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 City Hall: Mired in the Moment … Missing a Vision for the Future

CityWatch, Jan 6, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 2

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA’s ongoing budget crisis has allowed a triage mentality to permeate throughout City Hall, framing the ongoing debate over our future in the negative and conditioning the public to focus on what they can give up rather than what they want.

Each year the Mayor’s office gathers with neighborhood council representatives to solicit feedback on the Mayor’s Budget, a process that typically starts with “Where can we cut City Services in order to balance the budget?” and concludes with “Well, we had no choice!”

Along the way, the public is re assured that the decimation of city departments and the continued restriction of city services are inevitable and acceptable, after all, “We’re in the middle of an economic meltdown and it’s not our fault.”

This results in a commitment to the negative, a focus on the worst case scenario and a complete abdication of responsibility, all of which leads the city to engage in cost recovery revenue enhancements that are predatory and regressive.

If the City of LA is going to weather the current storm of unemployment, homelessness, home foreclosures, collapsing infrastructure, and crisis-mode delivery of city services, it must start with a resolution to get positive.

There are some who have set their focus so low that simple survival is considered a worthy accomplishment but I would contend that demonstrates a lack of vision and a failure to commit to success.

As the current budget process gets underway, it’s reasonable to ask a few hard questions of the Mayor, of the departmental managers, and of our City Council.

1) What successful municipal authorities have weathered the same economic storm that put LA on the rocks and what can we learn from their success?

Hint: Look to the LA County Board of Supervisors and take note of the contrast between the different strategies for prevailing during economic turbulence. The Supervisors negotiate contracts that will work through thick and thin while the City of LA squanders when it’s ahead and issues promises when it’s behind.

2) What successful municipal authorities have increased revenue without inflicting higher fees, fines, and penalties on its residents and businesses?

Hint: Look to Boston and take note of their economic growth, an increase of 4.8% in 2010, and their ranking as the sixth most economically powerful city in the world. Boston has created an “Innovation District” that is designed to bring major biotechnology business to town while LA still struggles with permits for sidewalk dining outside small cafes.

3) What successful municipal authorities have increased efficiencies in the delivery of city services without increasing costs?

Hint: Look to Long Beach and try to find the Department of Transportation. You won’t. You’ll find Public Works and within it you will find people working together on transportation, engineering, street services, etc. You’ll also find funding experts who represent a city 1/8th the size of LA yet when they go to the same funding sources, they ask for five times as much as LA and they get it. They prevailed because they had the audacity to think big and to go to work.

The people of Los Angeles have a right to leadership that is focused on a vision for the future, not simply a deferential survival of the storm, but a strong commitment to highly functional city machine that delivers city services and moves LA forward, confidently and successfully.

It’s time to reject the traditional budget triage and to reframe the debate, starting with the tough questions for the Mayor, the City Council and the department chiefs.

The LA Times took a shot at asking the candidates for Council District 15 some tough questions, but years of service to a sinking ship has left the editorial staff unable to come up with anything other than “Is there anything the city currently does that it should no longer be doing?” and “One more time: Because you acknowledge we have to cut something, is there anything the city doesn't need to do? Anything we could or should cut or leave to someone else?”

Missing from the interviews are questions that address a vision for LA’s future, the establishment of goals for the city and its departments, oversight and accountability of those performance goals, and a firm commitment for establishing outside revenue streams.

Of course, it’s not up to the LA Times to hold City Hall accountable, it’s up to us, the people of LA, and it starts with a resolution to reframe the debate and insist on a positive approach to the future that is built on a Great City vision.

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

The Politics of Inertia

CityWatch, Aug 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 68

RETHINKING LA - One of the most important City Hall survival skills is the artful dance of inertia, the ability to steer clear of any responsibility for progress while maintaining the appearance of support.

For the City Councilmembers, this skill is best demonstrated by their enthusiastic response to literally any proposal or proposition when it’s introduced. Then the Politics of Inertia takes over and departmental reports are ordered, cost impacts are studied, staffing requirements are analyzed, and eventually any good idea dies of old age in a dusty stack of council committee droppings.

For the departmental staffers, this skill requires the artful avoidance of “yes” and “no” answers, all while maintaining a flurry of activity that includes scurrying from meeting to meeting with the obligatory beleaguered look on the face and an armload of reports and charts as evidence that an important mission is underway.

Staffers typically invoke three specific tools of inertia in their commitment to avoiding progress; budget impacts, security concerns, issues of liability.

As for budget concerns, we get it. The real question is “Does City Hall get it?” The public knows that things have costs, that everything has an impact on the budget. Yet when it comes to establishing priorities and engaging in oversight and accountability, the crickets chirp. Until the public asks for something and then the first line of defense is “Well, you know, we’re in a budget crisis!”

Security is a concern to everybody but it also turns into an obstacle that is used to restrict access, not facilitate public participation. It’s easier to for the public to get into Sacramento’s Capital Building than into LA’s City Hall, as if it’s the public that should be feared. Meanwhile, the most recent murders on city property have been at the hands of city employees and the most recent acts of sabotage were city staff labor actions directed at the LADOT.

The City of LA has armed guards in charge of dispensing visitor stickers, demonstrating that the illusion of Security trumps the limits of Budget at the “Department of No!”

Liability is the last line of defense, used when all else fails as a way to avoid progress and now synonymous with the “ability to lie.” Community members advocating for progress find it hard to overcome the “liability” objection, after all, it sounds so “responsible.”

If liability was really a concern, the City of LA would stop rejecting transportation innovations requested by the public and start restricting the actions of the Mayor, the City Council, and the LAPD.

LA’s City Council just got taken to task in the California Court of Appeal for exceeding its authority, resulting in a court reversal and the Judge's opinion that “the City Council abused its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law.”

The LAPD was taken to task by U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson who ruled that the “Superheroes” on Hollywood Boulevard had a First Amendment and Fourth Amendment right to remain on the public sidewalk free from LAPD persecution.

As for the Mayor, the City Attorney failed to impress on him the danger in accepting free tickets from companies with lobbyists in City Hall or contracts with the City. While the public clearly understands the liability involved when one attends a taping of American Idol or a Spice Girls concert, the Mayor didn’t and it resulted in California's political watchdog recommending the largest combined ethics fine in the agency's history.

Pound for pound and dollar for dollar, objections of liability are typically the line of defense as City Hall defends the status quo and fights to avoid progress.

Professionals in all endeavors must contend with the limitations of budgets, with obligations to provide a safe and secure environment, and requirements to conduct business legally and responsibly so that there are no issues of liability. But at City Hall, they’re not standards for performance, they’re tools for avoiding responsibility and sidestepping progress.

The Mayor rises above the fray with a unique strategy that trumps the simple bureaucratic tools of those in City Hall’s hamster wheel, he employs the most powerful weapon of inertia, “Press Conference!”

Villaraigosa’s twist on Burnham’s “Make Big Plans!” directive is to make really big plans, plans so big that the responsibility for actually delivering on them will fall on those in the next generation.

Villaraigosa has bounced from promise to promise, assuring Angelenos that LA is the Greenest Big City, the land of Sustainable Industry, home to a million trees, and just recently he discovered the entertainment industry and now he has a plan for supporting film production!

You can’t turn a ship that isn’t moving and Villaraigosa is currently at the helm of the Capital of Inertia, a city so stuck in the quagmire of bureaucracy that even with his muscle behind a Mayoral Directive, simply implementing LA’s Bike Plan with paint on the street won’t be complete until he’s 93 years old. Of course, that’s only if it doesn’t run into budget restraints, security and safety concerns, and liability issues.

LA’s future belongs to the bold, to those who are willing to confront mediocrity and to challenge the veracity of the objections that get thrown at the feet of progress. It’s up to the public to reject false obstacles and to demand progress.

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

City Hall Sharks Circling Neighborhood Councils

CityWatch, July 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 59

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA is almost one month into the first month of its 2011/2012 budget, a $6.9 billion behemoth that exceeds last year’s budget by $150 million and is the largest operating budget in the history of LA. The increase in LA’s budget is a quiet fact that was completely overshadowed by the City Hall budget drama of the last couple of years that has been used to justify significant cuts to city staff and services complemented by increases in fees, permits, fines, and penalties.

During the City Council’s contentious budget hearing earlier in the year, the heads of each city department appeared before the Budget & Finance Committee to defend their department, their staff, and their operating budget. One by one, from the offices of the City Controller and the City Attorney to the departments of Aging and Community Development, the City of LA’s org chart was shaken, squeezed and put through the budget wringer.

The public showed up to defend the city departments that were on the chopping block, arguing vehemently against cuts to the Police Department, the Fire Department, Recreation and Parks, Libraries, Cultural Affairs, Planning, and the many others that deliver the public safety and quality of life city services that Angelenos consider to be essential.

As the hearings progressed, the crowd thinned, and by the time the Neighborhood Councils were on the chopping block, the outcome was a fait accompli, resulting in a 10% reduction in annual budgets and the loss of all rollover funds. This action took place quietly and was complemented by the continued evisceration of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.

Missing from the exchange was the deafening roar of support from the Police Department, the Fire Department, Recreation and Parks, Libraries, Cultural Affairs, Planning or any of the other departments who enjoyed the support of the neighborhood councils as they defended their budgets and their mandates.

The budget dust settled, neighborhood councils went back to work, rollover funds were swept and the new $40,500 annual budgets were allocated in order to fulfill their City Charter mandated mission “to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

All of a sudden, the City Family rediscovered their affection for neighborhood councils and department heads came courting their budget buddies, demonstrating the fact that self-preservation has no boundaries.

In a city with a $6.9 billion operating budget, it’s an incredible demonstration of bold egocentrism that motivates a manager of a billion dollar department to ask neighborhood councils for a share of their meager pittance, a reward that can hardly be worth the manager’s time.

And yet the city family sharks circle the neighborhood councils, asking for money to pay for equipment and services that should be paid for with their own budgets.

The city’s budget grew by approximately $150 million this past year, money that funds the delivery of city services that include public safety and public works. Neighborhood councils collectively account for less than $4 million of the city’s $6.9 billion budget, a number that pales in comparison to the $1.2 billion Police Department budget or the $480 million Fire Department budget or the $133 million Transportation budget.

In spite of their limited funds, neighborhood councils still find a way to support the LAPD with volunteers and funding, they still find a way to train and equip volunteers for the LAFD, they continue to pay to clean streets, to pull weeds from sidewalks, to empty trash, to remove graffiti, and they continue to fund median strip improvements, speed humps, Sharrows, and planning outreach.

But, along the way, the burden of that $40,500 budget has distracted the neighborhood councils from their mandate of advising the City of LA on the delivery of City Services and has allowed then to assume responsibility for funding the departments that should be answering to the neighborhood councils.

There is something absurd about the largest departments within the city family shaking down the smallest members. Any financial benefit to the larger department is surely negligible relative to the time and energy it takes to accomplish but the process also reverses the roles, given that neighborhood councils should actually be advising the city departments on their budgets and operations. After all, it’s the City Charter mandate.

The larger absurdity is that City of LA department managers can find the time to chase funds from one pocket to another, foregoing the larger opportunity to perhaps engage in the efficient operation of their department or, even bolder, look for opportunities to engage the public in roles of oversight.

But if the City of Los Angeles is to consider the departmental shake-downs of neighborhood councils appropriate shuffling of city funds, there should be some protocols in place, rules that govern the transference of neighborhood council funds to the operating budgets of city departments:

1) Neighborhood Councils funding should be limited to City Departments that stood up for the neighborhood councils during the City of LA’s Budget Hearings and defended the volunteers who work so hard to fulfill their City Charter mandate of engaging the public in monitoring the delivery of City Services. When the General Managers and Directors of LA’s Departments and Bureaus stand side by side with neighborhood councils as partners, they should feel free to solicit funds for their departments.

2) Neighborhood Councils funding should be limited to City Departments that have Commissions with a seat that is set aside for Neighborhood Council representation. When the Police Commission has an NC seat, the LAPD should feel free to solicit funds for their equipment. When the Rec & Parks Commission opens up an NC seat, RAP should feel free to solicit funds for their programs.

3) Neighborhood Councils funding should be limited to departments that entertain reciprocal requests for funding and services. Of course, this is the way things were supposed to be before they were flipped, one where the neighborhood councils advised the city on the delivery of city services and the departments were actually responsive to the local priorities.

The absurdity of the biggest of the big going after the smallest of the small in order to fund services and supplies is predatory and does nothing to advance LA but simply allows the departments to consume the host.

The missed opportunity through all of this is for the City Family to take its collective eyes of the budgets of other departments and to focus on outside revenue sources that require community support as a key element in qualifying and implementing federal and state money that would go much further in funding city services.

Neighborhood councils are in an ideal position to serve as the funding partners on Office of Traffic Safety funding that would go directly to LAPD staffing and services. The impact of an OTS grant is much more significant that any NC contribution to LAPD office supplies.

Neighborhood councils are best equipped to conduct the outreach necessary to qualify for funds such as the CA Statewide Park Program that funded the creation of parks in underserved communities. The impact of a $5 million grant far outweighs the negligible benefit of a neighborhood council contribution for RAP outreach materials.

Neighborhood councils are perfect partners for the Transportation Department as the City of LA goes after Safe Routes to School funding, money that can be put to work improving the sidewalks and streets of our neighborhoods. The impact of proactive teamwork has the potential to deliver millions of dollars to our streets which far outperforms the current meager contributions that are made in desperate attempts to “prime the pump” and motivate a reticent department.

It’s time that City Hall and the city departmental leadership recognize neighborhood councils as partners in engaging the public in the civic process, as partners in departmental oversight and accountability, and as partners in great funding that supports the delivery of city services.

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

CityWatchLA - Please Hold for City Hall!

CityWatch, May 31, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 43

RETHINKING LA - LA’s City Council took another step toward complete irrelevance during the recent budget hearings as it moved from a discussion of city pagers to a robust consideration of the hold music on the city’s 311 phone system.

Faced with a $6.9 billion budget, a half billion dollar shortfall, and impending cuts to city services, LA’s City Council abdicated responsibility and instead continued to engage in a discussion of antiquated communications technology.

In the wilds, this is known as the displacement activity of a cornered animal. At City Hall, it’s simply the Peter Principle coming to life in the Theatre of the Absurd.

To discuss the hold music on the 311 system demonstrates two significant disconnects from reality.

First, the hold music would be somewhat irrelevant if hold times were reasonable. But they’re not. The staff has been cut and the calls for help have escalated.

Reductions in city services, the collapse of a city, and an increase in calls for help as the public realizes that they’re last in line are the symptoms of eviscerated departments and the downward spiral of a city in crisis.

Second, the ongoing discussion of pagers and hold music in City Council Chambers demonstrates a complete disconnect from innovative communication strategies and technologies.

The City of LA is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world and yet its online presence is painfully provincial and disjointed, lacking any sense of center or internal strategy for navigation.

Planning has a “frame” design that prevents visitors from bookmarking or sharing links with others. During the revision of the Housing Element, staff overcame the limitations of the website by simply building their own temporary site for the Housing Element campaign.

LADOT has also employed the “workaround” solution but in their case, they allowed the consultant to build the website, resulting in a Bike Plan site that now belongs to a vendor that is no longer on the job. Oops!

A visit to the Mayor’s website offers a search feature but “Vision for Connectivity” fails to yield any results. For that matter, simply searching for “Vision” only turns up references to gang reduction, Performance Management, and an old, dusty commitment to turn LA into the cleanest and greenest big city in America.

This is one of those moments when everything becomes clear.

There’s no vision for connectivity at City Hall.

To be sure, each City Councilmember has his/her own strategy for connecting with the public and they range from pagers and rotary phones to the web, typically serving as filters rather that open and transparent opportunities for the public to connect.

For all of the talk of social media, there’s no way to find the folks at City Hall unless you already know them.

@MobilityMaven will send you lots of advice on avoiding the 405 in July, but only if you’re already connected.

@Villaraigosa will send you lots of messages announcing the great work being done in schools, parks, libraries, theatres, cultural centers, and churches, but again, only if you’re already connected.

If you’d like to follow the twitter accounts of the Emergency Management Department or the many Deputy Mayors, it’s an insider game, not for the common folk. In fact, simply calling them by phone or visiting them in person is not for the hoi polloi, it’s for those already connected.

The City of Los Angeles is in need of a Communications Czar, someone who can...well...connect the disparate departments and staffers and electeds under one digital roof that allows the people of LA to understand how the City works, what it consists of, and who does what.

The league of Women Voters of Los Angeles put out a great book entitled “Los Angeles: Structure of a City Government” and it serves as a road map that opens the doors of City Hall to the public.

LA’s website could do the same thing, connecting the public with their city and empowering civic engagement, and it all starts with a simple strategy for the Internet that commits to open and transparent connectivity.

The fact that LA’s City Hall is a cell phone dead zone and requests for wi-fi access simply prompt snickers demonstrates how far LA has to go if it expects to take its place as a Great City.

In the meantime, rumors that “Nearer My God To Thee” will be played as the hold music on LA’s 311 system are unconfirmed.

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

CityWatchLA - Paging City Hall: Curtain is Up at Theater of the Absurd

CityWatch, May 27, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 42

BOX SOAP - As the City of LA’s $6.9 billion budget drama played out in City Hall, it was the robust discussion of the current city staff reliance on pagers that demonstrated City Hall’s commitment to the status quo and its complete inability to move forward.

Pagers are a thing of the past, unless you arrive at TGI Friday’s during rush hour when there’s a long wait for tables. Then, and only then, is the little blinky pager/coaster an appropriate tool for communication.

The City of LA is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful nation in the world and yet...during the third year of a budget meltdown that continues to memorialize the evisceration of LA’s future, the City Council is somehow able to find time to discuss the merits of a paging system for city staff.

I expect better. But, more and more, the people of LA expect less and less, and that allows City Hall to lower the standard even more.

Faced with a budget crisis, embracing technology as a tool for increasing efficiencies would be a wise commitment, one that would result in a commitment to delivering city services while cutting costs.

But, a discussion of pagers by city staff during the line-by-line charade was by no stretch of the imagination an exploration of technology. It was Theatre of the Absurd!

The alphanumeric pager enjoyed a long stretch of popularity but in recent years, it was used primarily by drug dealers and doctors, then just by doctors. Even the medical profession is rebelling against the use of pagers, dispelling the mythology of electronic interference while statistically demonstrating the fallibility of the antiquated paging technology.

It’s been ten years since Forbes pronounced the pager dead, suggesting then that there might be better uses for the radio networks such as for tracking packages and vehicles by both customers and supervisors.

Imagine that! While LA department heads are fighting for the continued use of an obsolete tool, they could be tracking the city-owned vehicles that end up parked outside strip clubs or in neighboring cities filled with city staff on culinary road trips.

LA’s communications disconnect is readily apparent when there is a major crime and the number given out goes to a desktop phone that accepts messages. At a time when encouraging witnesses to come forward is most important, nothing is more discouraging than an answering machine.

LA’s inability to grab a hold of Internet Technology is demonstrated by the proliferation of city staff generated blogs and websites that are project or topic specific, an admirable workaround that demonstrates the larger failure of City Hall to develop a systemic protocol for websites, web addresses, staff training, connectivity, and interface.

While it’s admirable that the Mayor has released some YouTube videos, grabbing some street cred along the way, the LAPD can’t access YouTube which makes it hard to encourage them to take a look at the videos that may have information they need.

This fear of social media demonstrates the huge disconnect between City Hall and the real world.

During the Station Fire, the public relied on the grass roots communications network for information, learning quickly that the authorities were ill-equipped for handling information as the Brown Act hit the fan.

LA’s Emergency Management Department released pdf documents on their website with emergency bulletins containing information for the public on a regular basis, Monday through Friday, as if emergencies adhere to the traditional workweek and then take weekends off.

There are some bright shining lights in the midst of LA’s bleak communication landscape. The LA Fire Department’s Brian Humphrey was a pioneer in bringing his role as Public Information Officer to life by connecting with the public using the tools that were popular. The @LAFDtalk twitter handle is complemented by a blog, all of which give Brian, and his partners Matt Spence and Erik Scott, an audience that can connect with the Fire Department without having to look for a fax machine.

Ultimately, in the midst of a $6.9 billion dollar budget meltdown, I don’t care if city staff are using tin cans and rope, there are bigger topics to debate during the budget hearings and I fully expect those in charge to put down the sandwich and address the major budget issues.

That didn’t happen.

Instead, they discussed Yogi the Bear but failed to resolve the issue, they discussed Crossing Guard bonuses of $2 million but failed to resolve the issue, they discussed the inappropriate use of Measure R funds for staff instead of infrastructure but failed to resolve the issue, and they discussed the definition of neighborhood council stakeholders, again while failing to resolve the issue.

In magic, it’s called misdirection, diverting the audience’s attention from the sleight of hand. In politics, it’s called a lack of leadership, keeping the public debate away from the tough topics that require decisive action and also come with a cost to political capital.

As the City of LA’s 2011-2012 Budget sits on the Mayor’s desk, awaiting his final approval, one can only imagine the hard work of the budget scribes in the City Hall towers, working late into the night with candles burned to the nub, quill pens in hand, ink-stained blotters at the ready, heating wax for that moment when Sir Anthony applies his mayoral ring to the seal.

Let this be the last year that we wallow in the comfort of old tired technologies. Let this be the last year that we do things simply because that’s the way we’ve always done them.

Let this be the last year that we allow the City Council and the Mayor to distract the people of Los Angeles from the potential of the future.

It’s time for the City of Los Angeles to take its place as the City that leads the world in culture, in technology, in communications, and in innovation. It’s our destiny.

Now, seriously, please turn off your pagers and join us in moving forward.

(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.)

Forget the Budget Kabuki, How about City Budgeting Based on Performance?

CityWatch, May 10, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 37

City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee has proven so efficient at rubber-stamping the Mayor’s proposed budget that they recessed early. They apparently made sufficient noise as the City’s department chiefs paraded through council chambers in defense of their departments and their budgets.

Those speaking before the Committee tend to fall into one of three categories; those who completely fold and then overflow with gratitude for the privilege of maintaining their position as the head of an eviscerated department, those who accept the preordained but refuse to give it their blessing, and those who resist and call out the Mayor and City Council for their folly.

City Planning’s GM, Michael LoGrande, gave a category one performance, thanking anybody within thanking range and then accepting his fate, a loss for the people of LA who depend on a strong planning department as LA’s land-use debates continue to fracture communities.

Jon Kirk Mukri, General Manager of Recreation and Parks, represented the second category and came armed for battle and prepared for debate, but made no headway as the Mayor’s “cost-recovery” scheme continues to prey selectively on charter departments that deserve better.

William Carter of the City Attorney’s office, standing in for Carmen Trutanich, gave a fiery performance, calling out the budget as an abdication of responsibility, rejecting the budget cuts as short-sighted, and building a solid case for the value of his department.

On the whole, most department heads showed up ready to discuss departmental headcount, furlough impacts on staffing levels, and empty positions that needed to be filled. Few and far between were the discussions over intended performance, actual performance and proposed performance.

Demonstrating the difference a year can make, BongHwan (BH) Kim of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment did well in standing out from the crowd as he introduced DONE’s "Performance Dashboard" and spoke affirmatively of the past year and the upcoming year.

On the one hand, as the City of LA wallows in the budget crisis, it’s sad that the Committee spent so much time discussing neighborhood council stakeholder definitions and elections but it serves as a reminder that most people experience the $463 million budget gap on a personal level.

The proposal on the table for neighborhood councils was a 10% cut in funding (to $40,500 from $45,000) and the loss of rollover funds. Councilmen Koretz and Rosendahl made strong cases for protecting the encumbered funds, pointing out that many NC projects take years to complete and that the funding must be protected.

Other issues that came up were NC elections and the options that would allow councils to select boardmembers without having to spend millions of dollars as was the case with the City Clerk elections.

On the subject of elections, stakeholder definitions, by-law revisions, and funding options, Kim made two points; that much work was being performed by DONE in conjunction with NC Task Forces, and that CD2 (Paul Krekorian, Chair of the Education & Neighborhoods Committee) was working on the legislative revisions that are necessary for addressing structural issues.

The Mayor’s proposed budget was released to the City Council on April 20, and the Budget & Finance Committee took a week to review it before commencing with its Budget Hearings, a process that recessed several days early as enthusiasm faded and the opportunity to take on real structural change slipped away.

Budget & Finance is back at it today and tomorrow for a final polish and then presents it to the full City Council on Friday. Council has until June 1 to return the proposed budget with any recommended changes to the Mayor for the final stage of the approval process.

As the budget hearings fade into the sunset, neighborhood councils have a short amount of time to do three very important things; call your City Councilmember and speak up to protect rollover (encumbered but non-invoiced) funds, call DONE and give the GM encouragement if you like the direction he’s going, and start thinking now about which City Councilmember should head up the Education & Neighborhoods Committee when the City Council shuffles committee assignments in July.

Most importantly, speak up if you like the Performance Management style of departmental budget presentation, one where the year starts with projected performance. Department heads would be evaluated based on their goals and their accomplishments, their budgets would be set based on service commitments, not simply protecting headcounts.

(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 - What IS Art?

CityWatch, May 3, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 35

The debate over the definition of Art is as timeless as Art itself. This spells opportunity for LA’s City Hall, a creative institution filled with wild imaginations and machinations that never fail to seize opportunities to short-cut the process and side-step the public.

Consider the CRA, the good folks responsible for bringing Hollywood & Vine to life with the LED pillars on the 1600 Vine Project that are now positioned as an Art installation, a convenient work-around on the city’s sign ordinance and a mechanism for establishing signage with revenue potential on a CRA development. Crafty!

Consider the Wilshire Grand Hotel, a large redevelopment project that promises architectural lighting features and an electronic skin that will display colored, changing images. In any other town this would be referred to as a billboard but Councilman Ed Reyes settled the issue by declaring, “It is art. And I believe it adds more culture.” Bold!

The Wilshire Grand Hotel debate over the nature of advertising and the difference between a billboard and a building disguised as a billboard involved architects, artists, planners, developers, and LA’s City Council.

Reyes further clouded the issue by allowing that an LED wrapped building is permissible because "It will be artistic in nature.”

“Artistic in Nature” has long been the domain of Barry Sanders, President of the Recreation and Parks Commission and proponent of a crafty proposal to position a common advertising package in public parks as an Art installation, one that would simply use imagery of Yogi the Bear on buildings, trash and words such as “play” and “picnic” that encourage responsible park use. Ingenious!

Sanders demonstrates a knack for creativity as he positions signs as murals, advertising fees as donations, and illegal signage as protected “government speak” that warrants the support of the City Attorney, not warnings of legal limitations.

From the CRA to the City Council to the Recreation and Parks Commission, the debate over the definition of Art demonstrates a desperate pursuit of revenue that has the City of LA challenging the same laws, codes, and rules that it is responsible for enforcing.

Through it all, the definition of Art remains unresolved. It has been said that true Art stirs an emotional response from the audience and the fact that the City of LA is able to continue this charade without stirring outrage from the public demonstrates that these schemes fail to qualify as Art.

At the same time, watching Councilmembers and Commissioners perform their lines with a straight face as they claim a commitment to avoiding visual blight is such a compelling delivery of fiction that perhaps it is their performance that is Art.

If only it were believable.

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

CityWatchLA - Yogi ‘Sparks’ Debate

CityWatch, Apr 29, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 34

CITY BUDGET HEARINGS
Stephen Box

In the midst of LA’s City Council Budget Hearings and a department-by-department examination of the Mayor’s proposed $6.9 billion budget, it was Yogi Bear who stirred the most rigorous debate, courtesy of Recreation and Parks Commission President Barry Sanders who continues to bemoan the failure of his park advertising scheme. Against a backdrop of Union deliberations over their contract with the City of LA and in the midst of presentations by the Police and Fire Departments, the City Controller and the City Attorney, and the Finance and Pensions departments, the introduction of Yogi Bear into the discourse borders on the misdirection typically reserved for sleight of hand artists.

(See a more indepth analysis of Rec and Parks session at the City Budget meeting by Kristin Sabo at Griffith Park Wayist)

The Mayor’s proposed budget of $6.9 billion includes $4.3 billion in General Fund costs and includes strategies to overcome an anticipated General Fund deficit of $463 million.

The most interesting whisper came during Wednesday’s opening session when LA’s Chief Administrative Officer reported that the anticipated revenue for 2011-2012 would actually increase by 0.1%, begging the question “Where does all that money go?”

Then began the litany of General Fund expenses, including the cost of two labor forces, the current city staff and the 30 thousand LA City retirees. With current pension contributions at $800 million and projected to climb to $1.6 billion, the unavoidable long term budget balancing solution must address labor, healthcare and pension costs.

Meanwhile, the Coalition of Unions, representing 19,000 employees, voted on the Mayor’s proposal to reduce salaries and increase healthcare contributions in return for an end to furloughs and an agreement to forgo layoffs.

Of the 18 participating unions, 4 voted against the proposal, including the union that represents LA’s Deputy City Attorneys which rejected it 143-288 and then issued a press release condemning the proposal.

The irony here is the fact that it was the City Attorney’s office that defended the City of LA in its fight to impose the furloughs, winning the legal battle on behalf of the City. Much was made of this dichotomy of loyalties as Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter defended his department during the opening day of the Budget Hearings.

Need to Know: To follow the daily Budget Hearings, the schedule and agenda is available at the Budget & Finance website. The schedule is fairly fluid, sometimes moving quickly, sometimes slowing down, so check back often if you want to participate in the review of a specific department.

To listen in on Council Phone, dial (213) 621-CITY (2489), (310) 547-CITY (2489), (310) 471-CITY (2489) or (818) 904-9450

For Live and On-Demand Streaming Video of the Budget Hearings, video and audio archives are available as well as the hearings when they are in session.

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

CityWatchLA - Improving Public Safety or Picking the Public’s Pocket?

CityWatch, Apr 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 33

LA’S ACE PROGRAM
Stephen Box

Promises of efficiency and revenue herald the arrival of LA’s Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) Program, a streamlined process that is positioned as a public health and safety tool for the departments who provide code enforcement services to the people of Los Angeles.

The ACE program is an alternative enforcement method that allows the Police, Fire, Building & Safety, Housing, Transportation, Public Works, and Animal Services to issue administrative citations within their normal scope of work rather than the traditional citations that tend to get lost in the priorities of the City Attorney’s office and the logjam of our court system.

Current code violations tend to take up to a year to process, wearying both those who initiate the complaints and those who fight to defend themselves against the complaints. The only winners are those who abuse the system and benefit from the random effectiveness.

Debate over the ACE program tends to position the same features as both benefits and liabilities.

For example, the fact that the program is a source of revenue is a benefit to a city in the midst of a budget crisis but it hardly bodes well for the defendants that their guilt and penalty is linked to the solvency of the city. Against the backdrop of the LAPD’s recent “ticket quota” court case, the notion that the program’s success could prompt overzealous hearing officers to generate revenue has been positioned as a liability by civil rights advocates.

The fact that the ACE program has a lower burden of proof is a benefit in terms of efficiency, allowing Pro-Tem judges (attorneys who volunteer for the courts) to process the low-priority cases that tend to get lost in the current scenario. Of course, the ease with which defendants may find themselves on the penalty end of a judgment issued by hearing officers eager to please their potential future employers is a liability.

The fact that the program is complaint-driven is a benefit to those in the community willing and able to participate by initiating complaints for barking dogs, gasoline leaf-blowers, over-height fences, front lawn parking and a host of other violations. At the same time, it allows for an uneven application of citywide municipal code, creating a liability that can fracture a local community by pitting neighbor against neighbor instead of simply applying standards that are enforce uniformly and evenly.

While the concept of a City Attorney’s office that can focus on serious crimes while the ACE program dispenses with the lower priority violations is attractive and potentially revenue generating, the devil is in the details.

Missing from the proposal is an interdepartmental process establishing responsibility for tracking and collecting administrative fines for all non-contested citations.

If the revenue goes to the General Fund, departmental motivation is lost. If the revenue goes to the respective Departments, it creates a motivation to generate citations.

Through it all, it relies on efficiencies within the City Attorney’s office but does nothing to address the disconnect between the many Departments with the authority to cite for municipal code violations.

The Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates have called for the implementation of the City Attorney’s Administrative Code Enforcement (ACE), referring to it as a “Revenue Generator.”

The ongoing debate will need to determine if the ACE program is an effort to improve public safety and health more efficiently or to generate revenue more efficiently.

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

Councilmembers Cardenas, Alarcon Dismiss NC Budget Recommendations

CityWatch, Apr 12, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 29

As the City of LA stares down an impending budget deficit of $500 million next year, Councilmembers Cardenas and Alarcon responded to the recommendations of the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates by dismissing them as naively optimistic and dangerously misleading.

“All I want to do is thank you for your efforts,” said Cardenas who then launched into a defensive diatribe that took the Budget Advocates to task for proposing the collection of unpaid debts.

While arguing for the complexity of the budget process, Cardenas revealed his greatest concern, the fear that the public will might walk away thinking “These are such simple solutions and all it took was these people with their volunteer time to tear into the budget and they did it better than the people who are paid to do it!”

Alarcon jumped on the defensive wagon with a straw-man attack, pointing out the folly of assuming that the business of collections has the potential to yield maximum returns. “At the end of the day, it’s never what it appears to be” he cautioned as he did the math and explained “debts of $200 million might only result in collections of $100 million.”

The Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates have spent the last six-months on a journey that included meeting regularly with the Mayor’s office along with department heads from throughout the city.

The NCBA recommendations were first given to Mayor Villaraigosa, then presented to the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee which forwarded them to the City’s Administrative Officer for comments, and then to the full City Council.

Neighborhood Councils are not the only ones to confront the City of LA’s budget crisis with recommendations that are then presented to the Mayor and the City Council for consideration.

The Commission on Revenue Efficiency (CORE), chaired by Ron Galperin, was formed by the City Council a year ago and consists of seven members who are experienced in the fields of revenue collections and revenue enhancements. The CORE Blueprint for Reform of City Collections includes 65 specific recommendations for reform.

The Coalition of LA City Unions and the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City engaged in the process with 2010 recommendations entitled “A Strong Budget for LA" which offered a $432 million plan for balancing the budget.

It should go without saying that not all recommendations will yield maximum results but that hasn’t stopped some members of the City Council from focusing on obstacles rather than solutions.

Literally everybody, including those in the Mayor’s office, the City Council, the Budget Advocates and the City Family, have all experienced difficulty in getting hard data and current information on the city’s assets, revenue, debts, and hopes of balancing the budget.

While most agree that this is no way to run a great city, the “LA is just to big!” defense continues to serve as an impediment to a comprehensive data driven journey to a balanced budget that puts the city family to work delivering the city services that the people of LA expect and deserve.

The Mayor is scheduled to deliver his proposed 2011-2012 budget to the City Council on April 20th, a deadline that is set by City Charter. The City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee will then begin budget hearings on April 27th, a process that takes weeks.
The City Charter also provides that neighborhood councils exist "to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs" and that "each neighborhood council may present to the Mayor and Council an annual list of priorities for the City budget."

BudgetLA convenes this Saturday, April 16, in Hollywood and features a “State of the Budget” program that includes Deputy Mayor Larry Frank, CORE President Ron Galperin, and Neighborhood Empowerment GM BongHwan Kim.

Julie Butcher and Paul Hatfield will offer two different perspectives on the City of LA’s labor, pensions, and healthcare obligations.

Jay Handel, Dr. Dan Wiseman and Heinrich Keifer will present the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates recommendations.

BudgetLA is "a grassroots campaign fighting to develop a sustainable budget for the City of Los Angeles" and is open to the public.

BudgetLA

April 16, 2011

10 am to 1 pm

First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood

“The Cellar”

1760 N. Gower Street

Hollywood, CA 90028

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

CityWatchLA - Budget Showdown in the Garden

CityWatch, Apr 5, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 27

As theCity of LA faces a budget shortfall of somewhere between $350 million and $500 million (depending on the day and the source), the Rec & Parks Commission (RAP) is preparing to act on RAP staff recommendations to shakedown the Community Gardens family for “budget dust” in a process that demonstrates all that is upside down about the budget process.

One would think that in times of lean, the local community farmers would be supported as community assets, encouraged to teach others to turn fallow land into sources of healthy food, cultural intersections, and environmental tools for healthy communities, all run by volunteers.

But instead, the RAP Commission meets tomorrow morning and will accept a staff recommendation to raise the plot fee for community gardens on RAP land by 380%. Prior discussions have focused on the notion of “cost recovery” but now the RAP staff propose to reward the volunteers by declaring the gardens “open space” and then placing three year term limits on each gardener.

The notion of “cost recovery” is a Mayoral directive that sounded reasonable until it was discovered that in some cases the gardens weren’t on City of LA land, in some cases there was no cost, and in some cases the associated costs are for RAP staff that don’t actually service the gardens.

The cloud of accountability at RAP prompted Commission President Barry Sanders to declare that he didn’t think the Department of Recreation and Parks should be in the business of managing gardens, a concept that resonated through the gardening community but not through the department.

Now comes the staff report that includes enough cumbersome language and troubling clauses that it clearly demonstrates the need to put more gardeners in City Hall and fewer bureaucrats in the garden.

There are dozens of community gardens throughout Los Angeles, typically established on fallow and abandoned land, now revitalized and repurposed by volunteer urban farmers. The gardens provide seniors and low income families healthy food while creating a positive environmental solution in densely populated neighborhoods. Some gardens have an educational focus, some have community space, and some focus on cultural pollination.

There are many hosts for the community gardens, ranging from the PORT of LA, the Bureau of Sanitation, the CA Department of Transportation, LA’s Department of Water & Power, the Army Corps of Engineers, and LA’s Department of Rec & Parks.

In most cases the gardens are simply admired from a distance and appreciated as a huge improvement over the alternative of empty and blighted land that would require maintenance and supervision. But in the case of the gardens on Rec & Parks land, the department sees a “cost recovery” opportunity.

The Community Gardeners argue that:

• The increased fee is excessive, it will destroy long established community facilities, and it puts the welfare of RAP staff ahead of the welfare of the tax-paying public.
• The increased fee is not only excessive, it fails to account for the financial contributions of the volunteer gardeners who pay for improvements and maintenance for land outside their garden.
• The increased fee sets a bad precedent of charging volunteers who work to improve the quality of life in their community. Who next? Neighborhood Watch Groups? Emergency Preparedness Teams? Literacy Instructors?
• The increased fee is a one-size-all solution that actually violates pre-existing land deeds and contracts, demonstrating the folly of a RAP proposal that seeks to standardize gardens to fit into their departmental structure.
• The RAP staff proposal includes elements that have nothing to do with “cost recovery” but simply justify staff participation in the ongoing operation, consuming any potential revenue.
• The RAP staff proposal recommends designating the gardens as “public space” which is a transparent staffing tactic that establishes a troubling precedent for land set aside for specific use.
• The RAP staff proposal recommends term limits, demonstrating a callousness toward both the process of gardening and the time and labor needed to develop a fruitful garden, as well as to the disruptions of community which such a term limit clause would create.
• The RAP staff proposal takes an interesting approach to moving forward, recommending the termination of agreements and permits as the beginning point of the development of “Partnership Agreements.” Cavalier at best, it fails to demonstrate a win-win approach to establishing long-term positive relationships.

Community Gardeners from around the Los Angeles will be fighting for the gardens operated on land controlled by LA’s Department of Rec and Parks. The general position of the gardening community is simple; drop the open space and term limit proposals, build partnerships before terminating relationships, and implement “cost recovery” with real data, not inflated staffing justifications.

The battle over community gardens is simply the beginning and the results will resonate through the Department of Rec and Parks and the City, laying down a foundation of “cost recovery” strategies that will have an impact throughout Los Angeles.

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

CityWatchLA - The City’s Contract with the People: “Silence Gives Consent”

CityWatch, Apr 1, 201
Vol 9 Issue 261

The City of LA’s current budget crisis puts City Hall in a “Contract vs. Contract” predicament that pits the people of LA against the employees of LA, one where the people who pay for services and the people who deliver services are both confronted with lose-lose proposals.

The City of Los Angeles exists for one very simple purpose, to deliver on its Civic Contract with the people of LA by delivering city services that are paid for by taxes collected from the people and funds collected on behalf of the people. Simple enough.

The City of Los Angeles entered into contracts with the City Family in order to deliver on its Civic Contract, agreeing to pay for the delivery of city services to the people of LA by encumbering the City of LA with financial obligations that ended up preventing the delivery of City Services. Huge complication.

Through it all, one thing that everyone can agree on is this; the City of LA’s current budget crisis is challenging the status quo and the City of LA will be going through significant structural changes that will have a dramatic impact on everybody, including the residents, the employees and the elected managers of the City machine.

While the legal concept of “Qui tacet consentiret” (silence gives consent) may only offer the City of LA thin grounds for violating its contract with the people of LA, the simple fact remains, the squeaky wheel gets the oil and the people of LA aren’t squeaking.

That will change on Saturday, April 16, 2011 when BudgetLA convenes in Hollywood, offering the people of LA an opportunity to speak up, to claim their contractual rights to the full delivery of city services, and to take action addressing the City of LA’s budget crisis and the future of Los Angeles.

BudgetLA will present an array of experts, insiders and outsiders, to address the elements of the budget crisis and the potential outcomes. All of this is in preparation for the April 20, 2011 release of the Mayor’s proposed Budget for 2011-2012 and the beginning of the City Council’s budget hearings.

BudgetLA

Saturday, April 16, 2011

10 am to 1 pm

Hollywood Presbyterian Church

1760 N. Gower Street
Hollywood, CA 90028

Map of Church and Freeway

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

CityWatchLA - After Years of Budget Rehearsal, Time Now for LA’s Mayor and Council to Act

CityWatch, Mar 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 24

It’s Budget Season in the City of LA and the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) has fired the first shot, declaring this the “age of permanent fiscal crisis" and subtly shifting blame for the city’s budget crisis from the captain and crew of the good ship Los Angeles and placing it firmly on the turbulent seas that lead us to the iceberg. (Link) Miguel Santana’s 219 page report acknowledges LA’s 14.4% unemployment rate and a projected budget deficit for 2011-12 of $350 million, but softens the message by pointing out that the federal, state, county and surrounding municipalities are also in dire straits, “struggling to find ways to fund even the most basic programs and services the public expects.”

This message of normalcy may be diplomatic but it’s not quite accurate. While the economic storm is turbulent for everybody, the City of LA is faring worse than the others that sail the same seas. It is imperative that the CAO address the emergency with the sense of urgency that it deserves or the City Council will simply continue to hide crew and pet projects in the DWP’s stateroom.

To Santana’s credit, his message has been and is consistent with his goal of a long term balanced budget based on a framework of four strategies: Responsible Management and Fiscal Practices, Focus on Core Services, Alternative Service Delivery Models, and Maintaining a Sustainable Workforce.

Complementing the CAO’s report and call to action comes the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates and their recommendations for the Mayor as he prepares to release the Mayor’s Budget on April 20 to the City Council. The NCBA’s presentation also consisted of four strategies: Increasing Efficiency, Generating Revenues, Structural Changes, and Reducing Expenses. (Link) [[[

Both the CAO and the NCBA’s agree that escalating pension and health care costs are responsible for driving the city’s budget up by more than 50% over the last decade, a period of time in which the size of the actual workforce has declined.

This unsustainable business model has reached the crisis point and it is incumbent on the Mayor and the City Council to forgo the “Wait it out!” strategy of past years and to address the situation as an actual crisis that demands a comprehensive and systemic commitment to a long term solution.

Missing from the CAO’s report and the NCBA’s recommendations is any mention of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the $1.3 Billion that was just shuffled from one stateroom to another. The Budget Advocates addressed the CRA last year but apparently the CRA is off the radar this year. This is hardly consistent with the “Everything is on the table!” mantra the public hears when the budget scythe comes whacking at the community gardens.

Through it all, there appears to be movement in the ongoing discussions between City Hall and the unions, at least some of them. As of yesterday, the Coalition of LA City Unions has reached a tentative agreement that is touted as “a major deal that could save LA $400 million over the next four years, resulting in the suspension of furloughs and the need to lay off 600 employees.”

The Coalition of LA City Unions represents about ⅓ of LA’s union workforce and as they take the deal back to membership for a vote, the potential for this Mayoral press conference victory party to resonate throughout the City of LA workforce is significant.

Meanwhile, there is much budget balancing work to be done.

This is the fourth year in a row that the Mayor and City Council have allowed LA to drift through the budget crisis.

Santana’s recommendations are painful, they offer highs and lows of projected impacts, all of which are dependent on some hard commitments and some even harder choices. At the end of the day, they offer a choice between barely balancing the budget for the short term to balancing for the long term and replenishing the reserve. All that’s missing is the resolve to do it.

The Mayor and City Council don’t need to hunt any further for budget solutions, they have the CAO’s report, they have the Budget Advocate recommendations, and they have grassroots support for decisive action.

What they lack is the ability to let go of the ill-conceived hope that the economy will flourish, the seas will go calm, the iceberg will melt, and we’ll all sail off into the sunset.

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