LA Neighborhood Councils: The Evolution of the Revolution

CityWatch, Feb 14, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 13

TURNING THE POWER ON - Several blind men are asked by their King to examine an elephant and then to describe its appearance.

The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a giant fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

The King, in his infinite wisdom, informed the blind men that they were all correct in their evaluations, although their observations were limited to their individual experiences.

Those same blind men, if asked to visit different neighborhood councils, would probably come back with a wide variety of experiences, all of them true but typically limited in accuracy.

The first man might experience a social group, one that is focused on creating community. The second man might discover a local enforcement authority, intent on upholding codes and laws in the neighborhood. The third man might experience a de facto planning commission, focused on land use issues and parking requirements. The fourth man might find himself in the midst of a beautification society, focused on landscaping and gardens. The fifth man might find himself in an empty room, victim of bad outreach and erratic scheduling.

The last blind man might find himself in the midst of a crowd, surrounded by empowered neighbors who were united in their commitment to monitor the deliver of city services, to meet with city leadership, to advise the Mayor and City Council, and to involve the community in the civic engagement process.

The King, in his infinite wisdom, might acknowledge the truthfulness of each man’s experience, but if he was a fan of Charter Reform, he would take note of the sixth man’s experience and ask the crowded neighborhood council how it was that they were able to keep focused on civic engagement and neighborhood empowerment.

It has been ten years since the first neighborhood councils were certified and the last decade has been a series of uphill battles for relevance, many of which take place as if the City Charter wasn’t clear on their purpose.

The purpose of neighborhood councils, as defined in the City Charter, is “To promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

The Charter goes on to explain that, “Neighborhood councils shall include representatives of the many diverse interests in communities and shall have an advisory role on issues of concern to the neighborhood.”

Lest there be any confusion over priorities, the Charter identifies and prioritizes two areas of responsibility, the city’s budget and the delivery of city services.

As the City of LA prepares to engage in another round of budget triage, calling into question each department’s function and performance, it is imperative that neighborhood councils get in touch with their City Charter mandate and evaluate themselves accordingly.

For the neighborhood councils who wish to enhance their ability to engage their community and make their government more responsive to local needs, help is on the way.

On Thursday the 23rd of February, the Center for Non-Profit Management will be partnering with Empower LA in a dynamic training workshop that will focus on strategies and techniques for effective neighborhood council advocacy.

Participants will leave with a plan for turning their Neighborhood Council board into a powerful advocate when dealing with City of LA agencies, departments, committees, commissions and elected officials.

Community leaders will:

• Learn ways to achieving goals as a group
• Discuss a plan of action around your top priorities
• Hear success stories from Neighborhood Councils who are making an impact

Date:
Thursday, February 23, 2012

Time:
5:30pm-8:30pm

Location:
Center for Nonprofit Management - California Endowment Building
1000 N Alameda Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Agenda:
5:30-6:00pm - Registration, Refreshments
(Dinner available for purchase - $10)
6:00-8:30pm - Program and Panel

Reserve your seat today at:
www.surveymonkey.com/s/MakinganImpactTraining

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

Maybe They Should Occupy LA’s Neighborhood Councils

CityWatch, Nov 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 90

RETHINKING LA - The Pico Neighborhood Council came very close to being the first neighborhood council to offer an opinion on the Occupy LA movement but the agendized resolution in support of the “peaceful and vibrant exercise in First Amendment Rights” failed to make it past discussion and was simply tabled for another month.

Around the country, “Occupy” protests have encountered varying levels of resistance and opposition that has, in many cases, galvanized the protesters and given them motivation for refining their organizations and action.

Occupy LA has faced one of the most potent of enemies, an ambivalent audience, one that is most likely to respond with a tired dismissal based on aesthetics or a weary look of disbelief as issues such as unemployment, foreclosures, homelessness, collapsing infrastructure and a collapsing economy are presented as a call to action.

There was a time when neighborhood councils were considered the ones most likely to storm City Hall and to demand accountability and performance, rallying support from around the city and “occupying” City Hall with grassroots power that simply would not be ignored.

But that never happened.

Almost six years ago, neighborhood council leaders gathered at the DWP and formed a citywide congress that prompted Councilwoman Janice Hahn to declare “This is a historic day. You will be leading this city into the future.”

The LA Times, which still covered neighborhood council activities back then, acknowledged the difficulties in rallying a citywide organization by noting that as Hahn wrapped up her keynote address, "bickering broke out among the 25 representatives from the 32 neighborhood councils that had joined the congress."

“This is chaos!” said one man in the audience. “These are the people who are going to lead us?”

Since then, the number of neighborhood councils in the city has grown from 64 to 95. The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, which supports the neighborhood councils, has been decimated by budget and staffing cuts.

LA’s City Charter defines the purpose of neighborhood councils as “To promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

As the Occupy LA movement surrounds City Hall and addresses the economic crisis that threatens our fiscal stability and our quality of life, there are many that believe that this is exactly the message that would resonate with neighborhood councils.

It was in this spirit that Scott McNeely prepared the Occupy LA resolution and presented it to the Pico Neighborhood Council.

McNeely is well known for his work in the local community to improve the quality of life. He served as President of the Pico NC for years and as a member of Budget LA in the fight for city services.

In many ways, the Occupy LA resolution represents the substance of what neighborhood councils have been fighting for over the last several years. Pico Neighborhood Council was in position to be the first neighborhood council to simply offer an opinion, a nod, a gesture of support.

But that didn’t happen.

On an agenda that included the City Clerk’s survey on NC elections, the Mayor’s Budget Advocates, and the proposed Sidewalk Ordinance, the Occupy LA resolution came last. The night was long and the board discussions included a lengthy debate over the need for business cards and how to handle spam emails to NC email accounts.

When it came time for the Occupy LA resolution, the first obstacle came from Co-Chair Maryann Yurkonis who objected “I don’t think this is an appropriate action. It’s not that I disagree with the Occupy LA movement, I don’t think we should weigh in on this.”

This prompted a debate hinged on the simple proposition “A discussion of the merits of this Resolution is a valid exercise and it is appropriate to vote on it.”

Proponents of the process argued “To call this an inappropriate action is to rely on a definition of our role that is too narrow.”

After some of the most passionate discussion in an evening that was light on debate, the Pico NC Board voted to claim its authority to entertain a Board Resolution. The presiding Chair then tabled discussion on the Occupy LA Resolution until the December meeting.

The issue of whether or not neighborhood councils should have an opinion on Occupy LA hasn’t come up much over the last six weeks. The City Council motion in support of Occupy LA was passed unanimously four weeks ago, stating clearly “by the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles hereby stands in SUPPORT for the continuation of the peaceful and vibrant exercise in First Amendment Rights carried out by "Occupy Los Angeles.”

The Central City Association weighed in, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce had an opinion, VICA contributed comments. As for the neighborhood councils, they were silent.

A month has passed and the only grumblings to be heard typically address the loss of the turf lawn surrounding City Hall and the inappropriateness of camping without a permit.

As for the First Amendment Rights of the Occupy LA movement, neighborhood councils have been silent.

As for the issues that Occupy LA has raised, neighborhood councils have been silent.

As for calling on the City of LA to conduct its elections according to “clean money” principles, neighborhood councils are preoccupied with their own elections.

As for calling on the City of LA to ban lobbyists from the legislative process, neighborhood councils are preoccupied debating their own advisory role.

As for calling on the City of LA to balance its budget honestly and without breaking the backs of the residents who can afford it the least, neighborhood councils are preoccupied with their own funding issues.

Neighborhood Councils throughout LA have an opportunity to take a stand and to take their rightful place in the governance of this city, even if it is limited to offering advice to the Mayor and City Council.

The world is listening and it’s time for neighborhood councils to speak.

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

Tags: Neighborhood Councils, PICO Neighborhood Council, Occupy LA, City Council, City Charter, Scott McNeely, Janice Hahn

LA’s Shadow Government

CityWatch, Aug 19, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 66

RETHINKING LA - 45 years ago, Mayor Sam Yorty’s Charter Reform Commission presented a draft of a new City Charter which included the creation of a system of elected neighborhood councils with advisory powers, a proposal that was summarily rejected by the Los Angeles City Council.


30 years later, the State of California eliminated the Los Angeles City Council’s power to veto secession measures and City Hall suddenly found itself motivated to embrace a vision of a responsive government that delivers city services efficiently and with oversight and accountability.

In 1999 the voters approved a new City Charter which declared “We the people of the City of Los Angeles, in order to establish a responsive, effective and accountable government through which all voices in our diverse society can be heard; to provide fair representation and distribution of government resources and a safe, harmonious environment based on principles of liberty and equality, do enact this Charter.”

The new City Charter’s Article IX provided for the creation of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and a citywide system of neighborhood councils in order to “promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

It took the threat of secession and the will of the people but this simple mandate has resulted in a current roster of 95 neighborhood councils, including Wilmington and Coastal San Pedro which are approaching their 10th birthdays on December 11, 2011.

Along the way, neighborhood councils have struggled to find their place in a city that has a track record for rejecting oversight and advice. Some neighborhood councils floundered, some prevailed, and some raised the bar so significantly they may have even threatened the status quo at City Hall.

In fact, in many cases, neighborhood councils have taken on the role of shadow government, filling the gaps that come from the uneven distribution of city services.

The Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council has gone beyond simply advocating and advising on issues that include sustainability, open space and homelessness. They have taken a lead position on developing a Complete Streets standard for downtown, assuming the role of the Transportation Department in embracing a policy that comes with both federal and state mandate.

The Woodland Hills-Warner Center Neighborhood Council has gone beyond simply commenting on city council motions and advising the council office on traffic, utility rates, and parking. They have taken a lead position on engaging the community in the development and implementation of the Warner Center Specific Plan, complete with outreach that includes mailers and town halls.

They have assumed the role of the Planning Department and they offer the public a better opportunity for public participation than City Hall.

The Mar Vista Community Council has gone beyond simply posting Community Impact Statements on City Council motions that include City Hall Google accounts and Arizona boycotts. Their Green Committee has set a standard for sustainability that could serve as the blueprint for the Mayor if he were to get serious about his commitment to making LA the Greenest big-city.

They’ve assumed the role of Environmental Affairs and their record of accomplishment ranges from the Wise Water Expo to the Green Gardens Tour to campaigns to ban plastic bags and styrofoam.

Along the way, neighborhood councils around the city have defined themselves within the parameters of the Charter mandate, some are highly specialized and formal, some are looser and more social.

Some are highly functional and some struggle to overcome organizational challenges. In many ways they are completely unique and yet they have much in common.

One thing neighborhood councils share is the judgment that critics levy on the group of 95 councils based on the actions or inactions of the few.

While the LAPD administers its billion dollar annual budget amidst City Controller charges that its “business functions are stuck in the 1950s," the City Council can still find time to debate the intricacies of managing a neighborhood councils $40,500 annual budget and the implications of purchase orders vs. debit cards.

While the LADOT is taken to task by the City Controller for losing track of its arsenal of 36,000 parking meters, resulting in a lack of oversight on the collection and depositing of meter revenue, the City Council can still find time to pontificate on the proper inventory control procedures for neighborhood council office equipment.

While the City Council gets taken to task in the California Court of Appeal for exceeding its authority, resulting in a reversal and the conclusion that “the City Council abused its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law,” the City Attorney [link] finds time to audit neighborhood council elections and ponder the impact of the City Council created “factual based stakeholder” designation.

Neighborhood councils have been taken to task for their failure to aggressively engage the public and in many cases that’s a fair charge. But volunteers working with a limited budget can’t be expected to exceed the performance of City Hall and its $6.9 billion budget and yet they do.

Neighborhood councils have been criticized for keeping sloppy books and in many cases that’s an accurate appraisal. But volunteers, picking up where another volunteer left off, sometimes lose receipts yet their record exceeds the LAPD which was found to be missing receipts in 56 percent of audited transactions totaling $2.6 million.

Neighborhood councils have been taken to task for failing to demonstrate a comprehensive proficiency of Ethics laws, Brown Act requirements, and California Public Records Act standards yet City Hall allows the individual departments to post their unique interpretations of the law on their websites, demonstrating that the real need for training is at City Hall, not in the community.

Through it all, neighborhood councils continue to plod along, contributing money to the Department of Transportation for Sharrows, to Rec and Parks for events and maintenance, to the LAPD for tactical gear and somehow that meager budget continues to generate the attention of City Departments who can’t manage to get by on their own budgets.

While the merits of neighborhood councils giving their money to other city departments continues to draw great debate, the real work of neighborhood councils has shifted from simple advice and oversight, now taking on the role of Shadow Government.

Neighborhood Councils are the Planning Departments, they are the Transportation Departments, they are the Rec and Parks Departments, and they are the Sanitation Departments to their communities. They have become the de facto City Hall in a city that sees the delivery of city services as an optional benefit when it should be the purpose of City Hall.

The discussion over the purpose of neighborhood councils and the role of volunteers in the future of LA is sure to ruffle feathers, but that’s an indicator of the importance of this debate.

One of the greatest opportunities to engage in this great dialogue is on September 24th when the 2011 LA Congress of Neighborhoods takes place at City Hall. There will be 21 workshops, all designed by community leaders, ranging from basic topics for new board members to advanced sessions for experienced members.

The LA Congress of Neighborhoods is free, it’s open to the public, and it includes breakfast and lunch! Register and then make plans to join community leaders from all over the city in planning for the future of our city.

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

Separating LA City Attorney’s Duties is Essential

CityWatch, July 29, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 60

RETHINKING LA - The recent debate over the City Council’s legal representation and the City Attorney’s obligations under the City Charter have dramatized the shortcomings of the current conflicted system.

Some members of the City Council would like a City Attorney that is loyal to their needs and their desires, not an objective legal presence with the potential to thwart their machinations. Their position is supported by Sec. 271 of the City Charter which directs the City Attorney to “represent the City in all legal proceedings against the City” and to serve as “the legal advisor to the City, and to all City boards, departments, officers and entities.”

Some members of the public have argued that the City Attorney serves the people of Los Angeles by enforcing the law, not protecting those who violate the law. Their position is supported by Sec. 271 of the City Charter which says the City Attorney “shall prosecute on behalf of the people all criminal cases and related proceedings arising from violation of the provisions of the Charter and City ordinances, and all misdemeanor offenses arising from violation of the laws of the state occurring in the City.”

This City Charter mandate to both defend and to prosecute would not be a problem if the law was never broken and if the need to negotiate legal actions never came up but not a day goes by that the City Attorney isn’t required to straddle both sides of the legal fence.

During the City’s recent budget drama, Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter made much of this dichotomy of loyalties when he pointed out that the City Attorney’s office defended the City’s right to impose furloughs on City staff even as the union representing LA’s Deputy City Attorneys condemned the furloughs.

Further clouding the debate is the position of Barry Sanders, Recreation & Parks Commission President and retired partner from the Latham & Watkins law firm, who defended his “Government Speech” park advertising scheme with a third interpretation of the City Attorney’s responsibilities. Sanders took the City Attorney to task for raising issues of legality, claiming that the City Attorney’s responsibility is to support Commission actions by working to remove legal obstacles, not enforce them.

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

Those involved in neighborhood councils have learned the hard way that the City Attorney has a client, it's the City of Los Angeles. NC Boardmembers can call the CA's office for advice but they won’t get support if their complaint is with the City of Los Angeles, that's when the public finds itself without representation.

The City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to the City's employees and its elected officials and that prohibits the City Attorney from taking any action against the interests of those people. The City Attorney may not even conduct an investigation that might reveal bad behavior by one of his clients, and if he does get such information during an investigation, he must hold it confidential.

Municipal authorities typically address this situation by having two separate offices. The County of Los Angeles has the District Attorney who owes no duty to the County Board of Supervisors while the County Counsel serves the Board and the Supervisors themselves.

In similar fashion, the City of Los Angeles needs two separate offices, one for the City Attorney and one for the City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor would prosecute all the crimes which the City Attorney now prosecutes plus its jurisdiction would be expanded to cover felonies and grand jury investigations within City Hall.

The City Charter would need to clarify jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor and provide for felony investigations that involve the City of Los Angeles. Cities, counties, states and the feds can have concurrent jurisdiction, thus allowing the City Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute cases which involve or may involve the City, a City agency, or a City official. This must take place without divesting felony jurisdiction from the District Attorney or the State Attorney General.

As the people of LA continue the fight to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA), it is important to remember that oversight and accountability means little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

Grassroots advocates have fought hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress has been made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

If the residents of LA are to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, it is essential that they are supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job of representing the people.

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

CityWatchLA - The Politics of Public Administration

‘Fed Up’ Streets Chief Bill Robertson Resigns: “It’s My Time”
LA LOSES ONE OF THE GREAT ONES

CityWatch, Jan 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 5

The bumpy road through LA’s budget crisis just took a turn for the worse as William Robertson, Director of LA’s The Bureau of Street Services, tendered his resignation with the simple explanation “It’s my time.”

Robertson’s announcement is certain to fuel speculation that “He’s fed up with it all!” and he conceded “Yes, I am fed up with it all. But I was planning to leave last year and I stayed on to take my department through the reorganization. Now, it really is my time.”

I’ve worked with Bill on three different levels and it’s from that perspective that I offer my opinion that his departure will be a tremendous loss to the City of LA within Public Works, within the larger LA community, and within City Hall.

The City of Los Angeles has the largest roadway network in the nation which in turn has the largest roadway network in the world. LA is a full generation behind schedule in roadway infrastructure investment resulting in a city that leads the nation in deteriorated road conditions. Research estimates that fully 64% of LA's streets are in poor condition, causing LA residents to pay an average of $746 per vehicle in repairs per year as the result of damages from potholes and road debris.

Against this backdrop of deterioration and disrepair, Robertson has demonstrated a knack for setting maximum performance standards while City Hall looks for the minimum acceptable performance. Some suggest that his military background is the foundation for a management style that is quick to size up assets, focus on the objective, collect data, measure performance, and deliver on his commitments.

LA’s budget cuts have crushed departmental commitments to the delivery of city services and the cost of raw product is rapidly escalating. Robertson responded by implementing a “Cold In-Place Recycling” strategy that resurfaces streets using a single huge piece of equipment that literally eats the street, recycling the materials, leaving a resurfaced street behind.

Less invasive to the community, 25 percent to 35 percent more efficient than conventional technologies, one would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and invested in more machines. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s press conference solutions such as “Operation Pothole” and “Operation Smooth Ride” promote the fantasy that calls to 311 are something more than outrage measurements and schemes to limit city liability to only those potholes on record.

Robertson responded by implementing a long-term sophisticated data collection strategy that inventories all 69,000 pavement sections in the City of LA using an automated vehicle equipped with a computerized work station. It collects digital imagery and uses lasers to capture roadway roughness and rutting data and then the "pavement distress data" is used to prioritize the different layers of service, from emergency repairs to slurry seals to maintenance overlays to resurfacing to reconstruction.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and invested in more machines. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s neighborhood council system was created over a decade ago and department heads still grapple with the notion that the public wants to participate with a more responsive government, monitoring city services and offering advice on the budget. Robertson seized the opportunity to connect with the community, demonstrating a respect for the people of LA and a serious commitment to empowerment.

From educating the public with his “Professor Pothole” campaign to empowering communities with 87 local funding pools, his commitment to civic engagement is unrivaled.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and supported his commitment to sharing power with the public. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s bureaucratic system is Byzantine and insiders often seek refuge by deferring the public in order to avoid responsibility or liability. Robertson revealed his solution to this problem at a Silver Lake Neighborhood Council Transportation Committee meeting several years ago when he showed up with both senior and lower-level staff in tow. He explained “When I speak, they back me up. When they speak, I back them up. That’s a promise I can make because I lead by example and this is how they learn.”

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and reproduced his strategy for creating a department that moves quickly and with accountability. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

Last year’s City Council budget hearings consisted of every single city department coming before the Budget Committee to defend their budget against the CAO’s recommended cuts. Robertson showed up with a plan for achieving the proposed budget cuts while still delivering city services and keeping his department intact.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and put him in charge of departmental budget efficiencies and performance. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s departments operate as little fiefdoms, fiercely guarding staffing and budgets, maintaining independence and autonomy, avoiding conflict and responsibility, and sometimes competing with others within the city family. Robertson has a track record for crossing jurisdictional lines in order to deliver on his commitment to doing what’s in the best interest of the city, even if it’s not his immediate departmental responsibility.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and put him in charge of silo busting. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

Bill Robertson is unique in his ability to balance politics with public administration, always avoiding the “either/or” solutions that are so prevalent in our community.

He has demonstrated a knack for navigating City Hall, for training strong leaders, and for working with the people of Los Angeles, not against them.

Through it all, he maintained his commitment to the Bureau of Street Services and to implementing innovations and technology, all while creating an organization that benefits those within, those in the community, and those at City Hall.

Acknowledging that LA’s budget crisis, impending service cuts, sale of assets, threats of layoffs and battle with the state over redevelopment funds might prompt people to speculate that he was fed up with it all, Robertson conceded “It’s true, I’m fed up.”

Bill Robertson was a rare city manager, one who did not need a City Charter to tell him that the people of Los Angeles were the priority.

He did not need an org chart to tell him that when trees are falling down after a storm and endangering life and property, professional tree trimmers should get busy trimming trees without regard to departmental turf.

He didn’t need a Chief Administrative Officer to tell him that in times of budget crisis it is imperative to plan for cuts while committing to delivering city services.

Bill will be missed and his departure is a great loss to the City of LA. He was an inspiration to me. Now, more than ever, we need more people like him in City Hall. It’s LA’s time!

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

CityWatchLA - Wilbur Ave Bike Lane Brouhaha an LADOT Conspiracy?

CityWatch, Oct 12, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 81

"I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence." -Former L.A. councilwoman Ruth Galanter

A simple Bureau of Street Services (BOSS) resurfacing project on the Valley's Wilbur Avenue and a Department of Transportation (LADOT) "road diet" have kicked the proverbial hornet's nest, resulting in a clash of cultures that continues to escalate, drawing both CD12's Councilman Smith and LADOT's departing GM Rita Robinson into the fracas. Nine months ago, the BOSS notified local agencies and utilities that Wilbur Avenue, between Devonshire and Chatsworth, was scheduled for a facelift. After allowing six months to pass, ensuring that there are no construction conflicts, the BOSS went to work performing a street improvement that typically brings cheers from the community.

The Department of Transportation, which has three sections engaged in the business of designing street plans, (only two of them subscribe to the BOSS notifications!) jumped on the street resurfacing opportunity and implemented a "road diet." Wilbur went from two lanes in both directions to one lane in each direction, a left turn lane, and bike lanes on both sides.

All this took place quietly. No outreach, no coordination between the LADOT and the neighborhood councils or the CD12 council office or the cycling community or the local PTA or the local NASCAR chapter. No coordination took place between the LADOT's Operations, Geometrics, and Bikeways divisions. Nobody notified the City of LA's Bicycle Advisory Committee. Nada!

The LADOT argues that they simply took advantage of an opportunity to engage in a "road diet" and to add bike lanes and that they should be congratulated, not criticized. "After all," says LADOT's Assistant GM John Fisher, "the 1996 Bike Plan calls for bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue and we had a very small amount of time to design and implement a new striping plan. We had no time for outreach."

Conspiracy theorists tend look at situations such as this and wonder if the LADOT simply dropped bike lanes onto Wilbur as part of an engineered conflict strategy, killing any hope of a bikeway network, resulting in an "I told you they don't fit!" declaration and allowing a return to "business as usual."

Realists, like Galanter, will look at this situation and simply chalk it up to incompetence.

1) LADOT Incompetence: Wilbur Avenue has been designated for Bike Lanes since '96 and yet the LADOT Bikeways division never developed a striping plan. 14 years is a long time and yet the LADOT claims they had no time for outreach because the resurfacing work was a surprise to them.

DOT Operations subscribes to the BOSS resurfacing notification yet DOT Bikeways doesn't. The simplest and cheapest way to introduce bikeways facilities to the streets of LA is to work cooperatively with other departments.

2) Outreach Incompetence: The LADOT has a Bikeways Project Coordinator who somehow has the time to travel, from Sacramento and Chattanooga, giving presentations on facilities that don't exist in the City of Los Angeles.

It would seem that the highest priority would be on coordinating the divisions within the LADOT, the LADOT with other city departments, and the City of LA with the people who actually walk, ride bikes, take mass transit and drive the streets.

Most importantly, it would seem that coordinating transportation issues with the people of Los Angeles would be a priority but, based on results, such was not the case.

For all of the billion dollar transportation solutions on the horizon, the simplest opportunity for the people of LA to improve access and mobility is to focus on "human infrastructure," information and education that results in small behavioral shifts, all adding up to safer streets, greater communication and cooperation, and enhanced effectiveness for all modes.

The Wilbur Avenue incident is the epitome of arrogance, imposing a solution on the community without input and then framing the situation as a win-lose proposal.

It created a situation that consumed incredible amounts of energy and time, not from the folks who are on the clock, but from the community, all because the LADOT is evidently incapable or unwilling to simply engage the community in the solution.

"Road diets" are not new and the notion that moderate speeds increase capacity and through-put is counter-intuitive but true.

The fact that property values go up as speeds go down and the fact that local residents can cross the street safely and enjoy active transportation when cut-through traffic is eliminated are all missing from the conversation because the conversation never took place.

The LADOT must embrace a "Common Ground" approach to traffic engineering or the Wilbur Incident repeat itself in other neighborhoods.

3) Council Office Incompetence: Councilman Smith has come forward to argue that the bike lanes don't make sense. In fact, he went so far as to introduce a motion that would require all bikeways improvements to go to the local neighborhood council for approval. This from a guy who has worked the hardest in city council to keep neighborhood councils from gathering steam.

He has championed speed limit increases in his district over neighborhood council objections. But now, they become his ally (or tool) in fighting the LADOT who acted against his wishes.

Smith objects to the bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue, claiming cyclists are only 2% of the population and that they shouldn't get more than their share.

He forgets that when discussing Measure R, he fought to have the funding for bikeways improvements reduced below 0.75%, again arguing that cyclists should only get their fair share.

He apparently subscribes to the win-lose theory of transportation planning (wait until he finds out about the Complete Streets Act!) and is simply confused on what constitutes "fair share."

The upside to Smith's involvement in the brouhaha is his motion that now directs all transportation projects in the community to the neighborhood council, a position that empowers the community and introduces accountability and oversight to the mysteries of transportation.

4) LA Times incompetence: Sandy Banks wrote a column bemoaning the Wilbur Avenue "improvements" and demonstrates the casualness that is all too common at the LA Times. While the general public may not care too much about the difference between bike routes, bike lanes, and bike paths, one would think that journalists would at least attempt to differentiate between a $2K bike route and a $1.5MM bike path. (Wilbur gets neither but that doesn't stop the LA Times from getting them mixed up)

The LA Times refers to 400 miles of existing bikeways facilities, projects the addition 40 more per year for the next 20 years, and predicts a resulting 1600 miles of Bike lanes and paths. Whew! Too much cut-and-paste on the Mayor's press release! The reality is this, there are currently 58 miles of paths and 157 miles of lanes.

The proposed Bike Plan will result in 157 miles of paths and 213 miles of lanes. The Mayor's promise of 1600 miles includes 511 miles of studies, 101 miles of routes, and 651 miles of friendly streets. Step away from the Kool-Aid!

Banks (and the Times) can be forgiven the sloppy grasp of transportation designations and mathematical failures but the LA Times column inadvertently justifies "road diets" with when it protests the impact of the bike lanes on Wilbur.

Banks writes "For years, Wilbur Avenue had been a free-flowing community secret, a commuter street that bypassed the congestion of Northridge's main routes. Then a "street improvement" project last month turned our speedway into a parking lot."

The Wilbur "road diet" isn't a tool for benefiting cyclists, it's a strategy for getting Banks and other motorists to slow down, to stop using the smooth-flowing street as a cut-through alternative to the arterials that are congested. It is a tool for returning streets to the community, to the people who live in the neighborhood.

Through it all it is evident that the real clash of cultures is not between cyclists and motorists, nor is it between locals and cut-through traffic. It is between City Departments that operate with complete arrogance combined with contempt for the public and Neighborhood Councils, empowered by the City Charter to advise the Mayor and the City Council on the budget and the delivery of services.

The Wilbur Avenue fracas is dismissed by many as a tempest in a local neighborhood teapot but the impact will resonate throughout the city. This could be good for neighborhood councils, it could be good for local residents and merchants who are most directly impacted by cut-through traffic, and it could be good for people of all modes if we can work together and establish common ground.

For that to happen, it's important that puff pieces such as LA's proposed Bike Plan are analyzed for accuracy and held to a performance standard.

It's imperative that the Bike Plan be incorporated into the community plans and that it is integrated into LA's strategic transportation plan. Most importantly,

LA's proposed Bike Plan must satisfy the Complete Streets Act which goes in to effect on Jan 1, 2011.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

CityWatchLA - City Hall, Where Inspiration meets Desperation

CityWatch, May 7, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 36

Everybody in Los Angeles should trek to City Hall at least once in their LA experience, simply to stand in the Rotunda and to experience the inspiration of the city founders as memorialized in the California Redwood beams that support the corridor ceilings, the marble floor with bronze Spanish Caravel, the cast bronze electrolier featuring silhouettes of people significant to California, to the ten pillars that surround, each one made of a unique marble.

Most important of all is the ceiling, two stories above, a beautiful mosaic containing eight figures representing Art, Public Service, Government, Protection, Trust, Education, Health, and Law. It's the vision of LA and the commitment of our founders.

In stark contrast is City Council Chambers, just a few feet down the south corridor, where one can experience the desperation that is the current commodity of LA's City Hall.

Midway through the City Council's Budget and Finance Committee review of the Mayor's proposed budget for 2010-2011, the corridor, the hallway and the City Council Chambers are abuzz with community members fighting for services, staffers fighting for jobs, department heads fighting for budgets and politicos fighting for an exit strategy.

This is where the vision of LA as a Great City gives way to the reality of LA as a ship adrift, nothing but flotsam and jetsam in its wake. It's the failure of our leaders.

The current budget discussions have wandered far from structural change or systemic revisions and instead grind excruciatingly, painfully, slowly through the minutiae of departmental operations.

Department by department, Chiefs and Managers and Executives alike have appeared before the seven figures who comprise the Budget & Finance Committee, giving detailed reports on their departments in an effort to justify their funding and staffing.

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck opened confidently by stating, "I'm satisfied with the proposed budget. Just let me do my job and then you hold me accountable." Of course, he must know that it is the Mayor who will hold him accountable, not the City Council but it sounded good.

Recreation and Parks GM Jon Kirk Mukri also opened strong saying, "Let's agree on the budget but let me run the department." If only it were that easy!

Another General Manager wistfully expressed a different sentiment when she pointed out "I don't manage a department, I work for the Mayor."

The Budget & Finance Committee review of the proposed budget is in its second phase. Some of the Departments are reporting back on questions that they were unable to answer in the first round. Most telling was CM Huizar's question to LADOT "What exactly did the Bikeways Division do last year?"

Crickets chirped and staffers made a note to find out. A nip here, a tuck there, a parking garage that is key to the revitalization of an urban environment disappears but a welder reappears.

Through it all, the Neighborhood Councils Budget Advocates continue to meet with the Mayor's office, lobbying to develop systemic solutions that commit to maintaining the efficient delivery of services.

Budget Advocates have attended the Budget & Finance Committee hearings, repeatedly urging the committee to position the delivery of city services as the priority, not simply to cut costs.

From the proposed Public Parnerships to the consolidation of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment with the Community Development Department to the proposal to consolidate the Department of Transportation into other Charter Departments, the NC Budget Advocates have been there, representing the neighborhood councils.

For more information, visit BudgetLA.org.

The Central Planning Area Budget Recommendations:

Budget 2010/2011

Central Planning District - 
Budget Recommendations

1) Honor the Charter - Protect Charter Departments over Ordinance Departments. Look for redundancies, look for opportunities to consolidate, pursue efficiencies by supporting Charter Departments and always pursuing the Great City commitment it represents.

2) Public Private Partnerships - Investigate rigorously, no short-term financial gain at the expense of the constituents who pay for those services, at the expense of the city’s assets, and at the expense of long-term revenue streams.

3) Invest in Infrastructure - Avoid short term and ineffective maintenance/repairs of the City’s Infrastructure, instead committing to the substantial prioritization of an investment in the future.

4) Community Redevelopment Agency - Draw the CRA into a robust relationship with the City of Los Angeles, evaluating the financial relationship and embracing a partnership in funding, in revenue, in budget accountability, and in budget responsibility.

5) City Pensions - Evaluate and re-evaluate the City of Los Angeles pensions program for budget savings. (including health care liabilities and contributions)

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and represents the Central Planning District on the NC Budget Advocates Committee. He also writes for CityWatch. Box can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

• Photo by Floyd B. Bariscale

CityWatchLA - Talkin’ Budget with the Mayor: My Personal Story

CityWatch, Mar 23, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 23

"A Seat at the Table!" Long the battle cry of neighborhood council Mayor’s Budget Advocates who have fought hard for the right to participate in the City’s process … balancing the city's budget while prioritizing the delivery of city services and engaging the public in the journey. Along came the Mayor's Budget Day (Mar 13) and approximately 70 NC reps spent a Saturday morning with Deputy Mayor Ceja and CAO Santana, reviewing the Mayor's Budget survey results and the Mayor's Budget.

This representative body then broke up into groups based on planning areas, discussed budget priorities, and then elected Budget Advocates who would take those recommendations to the Mayor.

I was honored to be selected as one of the 14 Budget Advocates, elected to represent the Central Planning Area along with Scott Bytof of the Downtown LA NC. When we arrived at City Hall last week to meet with the Mayor's staff in preparation for our Budget Presentation to the Mayor we found that there were lots of chairs, an abundant number of chairs. Finally, our day had come and we had the proverbial seat at the table!

Well, almost. When we showed up at City Hall last Wednesday to meet with the Mayor's staff for the planning meeting, the chairs were abundant but the table was lacking in size. Next time we'll have to remember to ask for "A Seat at the Big Table!"

One would think that the host would be able to match the number of invitees with the number of seats and then match that with a table large enough to hold both the attendees and the requisite chairs but such was not the case. After much milling about and moving of furniture, two more tables were put into service and a replay of the "furniture power" debates of the Paris Peace Talks was narrowly averted.

In past years, the Budget Advocates have presented "consensus priorities" for the Mayor's Budget but the intensity of this year's budget crisis seemed to warrant a more robust presentation of priorities and recommendations and the "single item" focus approach fell by the wayside.

With less than a week to prepare, the Budget Advocates put together a program that offered a wide variety of representative voices to be heard on the issues that impact us all. Prepped and repped, we returned to City Hall this past Friday to meet with the Mayor and to present our budget recommendations.

Well, again, almost. In spite of the fact that there were three city staff members handling the 14 advocates (20+% ratio and we're in a budget crisis?) the City Hall bureaucracy doesn't seem to have a knack for planning or for learning from missteps. This simple example might be an anomaly or it might be an indicator of a systemic behavioral flaw.

Based on results, often harsh but always fair, City Hall's inability to staff appropriately, plan effectively, allocate resources efficiently and match performance with desired outcome seems to be a pattern that impacts everything from simple meetings to the big-picture issues of a balanced budget and the efficient delivery of city services.

So it is that the people of Los Angeles find themselves, backs against the wall and hands in the air, faced with the impossible demand "Your libraries or your parks!"

Our meeting with the Mayor went well. Co-chairs Dr. Dan Wiseman and Doug Epperhart guided the highly motivated team with great diplomacy, Ron Galperin set the tone with an optimistic call for innovation in governance and Scott Bytof closed with a simple commitment of partnership.

Along the way, Shawn Simons presented an evolved plan for the Department of Empowerment, Ginger Damon addressed opportunities to reduce costs, and Ernesto Arias called for a commitment to the delivery of community services.

The recurring message was that any efforts to balance the budget must take place with an equal commitment to the delivery of services, based on the understanding that the purpose of the city is not to serve as an employment agency but to provide Public Safety, Public Health, Public Works, and Public Service. These are not just options, they are the essential elements of a Great City.

As for the Central Planning Area, there are many budget issues that came up on Budget Day and again in the planning sessions, all of which resulted in the drafting and approval of the following guiding principles that should be used to "script" the critical decisions that must be made in the immediate future and over the long haul.

1) Honor the Charter - Protect Charter Departments over Ordinance Departments. Eliminate redundancies, inefficiencies, confusion, and city family competition by consolidating Ordinance Departments into Charter Departments. Use the City Charter as a guide for pursuing the Great City commitment it represents.

2) Public Private Partnerships - Investigate rigorously, avoiding short-term financial gain opportunities that come at the expense of the constituents who use those services, at the expense of the city’s assets, and at the expense of long-term revenue streams. Consider the opportunities that non-profits and academic organizations offer as partners in the delivery of services.

3) Invest in Infrastructure - Avoid short term and ineffective maintenance/repairs of the City’s Infrastructure, instead commit to the substantial prioritization of an investment in the future.

4) Community Redevelopment Agency - Draw the CRA into a robust relationship with the City of Los Angeles, evaluate the financial relationship, and embrace a partnership in funding, in revenue, in budget accountability, and in budget responsibility.

5) City Pensions - Evaluate and re-evaluate the City of Los Angeles pensions program for budget savings. (including health care liabilities and contributions)

The process for preparing the Mayor's Budget is a year-long journey and the City Charter specifies that it is due by April 20. This doesn't leave much time for the feedback and advice from the Mayor's Budget Day and the Budget Advocates to be included, especially if the Mayor's proposed budget is delivered early, as promised.

This means that the most recent engagement by the neighborhood councils isn't the conclusion of the budget process but is actually the beginning of the long-term budget advocacy journey.

Now, more than ever, it is imperative that the people of Los Angeles step up and communicate clearly their priorities for balancing the budget and prioritizing the delivery of services. Now is the time to join together to make Los Angeles a Great City that Works!

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate, is a Budget Rep for the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

CityWatchLA - End of the Road for the LADOT!

CityWatch, Mar 16, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 21

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with the impact of the largest budget crisis since the Great Depression, it is imperative that departmental redundancies be eliminated. The place to start is LA’s Department of Transportation.

Established in 1979 by City Council ordinance, the LADOT was originally charged with “coordinating the City ‘s various ground transportation and related activities.” Along the way it has evolved and grown, picking up a gravitational force of its own, resulting in inter-departmental tensions and a city-family competitiveness at the expense of the community. Three simple reasons for absorbing LA ‘s Department of Transportation into other City departments:

1) The City Charter calls for the existence of many City Departments and provides for their funding and specifies their responsibilities. The LADOT is not one of them.

In times of lean, the Ordinance Departments are the first to go, especially if their services are or can be provided by Charter Departments.

Now is the time to get behind the LAPD, Public Works, City Planning, and other Charter Departments, remembering that the City Charter is what sets the course for tough times and is the blueprint for becoming a Great City, not just a survivor. Double down on the departments that are part of the City’s DNA and eliminate duplicated services and redundant administrative structure.

2) City Departments must focus on core priorities.

The LADOT is entrenched in activities that are provided by other departments or agencies resulting in robust turf wars and funding battles that only waste money and impede progress.

International Peace Treaties are negotiated and signed with greater ease than an inter-agency deal memo with the LADOT.

From bike lanes to street closures to community plans to housing developments, Team LADOT will show up in numbers that simply stagger the process.

Consolidate, reduce the conflict, focus on the objectives and get behind those that get it done.

Street Services already provides Safe Routes to School programming and they do the work.

City Planning is already responsible for the City’s Mobility Plan, let them handle transportation planning.

The Metro provides transit services and LA has four seats on the Metro Board. Start getting along with the Metro and work with them! The Bureau of Engineering already builds the streets, support them. Street Services is repairing and maintaining, they’re already on it!

3) City Departments must demonstrate a proficiency.

The LADOT has instead offered a lackluster enthusiasm for its core priorities, a casual approach to the implementation of funded programs (Safe Routes to School, Fletcher Bridge, Ventura Boulevard, all funded but stalled), an oblivious approach to parking lot oversight (Pershing Square, Hollywood & Highland), a cavalier approach to parking lot fee collection ($75 million outstanding?) and a completely irresponsible approach to the maintenance of LA’s City’s Parking meters (20% failure rate?).

The LADOT’s Capital Funding Department showed up late to the Metro’s Call for Projects arguing before the Transportation Committee that “We didn’t know there would be a funding opportunity!”

Two years later they offered the same argument when they missed out on Stimulus money.

If the City of Los Angeles is serious about qualifying for its fair share of Federal and State funding, it will move to consolidate and synchronize its efforts and stop competing within the City Family for limited funds while smaller cities with less resources go big and bring home the money.

The LADOT’s Planning Department handles an integral element of land use - mobility, but their mandate is often at odds with that of City Planning. Community Plans must have authority and that means that the transportation element must be incorporated and balanced, not forced on the community. Dueling philosophies and departmental debates only hurt the neighborhoods and it is imperative that City Planning includes both planners and transportation engineers.

The LADOT’s Traffic Department provides a service that should simply be assimilated into the Public Works Department. After all, they already build and maintain the streets. Street signals, street signs, traffic controls, are all elements of great streets, just like curbs and striping and safe grates.

It should not take interdepartmental bureaucracy simply to stripe and signalize an intersection.

The LADOT’s most recent innovations include a personnel tracking system and a geo-tagging program that identified the many parking meters.

If the LADOT is struggling to account for its staff and for its revenue producing assets, perhaps its time to ask if other departments might do a better job. After all, it was the BOE who helped the LADOT identify and account for its many parking meters.

Maybe General Services could improve on the LADOT’s 80% parking meter performance rate.

Perhaps the Office of Finance could take a shot at collecting parking revenue and fees. It would be hard to do worse!

Great Streets, Complete Streets, Green Streets, Safe Streets and Shared Streets are all mobility innovations that are part of making LA a Great City.

Now is the time to evaluate the many Departments who have a piece of the street and to refine LA's process for providing safe and effective streets for everybody.

Transportation and Mobility are much too important to be entrusted to LA’s Department of Transportation and LA has no money to be wasted on a Department that simply duplicates the services that other LA Departments either provide or should provide.

LADOT, it’s the end of the road.

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

CityWatchLA - Rosendahl on Solar: "I Might Not Support It"

CityWatch, Jan 13, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 4

DWP Workshop Notebook
By David Lowell and Stephen Box

DWP General Manager, H. David Nahai, spent Saturday morning giving a three-hour "Renewable Energy" presentation to a crowd of approximately 70 community leaders representing Neighborhood Councils from throughout the city, most of whom were sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the discussion of Measure B to come up.

Measure B is the City's proposed "Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles Act," which has been called "risky" by the City's own analyst and will appear on the March 3rd ballot. Nahai and Assistant GM Aram Benyamin went to great lengths to steer clear of the topic, instead demonstrating incredible message control and sticking to the polished PowerPoint presentation that was well received.

Their efforts to bypass B went askew, however, when Councilman Bill Rosendahl dropped by and jumped into the mix, announcing "I have not made up my mind. I voted to put it on the ballot but I haven't voted to support it because, frankly, I want to understand the details that are to be presented to us as a Council. I might end up supporting it, I might not."

Rosendahl echoed the sentiment of literally everybody by stating "I believe whole-heartedly in Solar. We're in California. It's Sunny. My roof is flat." He continued by endorsing the DWP's union and the opportunity to bring more people into the DWP workforce while at the same time developing the private sector partnerships and supporting solar housing collectives such as proposed in Mar Vista.

Rosendahl polled the room and found that many were opposed to measure B, that many were undecided, that everybody reckoned that they had an open mind and that there were two people in support of Measure B, one of whom was Gary Baratta who explained "Solar Power has to go forward. There is absolutely no reason not to go forward. The DWP is the only party in a position to develop the infrastructure necessary to deliver power." Gary went on to urge Nahai to ignore the City Charter and to stop contributing funds to the City's general funds.

This softball suggestion from Baratta allowed Nahai to respond vigorously that the DWP would by no means violate the City charter and that it was their desire to abide by the rules and obligations and processes.

Nahai called the meeting a success saying "I think it went well. There were many probing questions and the feedback from the audience was that the presentation was very comprehensive. It was a good meeting. As for Measure B, the DWP has no position on Measure B. We are waiting on financial reports from Huron and we will release them as part of our outreach."

Jack Humphreville “thought the presentation was great, very informative and very interesting. The thing is,” he said, “I came to hear about Measure B."

DWP Advocacy Committee Chair Soledad Garcia agreed, "Solar energy is not the issue, we're all for it. The DWP has much to answer for if we are to work together to develop a solar plan for Los Angeles.”

Rusty Millar, Co-Chair at the Silver Lake NC was unconvinced saying "The LADWP asks us to trust them but they never came to the Neighborhood Councils as required by the City charter and they never revealed any information on the cost of Measure B. I want to know how much, how it will be paid and what the fiscal impact on the city will be."

Barbara Moynihan Burke called the entire process "A travesty!. I was there in Van Nuys when they voted on Measure B. It was called as a "special" with 24 hour notice and then it was over. No financials, no information, no opportunity for feedback from the community. I protested to Council President Garcetti based on process and based on content and yet it's still underway."

Jeff Jacobberger and Tony Butka both referred to the meeting as an informative and comprehensive big-picture presentation of the future of LA's Renewable Energy program but both also left with their expectation of a discussion of Measure B unmet.

Observers Everett Littlefield and BONC Commissioner Al Abrams seemed destined for the Diplomatic Corps. They both argued for open minds. Littlefield said "I'm union and I believe in unions but not when we're getting less for more. I have an open mind and I think like an investor, I think like a rate payer, and I think like a homeowner who wants to install solar. I need to know that everything we do is financially sound." Abrams echoed and said "It's our DWP, we're the stakeholders. We owe it to the DWP to wait and see, to keep an open mind and to evaluate the Huron financial report."

In summary: the Department got good marks for their solar presentation but disappointed many when they avoided the hot-button Solar Energy Prop B issue.