LA’s Secret Meeting Habit: Contempt and Arrogance or Just Bureaucratic Malpractice?

CityWatch, Feb 3, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 10

RETHINKING LA - We, the people, have the right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies yet our elected officials regularly violate this right, creating obstacles to public attendance, participation, and free speech.

This behavior may be due to simple ignorance, although it is hard to believe that elected officials, some having been in public service for more than three decades, are still unaware of the Bill of Rights or the Brown Act.
Two days ago, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission was taken to task for convening the body without proper notice to the public of the meeting or its agenda, a violation of California’s Brown Act, also known as the Open Meeting Law.

The meeting was cancelled abruptly, prompting Commissioner Bernard Parks to chastise the Coliseum Interim General Manager John Sandbrook for allowing the meeting to take place without letting the Commission know that simply participating in the meeting could be a violation of the law.

One might suggest that the Brown Act violation is the least of the Commission’s worries, coming on the heels of charges that the Commission has been engaged in secret sessions that address a proposal to give operational control of the financially floundering stadium to USC.

This casualness with the law comes on the heels of the recent revelation that Coliseum officials have given over a million dollars in cash to a union official who was then responsible for the wages of the Coliseum stagehands, all with no oversight and accountability for appropriate taxes, insurance, and benefits.

As the US Labor Department and the District Attorney investigate this and other operational and financial irregularities, the Commissioners fall back on the favorite legal defense of elected officials, “I had no idea!”

LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky exclaimed "I was never made privy to, nor informed of, financial statements of any kind that documented any cash payments to anyone."

Whew!

Zev was recently in the news for his attempt, in his new role as the Chair of the LA County Board of Supervisors, to limit public comment during Board sessions, a move that violates the Brown Act and demonstrates his contempt for public participation and free speech.

Keep in mind that Coliseum audits tend to follow media inquiries, demonstrating the value of public participation in the process and transparency in the management of public assets.

As for the Board of Supervisors, Zev recently introduced a motion to revise the rules in order to “improve the way Board meetings are conducted.” If approved, the new rules of order would mean simply participating in the Board meetings could be a violation of the law.

Open Meeting advocates, from the League of Women Voters to Bob Blue, pointed out that the public can’t be limited to general comments but have the right to comment on agenda items as they come up. They also pointed out that the proposed requirement to require speakers to provide their names and addresses also violates the law.

The open and transparent attempt to violate the Brown Act can only be attributed to contempt of the public, arrogant hubris, or complete and thorough ignorance of the law.

Whatever the explanation, it speaks volumes for the environment of neglect that has allowed the Coliseum to flounder while management paid their own companies to provide services and collected compensation from other Coliseum vendors, all while delivering suitcases of cash to the local union.

Typically, when officials such as the LA County Board of Supervisors or LA’s City Council are sworn in, the oath of office starts with a commitment to uphold the law of the land. Yet when it includes allowing the public to criticize them or to watch them engage in the public’s business, this oath falls by the wayside.

Miki Jackson and John Walsh recently went to LA’s City Council to speak during public comment on the demise of the CRA, an occasion that drew speakers from all perspectives and offered the City of LA an opportunity to participate in a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The City Council’s Sgt. at Arms, a sworn peace officer in uniform and armed with a gun, informed Jackson and Walsh that they couldn’t hold a sign while they were speaking nor could they even sit in chambers while in possession of the sign.

This violation of the 1st Amendment took place and as Jackson and Walsh left chambers, a member of the City Attorney’s office chased them down and urged them to return, demonstrating that somebody in chambers was familiar with the Bill of Rights guarantee of Free Speech and the Brown Act guarantee that criticism is a form of public comment.

This isn’t the first time that the City Attorney’s office has jumped to protect its client from violating the law.

Simply attending Council, Committee, and Commission meetings typically includes a demand for identification in violation of the Brown Act which guarantees open meetings and the right to participate without identification restrictions. (for those who worry about security issues, go visit the state capital. There is still security screening, they simply don’t require you to identify yourself)

The DWP Commission was well into its agenda when a member of the public entered to announce that the meeting was talking place in violation of the Brown Act because security was restricting access. The City Attorney’s representative jumped to his feet and acknowledged that the DWP’s policy of requiring identification was a violation of State law.

For those that question the significance of a simple ID violation, consider that the public agencies and authorities who are cavalier about such specifics are demonstrating a casualness with the law that typically reflects additional and deeper inappropriate or illegal behavior.

A member of City Planning recently stood next to a member of City Hall’s General Services Police Department and blocked entrance to a meeting of a Brown Act governed body to anyone who didn’t show identification. The city employee assured the public that they were trained in Brown Act rules and city staff reiterated their refusal to allow members of the public to attend or participate in the meeting until they produced identification.

This obstinate behavior, even when confronted by the law, speaks volumes to the uphill battle that the public faces when challenging plans, proposals, policies, codes, laws, and other actions that our elected officials and public employees advance on our behalf without our participation or approval.

The City Planning employee committed a misdemeanor, prosecutable because it took place in the presence of a sworn law enforcement officer. Typically, Brown Act violations require a claim of violation and a “demand for cure” which amounts to a do-over of the meeting or agenda item in question.

LA’s Police Commission also demonstrates a cavalier attitude to the Brown Act, either out of ignorance or arrogance, either way a bad sign for the body that purports to have oversight and accountability for the LAPD as it engages in the business of upholding the law.

Whether it’s your 1st Amendment fight to free speech or your Brown Act right to receive notice of meetings, speak in public, review documents before they are acted on, and simply witness the proceedings without hassle, the City of LA and the County of LA are far from a tradition of compliance.

Whether or not you care about the inner machinations of Coliseum management or the demise of the CRA or the details of Brown Act guarantees to open meetings, it’s important that you stand up for those that do.

Whether or not you care about access to City Planning or the DWP Commission or the Police Commission or any of the bodies that act on your behalf, it’s important that you stand up for those that do.

If you care about accountability in our government, it is imperative that you demand that those who are conducting the people’s business abide by the law, in everything they do.

When our elected officials violate the Bill of Rights and California State Law, they have violated their oath of office and clearly demonstrated that they are unfit to serve.

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

Corruption in LA’s Housing Dept Out of Control … and Nowhere for the Buck to Stop

CityWatch, Oct 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 83

RETHINKING LA - Last week City Watch LA took LA’s Housing Department (LAHD) to task for its controversial Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) charging that it preyed on small landlords, failed to deliver the oversight it promised, left tenants in limbo and provided a safe-haven for squatters.

Over the weekend, the plot thickened as the LA Times covered a Housing Department employee who exploited her relationship with immigrant landlords, collecting payoffs from them and steering them to her contractor husband. The employee was convicted of felony bribery charges while her husband, also charged in the case, left for South Korea where he remains out of reach of police.

Most damning for the City and the Housing Department is the clear lack of oversight and accountability that has been revealed in incident after incident, going back ten years to when Laura Chick conducted an audit and declared REAP broken.

Last year’s arrest and conviction of an LAHD employee failed to motivate LAHD management to call attention to the case, leaving high-level officials in the city attorney's office, the Personnel Department and the Department of Building and Safety in the dark until informed by the LA Times.

The Assistant General Manager responsible for the REAP program, Robert Aldape, didn’t investigate further to see if there were other incidents, saying employee communications with customers aren't closely monitored.

Speaking of the convicted employee, Aldape said "We simply don't know what interactions she had, people come to the public counter all the time, so there would be no way to track it."

Insiders at the LAHD contend that Aldape has personal motivation to take a laissez-faire attitude, pointing to his prior role as the “executive director” of the LA Housing Law Project, a “tenant advocacy non-profit” which he operated right out of his law office, a private firm that made its money by suing small landlords.

This two-hat journey to the #2 position at the LAHD has allowed Aldape to position himself as a “non-profit director” when dealing with housing issues but as a “law firm principal” when making campaign contributions.

Over the last decade, a cottage industry has blossomed in support of REAP, made up of nonprofit corporations that provide “tenant outreach services” under contract with the LAHD. Critics charge that the nonprofits, once armed with critical information from the LAHD, turn their contracts into lawsuit generation machines against the small landlords who lack the sophistication to fight back.

Faced with a lawsuit, many of the small landlords simply roll over, negotiate a monetary settlement, and look for an exit strategy.

A review of the nearly 1700 properties under the REAP control reveals a disproportionate number of 2 to 4 unit buildings that have been taken from the control of the property owner, serving as anecdotal evidence in support of the landlords’ charges.

The City of LA has heard the allegations of those who claim to suffer at the hands of the LAHD, prompting Councilmember Parks to call on the LAHD and the City Attorney’s Office to investigate the complaints and come up with a report.

This stirred another round of allegations, this time from within the department, from staffers who contend that “The foxes have taken over the henhouse and are partying up. They are calling the tune, and the unwitting public is footing the bill.”

Aldape appeared before the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee and reported that his investigation had found “nothing to substantiate the allegations.”

This self-evaluating systemic of oversight is somehow sufficient for the City Council but when an employee was convicted of felony bribery, Aldape claimed an inability to monitor the actions and communications of employees.

Charges that the LAHD has been run as a personal fiefdom of upper management go back to the days of Mercedes Marquez who left for Washington DC in 2009 to take a position as Assistant Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department.

Critics claim that Marquez left in her wake a highly polarized and demoralized department that continues to take its direction from political patrons, leaving potential whistleblowers in fear of the self-investigating regime, and communities vulnerable to the REAP administration that leaves tenants, landlords, and neighbors equally abused.

REAP is the city administered program that evaluates rental properties when they are cited for code violations and if the property is declared “unsafe” or “untenantable” by the LAHD, the city steps in and collects the rent with a discount of up to 50%, depending on whether the conditions are “nuisance” or “hazardous.”

Landlords, tenants and neighbors complain that the good intentions have failed to materialize in good performance, resulting instead in foreclosed properties, blighted buildings, and neighborhoods terrorized by squatters.

Demonstrating the controversial nature of LA’s housing program, the Mayor’s Deputy Mayor of Housing & Economic Development Policy is now referred to as the Deputy Mayor for Economic and Business Policy.

LA’s Housing Department is in such dire straits that even the Mayor’s office knows it’s time to step away from the carnage.

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

Rosendahl Calls LA’s ACE Ordinance “Half-Baked”

CityWatch, Oct 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 79

UPDATE - LA City Council's Budget & Finance Committee, on Monday, reviewed the City Attorney's most recent version of the proposed Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) Ordinance, punching holes in it and sending it back to the City Attorney for repairs.

"This ordinance is half-baked!" declared Councilman Bill Rosendahl as he scoffed at the notion that he should even review a draft ordinance that was only released to the public two hours before the commencement of the meeting. He added that the fact that the ACE ordinance pits neighbor against neighbor is a huge flaw and that a complaint driven process lacks a commitment to standards.

Councilman Englander punched budget holes in the draft ordinance, pointing out that it lacks any measure of cost estimate, metrics for evaluating success, and that it is disguised as a pilot program when in fact it is a "phased-in implementation."

Councilman Parks gave a list of specific instructions to the City Attorney's office, calling for clarification of the subpoena authority, a definition of the administrative officers, a real cost analysis, clarity of the need for positive ID requirement for those cited, a plan for collecting fines that comes from the Office of Finance, information on LAPD overtime commitments and costs for testimony at hearings, a list of violations to be included in the pilot program, and the impact on parallel programs such as the pending signage ordinance.

Councilman Koretz gave the revised draft of the proposed ACE ordinance one last attempt at resuscitation, explaining that this was simply an opening move and that all financial responsibility was the City Attorney's, a claim that was rejected by Pedro Echeverria, Chief Assistant City Attorney.

Councilman Cardenas was quiet, offering no words in favor of the proposed ACE ordinance, standing by as the Budget & Finance Committee called on the City Attorney to report back in 30 days with answers to their many questions and on the CLA to conduct community hearings and outreach on the draft ACE Ordinance.

The standing-room-only crowd consisted of property owners, landlords, and tenants, predominantly in agreement (4 to 1) that the ordinance has many flaws. Noel Weiss referred to the CA's ACE proposal as "so incredibly and poorly drafted that it defies belief. It is an embarrassment to the City Attorney's Office because it constitutes both legal malpractice and political malpractice."

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

LA’s ACE Program Cuts Both Ways

CityWatch, Sept 30, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 78

RETHINKING LA - “Don't worry,” said the trees when they saw the axe coming, “The handle is one of us.”

LA’s proposed Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) Program is positioned as a panacea capable of curing all that ails the broken City of Los Angeles, including the ongoing budget crisis, collapsing infrastructure, threats to public safety, quality of life issues, courthouse backlogs, overworked and understaffed municipal departments, and a full generation of inefficient code enforcement that has left the landscape of LA littered with billboards, pot shops, and busted sidewalks.

High horse advocates of the ACE program have become so enthralled with the idea of efficient code enforcement that they have missed the parallel journey of Council File No. 05-1853, a City Attorney initiated draft ordinance which would make residents responsible for sidewalk repair.

In other words, as the residents of LA are distracted by the promise of the proposed ACE program, the City Attorney is working to return responsibility for the city’s broken sidewalks to the property owners who will then find themselves on the enforcement end of the newly armed ACE program.

The City Attorney has a strong motivation for getting the ACE program underway and then for shifting responsibility for sidewalk repair to property owners due to the pending settlement of a class action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit which is scheduled for court approval on October 20, 2011.

The current proposed settlement would commit the City of LA to the implementation of a 25 year plan for bringing the City of LA’s sidewalks into ADA compliance. Under current budget conditions, this is hardly a promise the City of LA can make but by shifting the responsibility of sidewalk repair to residents and then arming the City Attorney with ACE enforcement efficiency, the people of LA will soon discover that ACE is the sword that cuts both ways.

The ACE program was initially presented with strong claims of revenue enhancement potential. City Attorney presentations to community groups pointed out that currently, fines go to Sacramento but under ACE, the City of LA gets to keep the money.

Charges that the City of LA was only interested in balancing the budget on the backs of those who can afford it the least have prompted a CLA directive which clarifies that the purpose of the ACE program is to improve code enforcement, not to generate revenue. Of course, saying so doesn’t make it so, but it’s a nice gesture that is only contradicted by reality and the words of Councilmembers and Department managers.

The ACE program is billed by the City Attorney’s office as an alternative to the current system that treats municipal code violations as misdemeanors, resulting in a clogged system that currently has a backlog of 10,000 cases.

ACE is positioned as a simple administrative process of municipal code violation enforcement that will foster “timely compliance with the law in order to protect public health and safety and provide a fair and effective administration of justice.”

The proposed ACE program includes provisions for City Attorney inspectors with the authority to issue Administrative Citations for code violations that they witness. This power is buried in a draft ordinance that lacks clearly defined roles, authorities, and oversight for the proposed Enforcement Officers and is a significant weakness in a proposal that grants unprecedented power to the City Attorney’s office.

Proponents of the program have seized on ACE as a remedy to the quality of life issues that include barking dogs, loud parties, loitering, dirty sidewalks, gambling, filming without a permit, dogs on the beach, fireworks, dog defecations, and curb numbers getting painted without a permit.

Opponents of the program counter that the ACE program is complaint driven, that it results in more uneven application of the municipal code, that it results in selective enforcement of the law, and that it sacrifices due process in return for revenue generation, all at the expense of those who can afford it the least.

The judicial element of the ACE program is made up of Administrative Hearing Officers who are either under the oversight of the City Attorney’s office or completely independent of the City Attorney’s office, depending on whether you are listening to City Attorney representatives on Council Phone or on the Larry Mantle Show on KPCC. When you consider that the proposed ordinance gives the Administrative Hearing Officers subpoena authority, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

When the Committee expressed concerns about the proposed subpoena authority, Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter jumped quickly, too quickly in fact, to defend it by saying “this allows those charged with a citation to call witnesses.” To hear him speak, it sounds like the cited party will end up with subpoena authority. Regardless, he was unclear on whether this was at the discretion of the Hearing Officer or if it was a right of the cited party. Again, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

At every turn, the proponents of the proposed ACE program extol the virtues of a system that “decriminalizes” Municipal Code violations, allowing residents to simply pay a fine and go on their way. Missing is a discussion of the due process that also disappears and the resulting system that limits the rights of the charged yet expands the powers of the City Attorney.

Administrative Hearings are final for the residents of Los Angeles and if the ruling is against them, “no further appeal may be filed pursuant to the provisions of this Code.” Yet if the ruling is in favor of the resident, the City Attorney can still pursue “any and all remedies provided by law.”

While the decriminalization of the actual code violation is touted as a benefit, the result is a swift journey to judgment where the failure to abide by the Administrative Order or pay the Administrative Fine is subject to “criminal remedies, civil action, injunctive relief, specific performance, and the recordation of a lien or a notice of the Administrative Violation against real property.” The penalties, coupled with the threat of enforcement, are hardly in scale with decriminalized violations. Again, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

Charges that the proposed ACE program, as drafted by the City Attorney, is nothing more than an employment strategy with a funding stream are hard to ignore when the draft ordinance provides for the recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs.” If the ACE proposal is truly an efficient program, the City Attorney’s office should be experiencing savings, not elbowing its way to the feeding trough in an embarrassing display of bureaucratic gluttony.

This past Monday, the proposed ACE program made another appearance at the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee, drawing a standing room only crowd that spoke passionately about the ACE program, with 16 members of the public in favor of ACE and 14 members opposed.

The City Hall spin team watched the Committee send the ACE motion back to the City Attorney for a systemic overhaul, a “continuance” that was erroneously referred to as “unanimous endorsement.” The split audience was also referred to as supportive, completely dismissing the positions of those who showed up to protest.

The proposed ACE program, as presented by the City Attorney’s office, fell far short of the City’s Chief Legislative Analyst standards, enduring 14 recommendations for adjustment from the CLA and a fairly significant round of detailed concerns from the Committee, resulting in a continuance to Monday, October 3, when the City Attorney will return with another version of the proposed ACE program.

The original motion that put the proposed ACE program in motion was made in January of 2010 by Councilman Koretz, seconded by Councilman Parks, and positioned as an opportunity to create “a more efficient and effective code enforcement program through the use of administrative citations, as an alternative to legal action.”

The long journey to this week’s continuance has been one of Budget and Finance Committee instructions and City Attorney responses, a see-saw battle that pits the original intentions of Councilman Koretz against the desires of the City Attorney’s office.

The City Attorney’s draft ordinance does not restrict, limit, or specify which Municipal Code Sections would be covered or enforceable under the ACE program, in spite of prior instructions from the Committee to specify participating departments and relevant code sections.

Councilman Englander asked Chief Deputy City Attorney Carter if the proposed ACE program applied to LA’s entire Municipal Code and he received a very quiet affirmative answer, prompting another directive to the City Attorney to prepare a list that limits and clarifies the appropriate codes.

Councilman Koretz acknowledged the concerns of the public about due process, uneven application of the law, the vulnerability of a complaint driven system, and the risk of selective prosecution, all of which prompted him to insist that the ACE program be unfolded slowly as a pilot program, an instruction that has met resistance from the City Attorney. Koretz’s final position was that the LAPD was the only department to be involved in the initial “pilot” phase and that the Housing Department and Animal Services would be the next two in line.

Committee Chair Parks acquiesced to Koretz’s suggestion that the program start slowly with the LAPD, expressing disappointment that the pilot didn’t include Housing and Animal Services, and pointing out that the current budget already included anticipated revenue from Animal Services code enforcement actions. Parks was firm in his contention that the Department of Building and Safety was an unsuitable participant in the ACE program because the department was “in a quagmire.”

Councilman Englander noted that if the City of LA is about to get busy enforcing municipal code such as the prohibition of gas powered leaf blowers, it should first start by putting an end to its own code violations, referring to the City’s use of illegal leaf blowers.

The irony to having the LAPD serve as the test pilot for the proposed ACE program is that the LAPD’s new division facilities are all built in violation of LAMC 12.21, the same section that is used to cite residents for land use violations. In fact, a significant number of people that spoke in opposition were there with complaint driven 12.21 violations that had resulted in threats of “liens, garnishment, and other legal actions” all because of over-in-height fences.

There is no doubt that the City of LA is mired in a tremendously inefficient system of code enforcement but to embrace the current ACE program is to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

To those who stand ready to call in their neighbor for that barking dog, pause for a moment and look out the window at your sidewalk. If it is broken, remember that the sword cuts both ways and while your neighbor is muzzling his dog, you will be repaving your sidewalks.

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

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.)