking” issue in 2007 but their calls for LADOT enforcement of blocked sidewalks were ignored.

2) Does the City Attorney look for the most difficult route to a solution or did he just miss the obvious?

The opportunity to enforce CVC 22500 (f) would directly address the concerns of the ADA advocates who are focused on blocked sidewalks but instead, the City Attorney went off on a legal goose chase that invokes the nebulous “apron parking ban” and then rests on shaky legal ground.

Current citations are written as violations of LA’s Municipal Code 80.53 which says: “No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle within any parkway.” Why start a debate over the definition of “Parkway” when it’s not the issue. The issue is blocked sidewalks.

The City of LA defines “parkway” as “that portion of a street other than a roadway or a sidewalk” and goes on to clarify that the term "parkway" is defined as the area of the street between the back of curb and the sidewalk that is typically planted or landscaped.

3) If the LADOT’s recent enthusiasm for enforcing the City Attorney’s interpretation of LA’s “apron parking” ban is meant to demonstrate equal application of the law, why did the LADOT wait until the end of UCLA’s school year to begin enforcement?

The LADOT’s selective enforcement of the City Attorney’s directive missed the issue of parking congestion and blocked sidewalks in Westwood. Instead it resulted in a July 25th citation for a couple who reside miles from UCLA in a neighborhood they have lived in for decades. 20 years ago they approached the City of LA’s Department of Transportation, receiving permission from “Robert Moran” to park parallel to their double-wide driveway, “as long as the vehicle wasn’t on the curb, sidewalk, or the planted parkway area.”

Then, without so much as a warning or a heads up, the mid-city residents were cited for parking parallel to the curbline, in front of their own driveway, in the same place they have parked their car for decades.

The irony to the LADOT’s misguided use of LAMC 80.53 is that is fails to address the vehicles that are pulled forward toward the building but fail to clear the sidewalk. The sidewalk remains blocked and the LADOT misses an opportunity to actually be effective.

4) If the City Council has a track record demonstrating past and present attempts to resolve the “apron parking” dilemma by clarifying LA’s Municipal Code, why doesn’t the City Attorney partner with the City Council in separating the issues?

As long ago as 1975, LA’s City Council has attempted to resolve the issue with an ordinance that would specifically permit the parking of motor vehicles “between the street and the sidewalk, in those cases where the vehicles does not protrude either into the street or fully or partially block the sidewalk.” The motion died on the vine for lack of interest.

Several years ago, LA’s City Council again took up the issue, this time in reaction to a campaign initiated by Michael Dukakis who was a visiting UCLA professor in the Department of Public Policy for the School of Public Affairs.

The pressure to clear the sidewalks by enforcing the “Apron Parking” ban was met with equal pressure to maximize parking inventory by maintaining the status quo. Again, any legislative or enforcement activity simply faded as people moved on.

Last month, in response to complaints from the residents who were on the citation end of a flurry of LADOT parking enforcement activity, the City Council again took up the issue, this time advancing a “recommendation” that would “INSTRUCT and REQUEST, as appropriate, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation and the City Attorney to report back on:

a. potential State legislation to correct apron parking problems.

b. potential creation of a program to deal with parking in driveways in a way that is
compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

c. a program to allow apron parking that is ADA compliant.

d. meeting with plaintiffs and creating a program in cooperation with the plaintiffs.

Missing from this brouhaha is the simple strategy of sending the LADOT off to enforce the state prohibition against blocking a sidewalk and allowing the “apron” or “parkway” debate to fade into oblivion where it belongs.

5) If the City Attorney was serious about the pending ADA legal action that is the direct result of blocked or inaccessible sidewalks, why is he silent on the issue of LA’s broken sidewalks?

The City of Los Angeles enacted LAMC 62.104 in 1974 and accepted responsibility for the damage to the sidewalks of LA caused by city owned trees, placing responsibility for those repairs with the Department of Public Works.

Why is the City Attorney addressing the City of LA’s ADA issues by instructing the LADOT to go after the residents while avoiding the larger issue of LA’s responsibility to maintain its sidewalks in good repair?

By the way, the City of Los Angeles defines “apron” as that portion of a driveway approach, exclusive of side slopes or driveway curb returns, extending from the gutter flow line to the property line.

The California Vehicle Code doesn’t mention a ban on “apron parking,” the LAMC doesn’t mention a ban on “apron parking,” it’s only the City Attorney who says “apron parking in the City of Los Angeles is illegal and subject to enforcement.”

Perhaps it’s time for the City Attorney to do the homework and to rely on the specific bans that actually exist, such as blocking the sidewalk, blocking a driveway without permission, and blocking the street.

The debate over street parking and the use of public space is a worthy topic, one that will never get addressed as long as the City Attorney and the LADOT act in concert to cloud the waters and avoid the real issue, which is the blocked sidewalks in LA that are in violation of ADA requirements.

It is important that the City Attorney focus on the ADA issue at hand and that he act to bring the full spectrum of sidewalk access into compliance by focusing on the sidewalks, not the aprons. His current action is simply an engineered conflict that diverts the discussion from the issue, “ensuring that pedestrian rights of way are kept free of temporary or permanent obstructions.”

Most importantly, it’s time for the City of LA to clarify the role of the City Attorney and to put an end to common refrain, “I’m only acting on the City Attorney’s direction.” Especially since the City Attorney is unclear on the law, on due process, and on the notion of equal application of the law.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .) 

Can Wendy Greuel Run on Her Record?

CityWatch, Aug 16, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 65

RETHINKING LA - LA’s 2013 Mayoral Race is barely underway and already City Controller Wendy Greuel has declared herself the leader of the pack based on her ability to raise campaign funds.

Of the declared candidates, Greuel has surged ahead with a war chest of $518,000 while City Councilwoman Jan Perry has collected $457,000, investment banker and former Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner reports $405,000, and attorney and conservative radio talk show host Kevin James has amassed $91,000.
Given the City of LA’s dire budgetary straits, the ability to raise money is a valuable skill, one that would certainly demonstrate Mayoral chops, but only if consideration were given to the source of the money and the obligations that come with it. To that end, Kevin James ( http://www.kevinjamesformayor.com ) claims the high road, pointing out that his money comes from small donors, not the traditional power brokers, special interests, consultants and developers.

With County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, City Council President Eric Garcetti, and Developer Rick Caruso still on the sidelines, the promise of a hotly contested Mayoral race means that candidates will work overtime to control the conversation, shifting the topics to areas of comfort.

All Mayoral candidates will need to make their case as change agents, establishing a vision for the city, influencing the culture of City Hall, and wrangling the three dozen city departments together in the efficient delivery of city services.

For Greuel, this means avoiding at all costs a discussion of the LADOT and its performance under her oversight, first in her role as the Chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee and more recently in her role as the City Controller.

Greuel will have to explain the LADOT’s track record for failure on Grant proposals, something that has been addressed in Metro Call for Projects, in Safe Routes to School Funding, in Highway Safety Improvement Project funding, and in its last-minute and unambitious approach to transportation engineering.

Several years ago, Greuel actually introduced a motion to the City Council directing the LADOT to communicate with the City Council on transportation funding, demonstrating her inability to overcome the LADOT’s culture of arrogance when it comes to working with others. Funding cycle after funding cycle, the LADOT would wait until the last minute and then release the proposals, using the impending deadline as an excuse for rejecting feedback and requests.

At another point in Greuel’s tenure, she discovered that the City of LA had no Strategic Transportation Plan, a structural deficiency that explained the LADOT’s lack of vision and proactive work. Much was made of the need for a Strategic Transportation Plan and its potential positive impact on funding, on implementation, and on efficiencies.

Greuel went so far as to schedule an all-day, one-topic City Council session to grapple with the need for a Strategic Transportation Plan, eventually funding a scheme the put consultants to work and the audience to sleep. Since then, the public tosses and turns but not much has changed.

During Greuel’s tour of duty as the Transportation Committee Chair, the City of LA raised speed limits with such regularity, local advocates were worn out protesting the semi-monthly hearings. Greuel’s Committee relied on a 50-year-old transportation philosophy and failed to utter even a whimper as speed limits were raised over and over again.

While LA was raising speed limits, Federal and State laws were going into effect that supported Complete Streets, engineered for pedestrians, cyclists, mass transit and motorists. Greuel could have embraced this shift in transportation philosophy, but she didn’t. Instead, the City of LA gets dragged, kicking and screaming, toward the future while the LADOT argues for its limitations.

There are three levels of City Departments in LA, the Proprietary Departments (Harbor, Airports, DWP), the Charter Departments (Police, Fire, Public Works, Library, Rec & Parks, Planning, DONE...), and the Ordinance Departments (Transportation, Building & Safety, Animal Services, Zoo, General Services, etc).

The Proprietary Departments typically have their own revenue, budgets, law enforcement and gravitational pull. Any potential Mayoral candidate will need to demonstrate the power to control these departments.

The Charter Departments were created by City Charter and their existence is codified by law, amendable by referendum, and sometimes funded by mandated budgets. They exist to deliver city services to the people of LA and any strong Mayoral candidate will need to demonstrate the power to support efficient performance.

The Ordinance Departments were created by City Council action, put into existence to perform a specific function, and they cease to exist with the same simple process. The LADOT was created in 1979 to coordinate “the City’s various ground transportation and ground transportation-related activities.”

The LADOT is Greuel’s Achilles heel, the Ordinance Department that has defied her leadership and maintained its course, even when she moved from the City Council and was elected as LA’s City Controller.

Armed with a completely new level of authority, Greuel now had the opportunity to move from Transportation philosophy and into oversight of the LADOT’s budget. This should have been a smooth transition, after all, Greuel had served on the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee, giving her a unique insight into the machinations of the city departments when it comes to protecting budgets and headcounts while avoiding accountability and charges of double-dipping.

Unfortunately, Greuel’s performance was limited to press conference audits that chipped at the tip of the iceberg but that failed to address the larger pattern of contempt and misconduct.

As the City of LA put a freeze on staff travel, the LADOT continued to export PowerPoint presentations to communities far and wide, as if the city with the worst traffic congestion is in a position to advise others on transportation. Did Greuel catch it?

When one of the largest funding streams of the generation, Measure R, came into play, the LADOT presented a budget for LA’s “Local Benefit” share of the Countywide half-cent sales tax revenue, taking a little extra from the cyclists and pedestrians and shifting it over to LADOT administration. LADOT proposed $10.8 million for bike and ped projects instead of $18.1 million, a “mistake” of $7.3 million. Did Greuel catch it?

As the LADOT took its turn before the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee earlier this year, Bernard Parks took the Department to task for spending Measure R money on staff instead of projects. As the people of LA ask “Where are our Measure R ‘Local Benefit’ projects?” the LADOT is busy spending the money on staff. Did Greuel catch it?

Most recently, the LADOT went to City Hall to ask for overtime pay in order to implement the Bike Lanes and Sharrows that are part of the Mayor’s commitment to making LA a great place to ride. How can it take overtime to do the work? If it were extra work, perhaps it would require extra staffing, but the City of LA has been collecting millions of dollars for Bikeway projects for years. Where did the money go? Did Greuel catch it?

To be fair, Greuel has audited the LADOT and she has come up with some pretty damning reports.

The LADOT is charged with wasting $855,000 outright while going over budget by nearly $2.5 million on a contract to equip parking enforcement vehicles with GPS systems, of course, the LADOT argued that it took place under previous management.

The LADOT is charged with failing to collect on parking tickets, a pattern of casualness that costs the City of LA $5.4 million in revenue, according to Greuel.

The LADOT is charged with a failure to maintain an inventory of parking meters, a problem that makes it impossible to evaluate the LADOT’s performance. Greuel contends that the City of LA owns 36,000 parking meters but that the LADOT must put “controls in place to adequately ensure collections are being made from all parking meters, and those meter payments are being deposited directly into the city’s bank accounts.”

Greuel also took the LADOT to task for its Gold Card Desk, a program that fixed tickets for City Hall insiders. Of course that audit backfired when Greuel’s Council office was accused by the Mayor’s office as being a participant, a charge that was denied by Greuel. Either way, it turned out to be a tough row to hoe, either the Gold Card Desk existed and functioned as an insider ticket fixing program and Greuel was ignorant or it existed and Greuel was a participant.

The audits are a sign of activity, but it’s important that Greuel do more than stand by and yell “Fire!”

The LADOT is still on course, moving forward in its traditional cavalier manner. It continues to fumble outreach, it remains focused on staff levels while avoiding performance standards, and it continues to reject neighborhood council requests, using the classic “Contact the Mayor's office and Council office. This is due to the budget that has been adopted by them.”

Wendy Greuel is an energetic campaigner and her track record for raising funds speaks volumes to her ability to connect with her audiences.

But if she wants to be taken seriously as a change agent, a Mayoral candidate that possesses the ability to turn a city around, it is imperative that she start right now by following through with the department that has been her responsibility for almost a decade, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation.

For Mayoral Candidate Wendy Greuel, the LADOT is where the rubber hits the road.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)

LADOT Turns Mean in Pursuit of the Absurd … and Your Money

Photo: la.streetsblog.org

CityWatch, Aug 5, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 62

RETHINKING LA - The LA Department of Transportation has weathered the recent stormy days of employee misbehavior, administrative misconduct, budgetary misappropriations, and outreach miscommunications, resulting in a leaner, meaner department that is poised to take care of business. That’s Good News.

The LADOT is passing up on opportunities to engage the community in traffic congestion solutions, parking solutions, complete streets solutions, and standards driven enforcement, resulting in a much meaner department that is willing to enter private property to cite vehicles parked in residential driveways. That’s Bad News.

These citations aren’t given to that guy who runs an informal auto repair shop in the driveway of his home, subjecting the neighborhood to toxic waste, to visual blight, and to industrial quality traffic that is forbidden in residential communities. No, not him.

The citations don’t go to the guy who parks his semi-trailer rig in his driveway, turning a local community street into an industrial truck stop, complete with an engine that idles at all hours as he tunes up for the next delivery of Barbie Dolls or Broccoli Spears to the Midwest. Again, not him.

The citations certainly don’t end up on the windshields of the personal vehicles of residents who park in driveways and block the sidewalk, making it impossible for the disabled to enjoy local neighborhood mobility. In fact, the LADOT is working to legitimize motorists who park their cars on public sidewalks, after all, it’s a parking solution!

No, the citations end up on the windshield of a car owned by “Sun,” a woman who bought a four-unit property several years ago and then applied to the City of LA for a class "A" permit that would allow her to install driveway curb cuts, creating access to off-street parking. Permit in hand, she upgraded her property (built in 1921) and proceeded to park two vehicles on paved parking spaces that are behind her well-maintained required front yard set-back.

During the permitting process, BOE asked "Where do you plan to park?" Sun responded "In front of the building but behind the front yard setback." Then BOE wrote on the actual permit "per B&S OK to park behind setback line."

The LADOT initially engaged in a relentless onslaught of citations at this two-space property in 2007 when it averaged four citations a week in the month of January. “Sun” appealed to the LADOT and the wave of citations were reversed by the local LADOT’s Parking Enforcement Captain. The issue appeared to be resolved.

Then the LA Housing Department took over and began issuing notices to the property owner that “conditions may compromise the health and safety of the occupants and/or the integrity of your rental property.”

These notices started in early 2007 and came with an inspection fee that started at $169 plus $32.50 processing fee and then quickly escalated to $705.25 if unpaid within 30 days. The owner appealed to the LAHD and by mid-2008 the notices to comply were reversed, the fees and penalties were waived, and the LAHD agreed that the issue “is not under the jurisdiction of the Housing Department.”

Again, the issue appeared to be resolved.

The Bureau of Engineering then got involved and reversed its original position, deciding that the owner who followed the rules, pulled the necessary permit, and paid the required fees was now out of compliance. In spite of protests from the local neighborhood council, neighbors, and community advocates, the BOE reversed its position and left Sun adrift in a morass of jurisdictional contradictions.

The law is specific, and Sun responded specifically by researching and complying with the City of LA’s rules, regulations, codes, and laws. She was even charged for the appeals process in spite of her victory.

The bureaucratic maze is complicated and the BOE sent the case to Street Services for enforcement, then Sun was sent to Building & Safety where she met friendly folks who most recently explained “We have no jurisdiction over this issue.”

Sun has spent more than four years navigating a journey that has meandered through City Planning, the Bureau of Engineering, the Bureau of Street Services, the Department of Transportation, Building & Safety, the Council Office, two neighborhood councils, all without resolution or relief.

Meanwhile, scofflaws ignore the LADOT with such impunity that the City Controller recently released an audit detailing the millions of dollars in lost revenue due to the LADOT’s failure to address vehicles illegally parked on the streets of Los Angeles.

As for the property owners who are committed to playing by the rules, abiding by the code, adhering to the process, and respecting the system, the reward is punishment, ongoing and relentless punishment that errs in favor of citation and penalty, even charging for the right to appeal.

Sun, who saved her money and invested in the community by purchasing property that is now her home, has been taken on a fatiguing ride that would cause most people to simply give up. But they picked the wrong property owner.

The City of LA has spent over four years engaging in an assault on Sun's use of her private property, in spite of her permits, her receipts, and her ongoing compliance and adherence to LA’s Municipal Code. There was a lull in activity from the Bureau of Engineering, from Building & Safety, from the Housing Department, and from the LADOT's Parking Enforcement, lasting until last month when...they're back!

The LADOT has once again taken to entering private property during the late hours of night to enforce rules that its management acknowledges it has no business enforcing.

This relentless pursuit of the absurd demonstrates three significant flaws in the current delivery of city services:

First, forgoing a standards-driven enforcement process in favor of a complaint-driven system rewards complaints, enforces the law unevenly, and starts the fee/penalty clock based on complaints, regardless of their merit.

Second, the Mayor’s cost-recovery mandate drives departments to gouge the law-abiding members of the community and to ignore the scofflaws, focusing on revenue instead of standards-driven compliance.

Third, when a property owner has to deal with several departments, none of whom can resolve the issue but all of whom can levy fees, fines and charges, it’s evident that the purpose of City Hall is to consume and to staff, but not to perform.

The City of Los Angeles, from the Mayor to the local LADOT Parking Enforcement Officer, exist to serve the public, not to persecute, punish, and penalize those who invest in their community and call LA their home.

It’s time for the LADOT to step off the private property and to get out of the way. It’s time for the city departments to stop looking at the people of LA as revenue opportunities. And it’s time for Mayor Villaraigosa to get the city machine in order and to start delivering city services to the people of LA, after all, that’s his job.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

Brown Act Crusader Rosendahl Could Set the Standard with His Own Transportation Committee

CityWatch, July 13, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 55

RETHINKING LA - Councilman Bill Rosendahl is to be commended for his recent attempt to force the City Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Proposed Downtown Stadium and Event Center to conduct its business openly, transparently, and in compliance with California’s Brown Act.

That being said, his journey down the moral high road will be smoother if he applies the same open-door standard to the business that takes place within his Transportation Committee.
Rosendahl’s Brown Act campaign was set in motion when a representative of the Office of the City Attorney opined that “ad hoc committees of this City Council are not bound by the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act -- the state law that guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.”
Almost 60 years ago, an editorial in the Sacramento commented on the proposed Brown Act, saying:

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.

Since then, the Brown Act has been revised, enhanced, clarified, amplified, debated, ignored, embraced, manipulated and periodically rediscovered.

Rosendahl’s recent rediscovery of the Brown Act resulted in his opinion that “while some may argue it is legal for the City Council to form ad hoc committees that have the right to waive or ignore public notice and information requirements, doing so would break faith with a public that rightly expects and deserves transparency in its government.”

Well said! Only Ralph M. Brown could have said it better, and he did, in the introduction to the Brown Act:

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Rosendahl’s role as crusader for the Brown Act set him up for a symbolic win but a practical loss as his motion for transparency failed in City Council Chambers amidst protests and shock from Councilwoman Jan Perry who prefaced her comments by saying “Mr. Rosendahl, I consider you a good friend.” Then the Brown Act hit the fan and Rosendahl’s motion was sent to committee where those who voted in opposition to Brown Act transparency will control its progress.

Rosendahl has an opportunity here, one where he moves beyond simple Council Chamber debate and actually sets a standard for City Hall, starting in his Transportation Committee.

The City of Los Angeles engages in the business of transportation in a process that is within the oversight of the City Council’s Transportation Committee. The City of LA competes for federal, state, and local funds through competitive programs that include Metro’s Call for Projects and the Caltrans administered Safe Routes to School.

For years, LA's transportation strategies, funding applications, and project implementation have been controlled by the Interdepartmental Task Force Committee (“the Committee”) made up of representatives from the Mayor's office, the Council offices, the Bureaus of Street Lighting and Street Services, the Chief Legislative Officer's office, the Chief Administrative Officer's office, Transportation, Water & Power, and the City's Redevelopment Agency.

"The Committee" typically engages in the business of the people with three motivations, desperation, deadlines, and diplomacy.

Typical recommendations from “the Committee” come with the caveat that “there wasn’t much time, we did the best we could,” resulting in proposals made with a commitment to expediency over effectiveness. This cycle of desperation is the result of an ongoing inability to plan ahead for looming deadlines.

“The Committee” then dilutes any hope of a regional commitment to a strategic transportation plan by requiring that every council district get a piece of the pie, whether or not it makes sense.

All of this takes place in secret, away from the public, in spite of the fact that the City Council and the Transportation Committee have both directed “the Committee” to conduct its business openly.

Several years ago, the City Council directed the Transportation Committee, lead department on “the Committee,” to keep the City Council informed of its planning, priorities, and performance. That display of bravado failed to yield meaningful results, a position that the DOT defended by arguing “We had no time!”

Three LADOT General Managers in a row have tendered the same defense as they exclude the public from the process of proposing, prioritizing, and presenting transportation projects for funding, all as the Transportation Committee directs them to engage the neighborhood councils in the process.

One might argue that the participation of the public in the process might slow it down, a fair point to make that fails to acknowledge the simple fact that projects with community support perform better in the competitive funding process.

Based on results, often harsh but always fair, the current actions of “the Committee” fall far short of acceptable and are starved for the infusion of accountability that would come from opening the process to the public.

Years after the LADOT revealed that the City of LA had no Strategic Transportation Plan in place to drive the funding proposal process, the LADOT still meanders without guidance.

Years after the City Council demanded to be involved in the process, “the Committee” continues to offer tepid proposals that lack commitment, vision, innovation, community support or any hope of successfully competing for transportation funding.

For too long, the City of LA has relied on the “fair share” approach to transportation funding, arguing that it deserves the money simply because of its size. This has resulted in an internal process controlled by city staff that recycles old failed proposals and debating process in order to fund projects that lack vision, support, and efficacy.

It’s time for the people of LA to raise the standard for transportation planning, to participate in the process of planning, presenting proposals for funding, prioritizing projects and evaluating performance.

Rosendahl’s role as champion of the Brown Act demands that he seize this opportunity and open business of the Transportation Committee to the public by bringing “the Committee” from behind closed doors, opening its business up to the community, and embracing the public as partners in the business of the people.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)

LADOT: Driven to Distraction

CityWatch, July 5, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 53

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA’s Department of Transportation has been busy at work in our communities, removing crosswalks, increasing speed limits, dodging critical audits, and fixing tickets through the City Hall Gold Card program.

So busy, in fact, that they continue to miss the well intended and even better funded advice offered by the State of California on how they can bring Safe Routes to School money to the streets of LA, grants that would result in streets that are safer for children who walk and bicycle to school.

The federal (SRTS) and state (SR2S) Safe Routes to School programs have a simple mandate, to empower local communities as they work to make walking and bicycling to school a safe and routine activity. The funded projects include roadway and sidewalk improvements as well as education and encouragement programs.

The City of Los Angeles has a notoriously poor track record with Safe Routes to School programs and has repeatedly drawn the ire of the City Council for simply failing to perform. Four years ago Councilman Grieg Smith exclaimed "Our Department of Transportation is one of the slowest, most bureaucratic departments in the city, I am constantly banging my head against the wall to get them to do what I want them to do."

This outburst came in city council chambers when it was revealed that funding was in place to improve nearly three dozen of LA’s most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren but the work had not been done. LADOT’s Assistant General Manager John Fisher defended the department by explaining that the department was busy with regular and routine projects. “Safe Routes to School programs are ‘special’ projects.”

David Anderson, a spokesman for the California Department of Transportation, said "Nothing is more important than the safety of children, which is why Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration are reviewing the projects administered by local agencies to determine actions for improvement."

Two and half years ago, the LADOT received a review from Caltrans that categorized LA’s proposals as “Boilerplate, cookie cutter applications with identical wording.”

The City of Los Angeles was taken to task for sloppy work such as attaching the same generic letters of support to each application in lieu of conducting actual community outreach and generating project applications with the participation of the impacted neighborhoods. “SR2S and SRTS applications must be prepared from the grass-roots ground-up, not from the top-down, as it appears the City of L.A. applications were.”

LA was also called out for disguising vehicular flow improvement projects as pedestrian and cyclist safety enhancements. “The City of Los Angeles consistently stuck to the same limited number of tools that generally favor traffic operation over safety.”

One of the reviewers wrote “As a resident of the City of Los Angeles it pained me to give low scores to my own city, but I did not feel poor applications could be given passing scores. Doing so would ensure no improvement in the future.”

That sentiment is rare in City Hall where the “Fair Share!” mantra reigns supreme and the commitment to quality proposals and efficiently implemented programs falls by the wayside.

The City of LA entered this most recent Safe Routes to School funding cycle on the “Red Flag” list, ineligible for funding because of a failure to implement prior funded projects. In short, LA qualifies for funding but fails to put that money to work on improvements and education that would make our streets safer for children as they walk and bicycle to school.

After exerting more energy beating the system than it would take to simply excel at the Safe Route to School program, the LADOT is now off the “Red Flag” list and in the process of delivering the current roster of Safe Routes to School projects, all of which work together to demonstrate a complete failure to improve since the last round of funding.

The LADOT is the lead department for LA’s Safe Routes to School funding. Theoretically, the projects can come from the community but, in practice, the process takes place within a committee made up of City Council and City Department representatives, resulting in projects that were recently approved by LA’s Transportation Committee with only cursory oversight.

The deadline for the current SRTS funding cycle is July 15, 2011 which leaves no time for active participation from the community on the prioritization of projects or input on the specifics of individual projects. LA will be submitting 10 infrastructure and 2 non-infrastructure proposals, apparently excluding parochial and private schools from the process as if those children don’t have the right to safe streets that accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.

When staff from Caltrans, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the LA Unified School District (LAUSD) and Ventura County collectively take the City of LA to task for consistently failing to perform in the Safe Routes to School funding program, it’s worth taking a look at LA’s program.

When the City Council takes the LADOT to task for waiting until the last minute to involve the council offices in the process, it’s worth taking a look at LA’s process.

When the City of LA repeatedly conducts the business of the people in a manner that excludes the public while applying for grants that require the participation of the community in developing the applications, it’s worth taking a look at LA’s Department of Transportation.

Most importantly, when the LADOT is busy defending itself against charges of inappropriate use of Measure R funding, double-dipping on federal funds, and other roadside distractions that consume management energy and focus, it’s worth taking a look at our streets and asking Mayor Villaraigosa “Who’s in charge of making our streets safer for our children?”

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

Driven to Distraction II: LA Losing Millions in Transpo Funding

CityWatch, July 8, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 54

RETHINKING LA - For two decades, the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has distributed federal, state, and local transportation funds through a competitive “Call for Projects” process that typically elicits two responses; great proposals from the communities surrounding LA and a “deer-in-the-headlights” look of surprise from the LADOT.

This year is no different and the LADOT’s failure to compete is demonstrated by the ongoing expectation that the City of LA, representing 40% of the people in the funding area, will qualify for only 25% of the funding dispensed through the competitive process.

Several years ago, Wendy Greuel, in her capacity as Chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, took the LADOT to task for its feigned naiveté and it’s “We had no idea!” excuse as it claimed to be caught off guard by the funding deadlines.

Amid protests from community members, including a group of 15 cyclists who criticized the LADOT for excluding the public from the project selection process, Greuel discovered that the City of LA had no Transportation Strategic Plan. Funding proposals were based on short-term planning with no long-term regional vision to balance and guide the process.

Since then, the LADOT has seen a changing of the guard in the Transportation Committee and within its own ranks, allowing it to slip quietly back into a familiar routine of “We had no idea!” and the churning of old rejected project proposals that continue to yield the same poor results.

As surrounding communities embrace the Complete Streets mandate, implementing transportation innovations that increase capacity and throughput while taming traffic and increasing safety, LA continues to squeeze funding by using its “Fair Share” strategy.

In the current cycle, Long Beach has proposed a $22 million Complete Streets project that will include water reclamation features, traffic calming, pedestrian enhancements and bicycling improvements. Los Angeles, on the other hand, fought to exclude the Complete Streets standard from its recently approved Bike Plan.

Santa Monica applied for $2.5 million for a bike share program with 250 bikes at 25 docking stations located at transit stations and activity nodes, supported by marketing and outreach campaigns. Los Angeles, by contrast, continues to fumble simple bike rack installation on city owned property.

Burbank applied for $1.2 million for a Bicycle Boulevard that connects Burbank to Glendale, encouraging cycling for local trips. Los Angeles, demonstrating its timidity, excluded the Bicycle Boulevard engineering standard from its highly touted Bike Plan, choosing instead the softer non-commitment of the Bike Friendly streets.

Demonstrating a knack for avoiding the streets, the LADOT has proposed a project that will spend almost $600K promoting car-free day, begging the question “Why not simple focus on creating more walkable, rideable, transit friendly streets so people have options?”

Lest anyone wonder what those options are, the LADOT has proposed the development of a $742,625 interactive Board Game that will “inform the pre-construction and installation of Bicycle Friendly streets in neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles.”

A Board Game?

If the LADOT and its Interdepartmental Task Force is lacking in ideas and inspiration for long-term transportation planning, it could chat with the folks who walk on the broken sidewalks, ride on the congested streets, stand on dirty sunbeaten streets waiting for mass transit, and pay the maintenance and repair bills caused by potholes.

In fact, Greuel agreed that the people of LA deserve to be involved in the process, pointing out that even the City Council had been excluded. She introduced a motion directing the LADOT to allow the City Council to participate in the prioritization of funding proposals.

Since then, the City Council has directed the LADOT to reach out to the neighborhood councils as they develop and prioritize the transportation projects that are submitted in the “Call for Projects” competitive funding pool.

All of which has resulted in yet another “deer-in-the-headlights” response from the LADOT and a hastily assembled list of transportation proposals that demonstrate a lack of long term planning, a failure to connect with the community, and an inability to compete with neighboring communities who continue to outperform in funding and on the streets.

Two years ago, Greuel declared that “LA could become the Silicon Valley of transportation innovation.” She moved on and Councilman Bill Rosendahl took over the Transportation Committee, declaring “the LADOT must solicit project ideas from the city's Neighborhood Councils.”

That was then and this is now.

As the communities surrounding Los Angeles innovate and implement, the LADOT continues to ignore the community, instead turning to Milton Bradley and the Parker Brothers for inspiration, turning LA’s Transportation Strategic Plan into a modern version of Jeopardy, Risk, and Monopoly.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

Playing Let’s Pretend: LADOT’s Fake Regime Change

CityWatch, June 10, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 46

RETHINKING LA - Mayor Villaraigosa has responded to the recent spate of controversy at the Department of Transportation by moving his Deputy Mayor of Transportation, Jaime de la Vega, over to the General Manager’s position. Villaraigosa touts de la Vega’s experience as a public policy leader and as a manager with extensive experience working in city government. This begs the question, “Where has de la Vega been for the last six years?”

De la Vega has served the Mayor as the Deputy Mayor of Transportation since 1995, a period of time that has seen the LADOT helmed by a series of short-timers that includes Wayne Tanda, Frances Banerjee, Gloria Jeff, Rita Robinson, and Amir Sedadi.

At each turn of the revolving door, Villaraigosa has had the opportunity to draw on his worldwide contacts and to call up a serious world class change agent capable of taking on the mean streets of Los Angeles and its meaner halls of bureaucracy.

Villaraigosa’s decision to move de la Vega over to the GM’s position calls into question the Mayor’s ability to attract world class transportation experts such as Janette Sadik-Khan and Gil Peñalosa. Either he lacks the contacts or he lacks the commitment to change that they would require. Perhaps it’s a combination of both.

Granted, de la Vega has been a loyal Deputy to the Mayor who has a vested interest in avoiding risk and in staying away from controversy. Most of all Villaraigosa needs to keep the spotlight on America Fast Forward, his last real opportunity to exit office with an accomplishment under his belt.

De la Vega has his work cut out for him, even if his mandate is to quell the audit drama and to keep the LADOT humming quietly with no more trouble.

Even such a low standard for success will prove to be a challenge for three reasons, the politics of transportation in Los Angeles, the culture of contempt within the LADOT, and the antiquated strategies for transportation that contradict LA’s claim as a world class city.

LADOT’s politics would challenge Solomon and transportation improvements make the case. Funding gets cut 15 ways so that every Council District gets its fair share of traffic signals, stop lights, speed humps, Safe Routes to School projects, crosswalks and other traffic improvements. This may seem fair but it prevents fast and innovative work from taking place, and it prevents focused implementation which is more effective.

The fact that King Solomon never split the baby is lost on the LADOT which errs in favor of 15-way diplomacy over inspired funding and implementation. This has resulted in LA accepting third world engineering and traffic control while surrounding cities perform better in funding competition and in implementation.

LADOT’s culture of contempt is palpable, witnessed by a recent email when a local transportation engineer responded to a constituent request by emailing instructions to “Contact the Mayor's office and Council office. This is due to the budget that has been adopted by them. You can let them know that it is an essential city service.”

From top to bottom, the “anywhere but here” response is common, including the following exchange from an Assistant General Manager in response to a California Public Records Act CPRA request: “The process for requesting LADOT documents is shown on our website...go to Contact Us then Documents Request to place your order and submit your payment.”

One would think that a 35-year veteran of public service would be aware of the legal requirement to respond to formal CPRA requests but not at the LADOT.

Truth be told, the LADOT doesn’t play well with the Feds nor the State, resulting in the City of LA having their Safe Routes to School funding “red-flagged” or frozen for failure to perform.

The LADOT doesn’t play well with surrounding cities, actually demanding that the neighbors “dumb down” their traffic control communications to match LA’s antiquated technology.

The LADOT doesn’t even play well within the city family, competing with other departments while surrounding cities outperform at the funding pool.

In fact, the LADOT doesn’t even play well with itself, resulting in a silo environment that saw Operations installing bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue without informing the LADOT’s Bikeways Division, a demonstration of disconnect that comes with a hefty price tag.

LADOT’s culture of caution has resulted in a city that errs in favor of avoidance rather than innovation.

When transportation professionals from around the country gathered in Chicago for a conference last year, they acknowledged that America was a full generation behind in traffic engineering and innovations.

Against that backdrop, a slide was projected that displayed one of LA’s most recent implementations of traffic control and it drew groans and a robust discussion of the ability of local transportation authorities like Los Angeles to misinterpret and misapply simple roadway improvements.

LADOT’s current management argue for the status quo as if LA’s streets and traffic were enviable. They’re not. They’re third world and they’re dangerous.

Jaime de la Vega has the loyalty of the Mayor because of the success of Measure R and the 30/10 plan, now rebranded as America Fast Forward. The Mayor’s exit strategy at this point seems to consist of working to get $40 billion in anticipated tax revenue fronted by the Feds so that 30 years of mass transit projects can be completed in 10 years.

Bold, audacious and a great Swan Song for Mayor Villaraigosa.

If only the LADOT can avoid getting busted for double-dipping on federal funding, if only the LADOT can avoid getting busted for moving Measure R funds from projects to staffing, if only the LADOT can avoid getting kicked out of any more funding pools, if only the LADOT can avoid breaking any more State Laws.

So, it falls on Jaime de la Vega to bring the LADOT in line, an odd assignment since he’s been in charge all along and should be as culpable for the misdeeds of the LADOT over the past 6 years.

Perhaps the Mayor recognizes this and de la Vega’s tour of duty as the GM of the LADOT is his punishment.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

CityWatchLA - Five Signs LA is a DIY City

CityWatch, May 17, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 39

BOX SOAP - The City of LA’s self-crippling budget crisis gives new meaning to the phrase “If you want something done correctly, do it yourself.”

Consider these five examples of Do-It-Yourself management initiatives sponsored by the people of Los Angeles in response to the failings of City Hall.

1) The Inspector General for Revenue Collection, as proposed by the Commission on Revenue Efficiency (CORE), is a position that will have the authority and staff to collect the revenue owed to the City of LA.

The Byzantine structure of LA’s government has resulted in billing collection redundancies that leave individual departments responsible for collecting revenue but with little incentive or oversight. Focused on headcount and generating billing, department heads have allowed the actual collections to fall between the cracks, resulting in $541.1 million in bad debt.

When CORE released its 107-page Blueprint for Reforms of City Collections and the 67 specific recommendations including the creation of the Inspector General position, Chairman Ron Galperin pointed out "The City has no real centralized billing and collection process and systems are woefully outdated."

2) The DWP Ratepayers Advocate, as championed by neighborhood council leaders such as Jack Humphreville, President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and CityWatch columnist, and as approved by 80% of the voting public who voted for Measure I which authorizes the Office of Public Accountability and the Ratepayer Advocate, to be effective July 1, 2011.

The movement to forge a relationship with LA’s Department of Water and Power, a Proprietary Department, was motivated by the failure of the Mayor and the City Council to control the nation's largest municipal utility, owned by the people of LA but operating as if the relationship were reversed.

Responsible for delivering reliable, safe water and electricity supplies to the 4 million residents and businesses in Los Angeles, the DWP has also delivered controversy and drama that has resulted in a revolving door of General Managers and recent ballot measures that attest to the failure of City Hall to control this city asset, placing the responsibility on the people of LA.

3) The City Prosecutor is a position that would require bifurcating the City Attorney’s office, creating a position that would actually represent the people of Los Angeles. The current scenario has the City Attorney representing the City of LA as the client, while the people of LA are forced to provide their own legal representation.

The absurdity of the current one-sided legal arena was most recently demonstrated when Barry Sanders, Chair of the Rec and Parks Commission and retired Latham & Watkins Partner, appeared before the City Council in defense of his park advertising scheme.

Sanders complained that the City Attorney’s office should stop raising legal objections based on LA’s sign ordinance to the Parks Foundation sale of advertising in city parks and should instead be looking for ways to legalize it as “Government Speech” on behalf of the Commission.

Sanders singlehandedly made the case for the creation of a City Prosecutor for the City of LA.

4) Community leaders have long held that as long as the citizen oversight of the city’s departments comes from people appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, the people of LA are not represented and there is no real accountability.

LA’s Commissions range in effectiveness and power, some meeting for mere moments on an irregular basis to approve consent agendas while others meet regularly and exert significant influence over city policy and operations.

Joe Barrett of Sunland Tujunga made it a campaign issue in the most recent elections that the people of LA should have a seat on each Commission that is filled by the neighborhood councils.

This would require a Charter amendment and a campaign to get a neighborhood council sponsored initiative on the 2013 ballot must start immediately.

5) Task Forces consisting of both city staffers and community leaders have stepped up to fill the void left behind as the city has bogged down in the budget crisis, demonstrating an effectiveness and agility that has raised the bar.

Under Chief Beck’s leadership, cyclists and the LAPD formed the Cyclists/LAPD Task Force and now work together on policy and programming, resulting in an educational program that is ahead of the state standard.

DONE’s GM, BongHwan Kim, points to the work of the Elections Task Force and the By-Laws Task Force as examples of community members partnering with city staff to move quickly and to maximize results.

Kim has long advocated for neighborhood councils to go beyond simple “median strip beautification” projects and to use each action as an opportunity to fulfill the City Charter mandate “To promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

The East Hollywood Neighborhood Council took a simple constituent complaint about blight and formed the Route 66 Task Force, committed to engaging the people of the community and the city departments in a campaign to reconnect Santa Monica Boulevard with its Route 66 legacy.

PlanCheckNC has picked up the slack with City Planning, the Budget Advocates have made great recommendations on the Budget, and the LA Bike Working Group took the Bike Plan where the LADOT and its consultants were afraid to ride. Through it all, LA’s Task Forces are demonstrating that the future of LA lies in partnerships.

At this past Saturday’s GM Roundtable, Amir Sedadi of LADOT and Ron Olive of Bureau of Street Services both indicated that the most effective way for neighborhood councils to work with the departments on the delivery of city services is to engage the community, establish priorities, and communicate clearly on behalf of the neighborhood.

The people of Los Angeles have an opportunity, to get lost in the budget drama and the debates over “budget dust” or to seize this opportunity of crisis and to use the energy to fight for systemic change.

Now is the time for the people of LA to work together to bring the offices of the Inspector General, the Ratepayers Advocate, and the City Prosecutor to life, complemented by an initiative to create a “People’s Seat” on each City Commission and supported by Task Forces that address the ongoing power vacuum in Los Angeles.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)

CityWatchLA - For LADOT GM the Honeymoon is Way Past Over

CityWatch, May6, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 36

Amir Sedadi, Interim General Manager of LA’s Department of Transportation, demonstrated that the honeymoon is over as he took his turn before the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee during the ongoing Budget Hearings.

The gloves came off at “Hello!” as Sedadi greeted the Committee by pointing out the late hour, revealing a perceived slight based on his 7pm position on the agenda.

He then took the Committee on a journey of his departmental headcount losses over the last couple of years but neglected to offer up any accountability for his performance and for the performance of his department. This was a huge shortcoming.

City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee reviewed Sedadi’s performance during the
Budget Hearings, finding fault with his creative staffing and budget solutions and taking him to task for moving Measure R funds from the intended infrastructure projects and using them for staffing. Chairman Parks clarified by saying “Measure R funds projects, not people.”

Councilman Smith offered his analysis, digging a little deeper and pointing out that the LADOT paid part-time crossing guards $2.2 million in bonuses on top of $5 million in salaries, causing LADOT staff to scramble for answers, finally resulting in Sedadi explaining “We did it because some of the staff worked weekends and evenings.” Smith called it “Shocking.”

Sedadi’s high point during his reign was the approval of LA’s Bike Plan and Councilman Rosendahl gave him bragging room with questions about the LADOT Bikeways Department and the implementation of the Bike Plan.

Sedadi pointed out that the Bikeways Department was fully staffed with seven engineers, two project coordinators, four paid interns and four unpaid interns. He spoke glowingly of the support of the community and the partnership between the Department and the public.

If only it were true. If only there were any results to show for the staffing commitment.

From LA Streetsblog to members of the Bike Plan Implementation Team, the criticism from the public and from the media is that the LADOT staff have failed to implement any of the Bike Plan projects and that they continue to show up for meetings unprepared and unwilling to move forward.

Prior to the Budget hearings, City Controller Wendy Greuel had taken Sedadi and the LADOT to task for failing to collect an estimated $15 million in unpaid parking tickets from "scofflaws," or frequent law violators.

Demonstrating leadership skills that cry for evaluation, Sedadi had explained that the LADOT’s centralized unit for scofflaw enforcement has been disbanded because of budget cuts.

This short sighted budget solution resulted in long term revenue losses that could have gone a long way to delivering city services to the people of Los Angeles.

NBC4 has also been critical of Sedadi’s leadership, offering up news that two LADOT employees had participated in shooting a porn while on duty, in uniform, and in a city vehicle.

Most damning is the fact that LADOT management knew of the incident for more than two months in advance of the NBC4 broadcast but failed to initiate action until confronted by the press.

Adding to the well-rounded criticism of Sedadi’s performance came a whistleblower’s call to Greuel’s office that exposed the LADOT’s $2.5 million overpayment on an old contract while leased gear sat in storage accruing charges. Sedadi blamed old management from 2006, failing to mention that he was Assistant GM for four years and either missed the overpayment or failed to act on it.

Amir Sedadi first began working for the City of LA in 1990 and has served in several positions, including as Assistant Deputy Director of Transportation in the Mayor’s office and as the LADOT’s Liaison to the Mayor and City Council. He knows his way around City Hall.

Sedadi took over the reins of the LADOT six months ago, a role he prepared for by serving as the heir apparent to Rita Robinson, the City Hall veteran who capped her 35-year career with a tour of duty at the helm of the Department of Transportation.

When Robinson announced her retirement, transportation advocates from around the city expressed hope that the Mayor would engage in a worldwide search for a leader in transportation innovations and active transportation, one capable of serving as a "change agent."

Common wisdom from the streets held that a promotion from within would result in “more of the same” while hiring from outside would represent a Mayoral commitment to Complete Streets and multi-modal transportation.

Informal surveys advanced candidates such as Long Beach’s Sumi Gant, San Francisco’s Tim Papandreou, Bogota’s Gil Peñalosa, New York’s Janette Sadik-Kahn, and Copenhagen’s Jan Gehl, resulting in a petition generated by Streetsblog that called for a “Game Changer” at the helm of the LADOT.

While Sedadi’s performance as the leader of LA’s Department of Transportation falls far short of minimal acceptable standards, the real call for accountability belongs to the mayor and his staff, past and present.

As the Mayor coasts into the sunset, as former First Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner embarks on his mayoral campaign, and as Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega steers $40 billion in Measure R funding down the pike, Sedadi’s failure to perform calls into question any notion of accountability at City Hall.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. )

CityWatchLA - LA Fails to Cash the Check

CityWatch, Feb 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 12

The City of LA is mired in a budget crisis, one that has prompted the mayor to go on a “confidence tour” while the city council conducts triage on city assets and the people of LA brace themselves for the next round of service cuts and fee increases.

While those in control would have us believe that this is all due to the current global economic crisis, it’s not quite true. Quite simply, the City of LA has been mismanaging money through thick and thin, through feast and famine, and even when the funding comes through, LA fails to cash the check.

While city hall attempts to balance the budget on the backs of the people who live here and who operate small businesses here, the real opportunities to pay our staff, repair our infrastructure, support healthy communities and partner with our schools are missed because of simple ineptitude.

1) The City of LA competes with itself for funding. The federal and state government both have Safe Routes to School funding, dispensed on an annual basis and LA allows the Department of Transportation, Public Works, and the CRA to all submit projects that compete with each other. A more efficient solution would be to allow Public Works (a charter department) to take the lead and then to ask the hard question, “Why is there a redundancy of services by the LADOT and the CRA?”

2) The City of LA simply fails to compete for great funding. The Office of Traffic Safety provides funds that can pay for public safety personnel and overtime but LA continues to go after funding for “Watch the Road” billboards as the city council debates furloughs and layoffs.

3) The City of LA qualifies for funding and then simply fails to do the work.

• It’s been years since the city council addressed the fact that 33 of the most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren had not received safety improvements even though the funds had been in place for years. They blamed city staff.

• It’s been years since I stood on Wilshire Blvd. with LA’s gridlock busting Mayor, Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel, and LADOT GM Rita Robinson to announce the federal funding that was going to be spent on revitalizing and rebuilding Wilshire Blvd., from one end to the other. Since then, the Mayor has lost interest, Greuel is now the City Controller, Robinson retired in frustration and works for LA County, and anyone who travels on Wilshire Blvd. does so at their own risk.

• As of last week, the city council continues to debate Wilshire Blvd., finally deciding to avoid making a decision until they had seen more reports and studies. Meanwhile, LA residents pay an average of $746 per vehicle in repairs per year as the result of damages from potholes and road debris.

4) The City of LA’s failure to complete projects and then invoice the federal and state authorities disqualifies us from funding cycles. City staff engage in the “sister agency” turf war that screams of the inefficiency of having such redundancy. The LADOT has two projects still open under a Cooperative Work Agreement (fund extension) which makes the whole city ineligible for BTA state funds that pay for city projects that improve safety and convenience.

5) The City of LA qualifies for funding but can’t do the math. When the LADOT was at the Transportation Committee to discuss plans for its share of the Metro’s “local return” funds, the numbers being discussed were based on 10% of net instead of 10% of gross. I pointed out the error ($7.3 million over 5 years) and it was corrected.

LA’s City Council has an obligation to protect the city’s assets and to the deliver city services. The Great City priorities of Public Safety, Public works, Public Health, and Public Education depend on an honest, open and transparent accounting of our funds. It continues with the responsible management of our funds and it moves forward with oversight and accountability.

As for today, it’s incumbent on the city council to “cash the check” and put city staff to work repairing our streets and delivering city services.

(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 - Breaking the Law and playing dumb

CityWatch, Pub: Dec 10, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 98

The laws that require the City of Los Angeles to conduct its business in an open and participatory manner are regularly trounced by people who don't know any better or who simply feign ignorance. Either way, it demonstrates a significant need for oversight and reform at City Hall.

The Brown Act, named after its author, Assemblyman Ralph M. Brown, and passed by the California State Legislature in 1953, guarantees the public the right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies that include neighborhood councils, City Commissions, and the City Council.

Unfortunately, the 57 year-old law is not required reading by the very people who are in the best position to violate it as demonstrated by the regularity with which it gets abused.

LA's City Hall is manned by a security detail that requires people to utter the phrase "The Brown Act" in order to invoke the State Law guaranteed rights, an odd approach to public participation, especially since it wasn't too long ago that those same officers were unaware of the phrase. It was the public that insisted that the Brown Act covered the public from the front door to the gavel.

LA's Police Commission is staffed by very polite people who seem completely unfazed by Ralph M. Brown's legacy, again offering the public an opportunity to educate those in charge of enforcing the law.

LA's Department of Water and Power Commission is staffed by City Attorneys who waste no time jumping on complaints and deflecting criticism, but who are completely unable to address the simple fact that the Brown Act requires a do-over if people are prevented from freely attending meetings.

If the Brown Act is violated at the front door, it is safe to say that those in charge are not diligent in enforcing compliance and the public should be diligent about agendas, reports, actions, and participation.

The upside to the tremendous burden that this puts on the public is the simple fact that legal fees are recoverable which means that the remedy or "cure" for the public is a do-over and any legal assistance is recoverable.

The California Public Records Act, (CPRA) also referred to as California Government Code Section 6250, guarantees the public the right to review documents, reports, and other records including digital files, as a fundamental and necessary right of every person in the state.

The CPRA is also not required reading by the very people who are in the best position to violate it as demonstrated by the inconsistencies within City Hall.

The LADOT lists instructions for records requests on its website, rules that are repeated by staff when requests are made. The problem is that they require payment in advance for information that has not yet been reviewed. It's the other way around. Requested information can be reviewed and if copies are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged. But, most importantly, simply reviewing documents does not come with a fee.

The LADOT also says "Please allow 10-14 working days to receive your requested documents. Absolutely no rush orders will be accepted."

The CPRA, by contrast, says "Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor."

City Planning doesn't accept verbal requests, and then when they are put in writing, they must be sent to the correct person or they simply languish in limbo, violating the 10 day window of required response. Apparently "I'm sorry, you've come to the wrong person!" is still an option at City Planning.

The City of LA is not alone in its unequal and illegal interpretation of the California Public Records Act. Both Metro and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are staffed by employees well-trained in the "I'm sorry, you've come to the wrong person!" approach to public service. Typically, locating the correct staffer is enough to make even the most intrepid member of the public simply give up and fade away.

By design? Regardless, it's illegal and once again, the remedy is to correct the situation and the legal fees are recoverable.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

LA's City Council recently engaged in a discussion of the 1st Amendment and an LADOT staffer pointed out that the 1st Amendment "came under federal purview" and was not the responsibility of the City of LA. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The City of Los Angeles has run afoul of the 1st Amendment on more than one occasion, costing the city significant amounts of money in legal fees and settlements. The City of LA deals with the 1st Amendment on a regular basis, from newspaper racks on the public right-of-way to tourist attractions such as the Venice Beach Boardwalk and Hollywood Boulevard.

A federal judge recently ruled that LA's lottery system for vendor permits on the Venice Boardwalk was a violation of the law and issued an injunction that paved the way for a 1st Amendment "Freedom of Speech" lawsuit by those who were cited by the LAPD.

Another federal judge ruled in favor of "superheroes" who dress up and pose for tourists on Hollywood Boulevard, defending their right to perform and ask for tips as a 1st Amendment guaranteed "Freedom of Speech" issue that was violated when the LAPD cited the characters.

Critics point to the City of LA's inability to train its staff on the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, and the 1st Amendment as evidence that the public needs to have greater authority over City Hall and its adherence to the law.

Others claim that the City's bumbling over agendas and motions is a smokescreen that prevents the public from focusing on violations of California's prohibition against the gift of public goods, a charge that comes up with increasing regularity in land use issues, or from noticing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) powerful deterrents to public participation.

Through it all, former Los Angeles councilwoman Ruth Galanter puts things in perspective by reminding us "I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence."

(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.)