LA’s City Hall: The Great Pabulum and Placebo Dispenser

CityWatch, Feb 17, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 14

RETHINKING LA - LA’s leadership has a knack for dispensing with the restless residents who periodically take up pitchforks and torches, storming City Hall with demands for accountability in the delivery of city services.

The first step is to feign interest in the opinions of the public in the hopes that the noise will stop.
“Please, take my survey and tell me what you think!” says the Mayor as he engages in the annual charade of concern that precedes the charter mandated submission of the Mayor’s Proposed Budget for the City of LA.

”Please, fill out a comment card and sit for a few hours, then we will ignore you while you fumble through your two minutes of commentary!” say the members of various committees, commissions and advisory boards as they tolerate the public on their way to preordained conclusions and actions.

The City of LA is acutely sensitive to the legal minimum standard for public commentary as city leadership engages in the business of the people because it spends the bulk of its time focused on doing only what is required, not what would be effective or meaningful.

From Brown Act violations at the entrance of City Hall to First Amendment violations in Council Chambers, it is clear that City Hall tolerates public comment because it has to, not because it reflects the will and wishes of the people.

The second step is to feign interest in a movement in the hopes that the crowd will go away.

“Please, stay as long as you need to!” said City Council President Eric Garcetti to the Occupy LA protesters as Councilman Bill Rosendahl stood by his side.

Those who mistakenly assumed that the words of the City Council President had value were quickly disappointed when the Mayor ordered the LAPD to engage in a military style action that removed the protesters.

The cement barrier that currently surrounds City Hall is a glaring reminder that the verbal assurances of the City Council President aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

The third step is to nod somberly and to demand reports from city departments in the hope that the public will accept this as a victory.

The City Attorney’s ACE program keeps reappearing in City Council Committees, resembling that gopher game at the arcade where participants bang on the gopher’s head with a mallet as it pops up in different locations.

The ACE program has popped up all over town but the public has been able to bang on its head with the mallet of common sense, sending it back to the City Attorney’s office for more reports and adjustments and tweaks.

Eventually the public will swing and miss and the ACE program will fly through to City Council approval, just another rigged arcade game that promises much but delivers little.

Most city departments have a staff member who monitors City Hall and generates reports as ordered, knowing that this is all it takes to keep the elected officials at bay. Most of the reports never see the light of day, some get debated, and a few even turn into motions, which then get ignored.

The fourth step is to call for a moratorium while the subject is studied and debated and terms of office run out.

From medical marijuana to fast food to code harassment, LA is the Capital of Moratoriums, demonstrating that there is nothing as attractive as the opportunity to kick an issue down the road and to leave it for the next round of elected officials.

Those who work in the city departments that delivery city services are on to this game and they yawn as they ignore the moratoriums with complete confidence that there is no penalty or punishment. After all, three decades of civil service trumps the temporary leadership at City Hall.

Garcetti’s most recent promise of a moratorium on over height fence code enforcement in Hollywood was rejected by the upper management of Building and Safety, not with an official response, not with a reasoned discussion or a public hearing, but with the most stinging blow of all options, it was simply ignored.

This demonstrates the charade of City Hall, elected officials who must dance carefully to avoid allowing the public to discover that they are impotent, Emperors with no clothing, photo-op captains at the helm of a ship with no rudder.

The fifth step is to issue a resolution in support of a position, one that is suitable for framing, hoping that this will drive the pesky members of the public to Aaron Brothers where they can revel in the victory while the City of LA engages in business as usual.

Cyclists were empowered when the City Council endorsed the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights, issuing a resolution that called on City Planning and Transportation to embrace it as an element of the City’s Bike Plan.

Staffers simply refused, arguing that it was redundant and unnecessary and not within the City of LA’s purview. The penalty for noncompliance? There is none.

The final step is to simply run for a different office with a platform of reform, one that attacks the performance of the prior office-holders as if they aren’t the same gang of misfits.

City Controller Wendy Greuel is now auditing the same departments that she dealt with when she served as a City Councilwoman for District #2. Nothing has changed other than her perspective and degree of accountability.

As Chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, she had years to engage in oversight of the Department of Transportation yet it didn’t happen. Now, she’s racing to beat the feds in uncovering the indiscretions that took place on her watch.

Councilman Dennis Zine is busy campaigning for City Controller, a position that will allow him to ask the hard questions that he should be asking now in his position as Chair of the Audits and Governmental Efficiency Committee. Again, he is currently responsible for oversight of departments that are currently under federal investigation. How can he run on this record of failure?

Councilman Garcetti is running for Mayor on a platform of reform but how does he propose to change a city family that is currently ignoring his requests, motions, actions, and directives?

The people of LA have the right to demand a City that works, one that delivers city services as if it is the primary purpose of the City. It is incumbent on the current roster of elected officials to take charge of this city and to offer results, not more promises and distractions.

The veneer is wearing thin and it is becoming obvious to the public that City Hall is busy massaging the status quo by delivering memorandums-of-understanding and audits and resolutions, none of which mean anything other than to pay homage to the blue beads of past deceptions.

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

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.)

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.)