Occupy LA’s Greatest Opportunity: The Polls

CityWatch, Nov 8, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 89

RETHINKING LA - Occupy LA’s greatest opportunity to impact the policies and actions that are responsible for eviscerating the middle class, for destroying our economy, for unleashing predatory greed and for selling political access to the highest bidder is to mobilize voters at the polls on election day.

In LA, that’s today in Council District 15 as the seat that was occupied by Janice Hahn is filled, or potentially filled, by one of the 15 certified candidates, 11 on the ballot and 4 as write-ins.

So far none of the candidates have made a strong play to embrace Occupy LA and at the same time, Occupy LA has failed to lay down campaign positions for the Candidates.

The Occupy LA movement has established a strong presence on the outside of City Hall, creating an environment that is a microcosm of a healthy community, complete with health care, child care, education, sanitation, security, food service, and a system of participatory government that raises the standard in its commitment to the individual.

But the refinement of the Occupy LA village will only result in a higher quality of life on the outside of City Hall, no small feat, but it’s still on the outside of City Hall and not on the inside where the dangerous policies and actions are taking place with unfettered abandon.

Now is the time for the 99% to move inside and to ask the hard questions of the Mayor, the City Attorney, the City Controller, the City Council and the City Department managers who are at the helm of the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world.

Now is the time for the 99% to identify the candidates for office who can account for their policies and actions and who have a demonstrated commitment to economic justice.

To be sure, the Mayor and the City Council have pandered to the Occupy LA crowd and they were treated like Rock Stars by a fawning audience who acted as if backstage access was a fair trade-off for failed leadership that has resulted in the surrounding collapse of a great city.

Missing from the dialogue were the hard questions:

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Unemployment, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

Fully 11.7% of LA’s workforce is sitting idle, a rate that is 44% higher than the national 8.8% rate of unemployment. This situation is compounded by the City of LA’s poverty rate of 19.1%, which is 44.7% higher than the California poverty rate of 13.2%. [link]

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Home Foreclosures, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

One in every 293 housing units in Los Angeles received a foreclosure notice in 2011. Five states account for 53% of the US foreclosure activity and of those states, California leads the pack and continues to show increases in default notices.

The recent increase in new foreclosure actions is attributed to the prior slowdown as a result of robo-signing and other documentation problems, a situation that foreshadows more bank repossessions in the coming months as the default process picks up. [link]

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Homelessness, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

Fully 6% of LA’s population without a home. LA’s homeless population of 23,539 includes 8,131 Veterans, an increase of 9% over the last two years. African Americans represent just 9.6% of LA’s population but make up fully 43.7% of LA’s chronic homeless population.

The City of LA’s population of 3,792,621 is just 1.2% of the total American population of 308,745,538 yet its homeless population is fully 3.6% of the national homeless population of 649,917, fully three times the rate of homelessness as the rest of the country.

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Collapsing Infrastructure, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

LA is leading the nation in collapsing infrastructure with fully 64% of its major streets in poor condition against a national average of 23%. This failure is complemented by 10,000 miles of sidewalks that are a full generation behind in maintenance, resulting in nearly half of LA’s sidewalks in need of repair with a projected price of $1.2 billion. This situation has resulted in debate over responsibility and an American with Disabilities Act class action lawsuit filed against the City of Los Angeles.

Adding to the threat of collapse is LA’s sewer system, on the one hand an engineering accomplishment, on the other hand a neglected network of 6,700 miles of sewage pipes, nearly a third of them more than 80 years old.

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Dwindling City Services, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

Los Angeles is currently enjoying the largest municipal operating budget in its history, one that actually increased by 1% over last year and now exceeds $7 billion, yet is referred to as the budget that requires the citywide reduction in city services while residents pay more in fees, fines, penalties and permits.

LA’s 2011-2012 budget was presented as a response to “the most difficult financial circumstances in generations” and came with a claim that the budget addresses more that $1 billion in budget deficits, reduces the workforce by more than 4,000 positions, and stabilizes revenues. The Mayor and City Council then went on to cut the Police Department by $100 million, the Fire Department by $50 million, and the surviving City Departments by an average of 10% each while eliminating positions and implementing cost-recovery mandates that resulted in the restricted delivery of city services to only those who can afford to pay extra for them.

Mayor Villaraigosa delivered 100 ponchos to rain-soaked campers and City Council President Eric Garcetti sang a few rounds of Kumbaya but nobody has accounted for the lack of political leadership that has allowed Los Angeles to take its place as the Capital of Squandered Potential.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to demand that candidates for office, whether local or citywide, firmly commit to fair elections that belong to the people and are free of special interest money.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to identify candidates who recognize that people aren’t property and that corporations aren’t people.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to reward candidates who demonstrate integrity with positions that allow them to bring much needed oversight and accountability to City Hall.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to work to elect candidates who embrace the human rights that have been trampled on by a power structure that rewards unfettered greed.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to shape the argument in the upcoming elections, moving from Rock Star politics to a real referendum on human rights and economic justice.

Today’s election in Council District will probably result in a run-off special election between the top two vote-getters on Tuesday, January 17, 2012.

If Occupy LA is to move beyond the demonstration phase and into the “take a seat in City Hall” phase of changing the world, it will start with an aggressive campaign to impact the outcome of the City Council District 15 race.

Occupy LA’s ability to organize in the CD15 race will send a clear message to the Citywide political aspirants that Occupy LA truly represents the 99% and that the Occupy LA platform is the substance of political success.

It starts now and it takes place at the polls.

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

Can Wendy Greuel Run on Her Record?

CityWatch, Aug 16, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 65

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - Five Signs LA is a DIY City

CityWatch, May 17, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - CRA, Taxes and the CD4 Candidates

CityWatch, Jan 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 6

Before Governor Brown astounded the State by proposing to abolish all the Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA’s), this writer had sent a CRA questionnaire to the candidates for Council District 4.

The candidates for Council District #4 for the March 8, 2011 election are: Councilmember Tom LaBonge, Stephen Box and Tomas O’Grady. Each has a website so readers can see for themselves the biographical information.

The CRA’s were established after WW II as a vehicle to stimulate urban renewal. No city must establish a CRA, but Los Angeles chose to create one, CRA/LA. CRA’s obtain their revenue by taking all the incremental property tax revenue generated by their projects as well as by sometimes taking the sales taxes connected with their projects.

Bunker Hill, for example, has taken in $717 Million in property taxes for the CRA/LA. Overall, CRA/la has taken in $2.8 Billion; $1.2 Billion in the last seven years.

Because the schools had clawed back some of the CRA money by state statute and by lawsuits, the City supported Prop 22 on the November 2010 ballot which made it unconstitutional for any CRA money to go to schools or to the City’s general fund, e.g. for roads. Yes, the City defunded schools in order to give billions to real estate speculators!

Because the City has claimed that it is broke, and thus, it has to fire personnel and reduce services, the fact that the CRA has a multi-million dollar surplus merits public discussion. Hence, the CRA questionnaire.

Councilmember LaBonge’s response:
Councilmember finally made some written responses, although rather brief.

Candidate Tomas O’Grady’s responses:
Mr. O’Grady made long, thoughtful responses showing an openness which all candidates should exhibit.

Candidate Stephen Box responses:
Mr. Box’s also made long and thoughtful responses.

At the outset I believe all Angelenos should be very thankful that Tomas O’Grady and Stephen Box actually believe in openness and wrote extensive, thoughtful answers, knowing that their answers would be used for an article over which they will have no control. Councilmember LaBonge’s answer were short, evasive, and seldom dealt with the issues. Each reader can link to the full answers to form their own opinion about the candidates’ full statements.

Question #1: Should City Council tell the public about the multi-million surplus in the CRA/LA account when discussing the budget?

Labonge:
No. Instead the councilmember wrote: “The intricacies of the funding mechanism in place are available to anyone who seeks them out, and I will always work to make that information available to anyone who wants it. You can also go independently on-line to the city and CRA websites to find this information.”

Councilmember LaBonge will not disclose the data unless someone somehow knows that it exists and then he will give it to that person who apparently already knows about it. Voters can decide whether finding out the city’s true financial condition should be a Game of Hide ‘n Seek.

O’Grady:
Yes, the public should know. Mr. O’Grady has some cogent and specific ideas how the CRA should provide more detailed information. He gave a lot of thought and research into this matter and I urge people to follow the link to his full comments.

Box:
Yes, the council has the duty to communicate all surpluses. Similarly, Mr. Box gave thoughtful answers and people should also read his comments in full.

Question #2: Do you favor abolishing the CRA?

LaBonge:
No. Councilman LaBonge strongly disagrees that the CRA should be abolished. Contrary to the other two candidates, he did not provide any analysis how to deal with the CRA’s financial impact on the city.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady suggests a new Redevelopment Pilot Project to stimulate development from “within communities” as opposed to having large projects imposed on communities by outside developers. I interpret Mr. O’Grady’s comments to be “Yes” for abolishing the current CRA and designing a new one which achieves community objectives.

Box:
Mr. Box’s immediate remedy is to examine the CRA and its relationship to the City of LA and explore options for immediate action, leading up to a Charter Amendment that would abolish the CRA.

Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided analysis of the situation and I recommend that readers link on to their full answers.

Update on Question #2: After my CRA questions were posed, Governor Brown announced his plan to abolish the CRA’s. Readers will have to look to candidates’ web sites for discussions of the Governor’s proposal. There will be much discussion in the upcoming weeks about how taxpayers can retrieve their billions upon billions of tax dollars from the CRA’s.

Question #4: Do you support bringing Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles?

Under Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), a city may take property and give it to another private person for that entity’s personal profit. Traditional eminent domain forbids the property going to another person for personal profit. CRA eminent domain is Kelo eminent domain as the properties go to private developers who reap the profits.

LaBonge:
LaBonge supported AB 2531 which would have brought Kelo eminent domain to every parcel in Los Angles. His response today is that he wants to review the matter with the City Attorney.

He opposes “unilateral eminent domain,” but there is no explanation of what he means about unilateral eminent domain, so at best his answer appears to be evasive. One would think that since he supported Kelo eminent domain, he would have some thoughts to share with the voters.

O’Grady:
While he opposed the secretive manner in which AB 2531 was sprung upon the public, Mr. O’Grady would support a new AB 2531 to bring Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles.

Box:
Mr. Box vehemently opposes expansion of eminent domain powers and would oppose any attempt to bring Kelo eminent domain to Los Angeles. He believes as a matter of principle that the government should not take one man’s property and give it to another private citizen.

Question #5: Since the City Attorney may not investigate wrongdoing at City Hall, would you support a charter amendment to bifurcate the City Attorney into two separate offices (1) City Attorney to advise the City, Council and staff, and (2) City Prosecutor whose sole function would be to prosecute criminal wrongdoers?

Because the City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to his clients who are the City, its staff, and its elected officials including the CRA, if a councilmember confides in the City Attorney, “I want to take this cash bribe from developer X,” the City Attorney cannot take action, even if the councilmember stuffs thousands of dollars into his pocket right in front of the City Attorney. Thus, the prosecutor whom the public believes would be most diligent in protecting it from city hall corruption is legally prevented.

LaBonge:
The councilmember states: “This issue deserves further discussion, study and review.”

The point of the questionnaire was to obtain the candidates’ thoughts so that the voters can discuss, study, and review. This is a politician’s “No Comment” answer.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady’s answer is a thoughtful discussion of the different ways the civil and criminal functions of a City Attorney Office may be structured. Mr. O’Grady seems to believe that how the city attorney interprets the “client determination” issue can resolve the matter, and thus, it appears that he is not prepared to support two separate offices. I do not think, however, that this opinion will necessarily be Mr. O’Grady’s position on the subject.

Box:
Mr. Box supports bifurcation so that the City Prosecutor would be free to address any and all criminal matters which the City Attorney now handles plus being able to handle any and all criminal matters including felonies which involve the city, its staff and elected officials. He also supports Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accounta-bility (OPA) who would assist in keeping the City honest.

Final Words:
Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided extensive answers taking the city’s problems very seriously. Because literally billions of dollars and the quality of life for Angelenos are at stake, I hope people will take the time to look over their suggestions. Councilmember LaBonge’s seems to think everything is fine as it is.

(Richard Lee Abrams is an attorney in Los Angeles. He can be reached at rickleeabrams@gmail.com )

CityWatchLA - Oversight and Accountability requires a City Prosecutor with Enforcement Authority

CityWatch, Jan 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 1

Angelenos in pursuit of oversight reform are in the midst of an "all or nothing" battle that starts with the upcoming opportunity to create of a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and establish the Office of Public Accountability. (OPA) But both efforts will be for naught if they are not supported with significant Commission Reform and the establishment of a City Prosecutor.

It was increasing public outrage over LA's Department of Water & Power cavalier behavior that stirred a grass roots battle to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) with oversight authority in order to ensure open review of the DWP's operations, finances, and management.

Through it all, public distrust of what Jack Humpreville refers to as "the DWP’s politically appointed Board of Commissioners, its overly politicized and less than candid executive management, and the Mayor and his evasive staff" continued to grow.

It was an internecine struggle over LA's budget crisis that led to a family feud between the DWP, the City Council, and the Mayor's Office. The residents of Los Angeles watched and listened to threats of bankruptcy, renewed layoffs, increasing flotsam and jetsam, ongoing cuts to city services, and the impending sale of city assets.

Through it all, public distrust of what Richard Lee Abrams refers to as "lots of emotional hysteria about lost services, but total silence about available funds" left the Mayor and City Council struggling to explain how a large LA deficit matched by a larger CRA surplus still results in a budget deficit that requires a fire sale of city assets.

The resulting groundswell of grassroots support for greater oversight of the DWP, the City's budget process, and the machinations of LA's Commissions and Boards stirred a stampede as the DWP Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor's office all got in the game.

As the deadline for March 8, 2011 ballot measure drew closer, there were competing proposals for a Ratepayers Advocate, an Inspector General, and an Office of Public Accountability. The DWP's union entered the fray, management and commission positions changed hands, and by the time the City Council was done, the proposed ballot measure had been watered down, resulting in reduced authority and narrow jurisdiction.

While the DWP Reform Panel originally called for charter amendments authorizing a well funded, empowered, and truly independent Ratepayers Advocate as well as an Inspector General, the resulting ballot measure no longer include the authorization of City Council to remove the DWP General Manager and any Commissioner with a two-thirds vote. The Office of Public Accountability will be limited to the review of water and power rates and will rely on the City Council and Mayor to pass ordinances to insure the thorough review and analysis of DWP’s $60 billion strategic plan and its operations, finances, and management.

Still, progress is admirable. It is rewarding and it is encouraging. But the establishment of a Ratepayers Advocate supported by the Office of Public Accountability is a hollow and symbolic gesture unless they are supported by subsequent ballot measures that reform the Commission process and establish a City Prosecutor.

All four elements must exist or the City of LA will have oversight reform that consists of a dog that is "all bark and no bite." The last thing LA needs now is oversight reform that consists of more audits and advice with no authority or mandate to enforce the law.

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 not for 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 in formation 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 into 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 March 8, 2011 election approaches and the ballot measure establishing a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA) get the spotlight, it is important to remember that oversight and accountability mean little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

2010 was a great year for the grassroots advocates who fought so hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress was made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

2011 is the year in which we can work together to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job.

(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 - NC Elections: Opportunity that Got Away!

CityWatch, June 11, 2010
Vo 8 Issue 46

One of the most significant events in the life of a neighborhood council (along with all of the others) is the election of the Board of Directors, an occasion that is much more than the simple selection of the chosen few. The election is also the most significant outreach event in the NC cycle, offering an opportunity to not only engage qualified candidates but to engage the community in the work of the council. The election also offers the community the opportunity to participate in establishing a vision for the council, during the campaign journey and at the election itself.

One might even suggest that the simple act of voting for a candidate in a hotly contested election is the simple act that signifies a contract between the people of the community and the neighborhood council. Regardless of how one approaches NC elections, one thing is sure, they signify the beginning, not the end, of a long and significant journey, and yet...

Neighborhood Council elections have become a spectator sport, one that takes place in an abstract fashion with little ownership from the many groups who purportedly have a vested interest in the outcome.

Consider the role of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment in the election process and their laissez faire attitude to the process. Granted, they are no longer responsible for conducting the actual elections but one would think that they would have a vested interest in promoting the NC mandate, the NC system, the NC engagement. If nothing else, one would think that DONE would have used the NC election process to promote themselves, demonstrating their ability to communicate, to connect, to engage the community and to support the NC system. Such is not the case. DONE is, at best, a passive spectator to the NC election process, at worst, they are completely oblivious.

Consider the neighborhood councils, caught in the middle of a long drawn out battle over roll-over funds and funding debates and also caught in the middle of a long drawn out battle over election authority and responsibility. Some councils had a strong track record of outreach and they faired well. Some councils had a history of relying on DONE and they were left hanging. Some councils failed to grasp the importance of the election process and simply allowed it to be something that was done to them, not for them and certainly not with them. The final results remain to be seen but as the election process limps forward, it seems to be leaving many councils floundering in its wake.

Consider the role of the City Clerk, currently responsible for conducting NC elections but not responsible for any outreach or communication other than that specific to the machinations of the actual election process. As the City Clerk nears completion of the citywide neighborhood council board election process, they have received cheers from some and jeers from others, along with a great deal of ambivalence, resulting in City Council assurances that the entire process will be reviewed for efficacy and efficiency. Along the way, the City Clerk claimed absolute authority over elements ranging from bylaw revisions to election procedures to the grievance process. With this authority comes only limited responsibility and it ends at the moment of certification.

The failure of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, the Neighborhood Councils and the City Clerk to come together with a citywide plan for capitalizing on the election process as the single greatest opportunity to connect with the community and to promote the neighborhood council system is a huge missed opportunity.

This failure to come together has also left a gap in accountability that leaves some neighborhood councils in limbo, attempting to play by rules but unable to locate any authority.

At issue is the process for transitioning neighborhood council authority from the sitting board to the newly elected board. For many, the composition is similar so the transition is of minimal impact and significance. In other cases, the old board is being replaced by a new board. That has proven to be a problem for some councils.

First, what agency or department has authority over the seating of the new board?

The City Clerk is responsible for certifying the elections and then new board members show up at the next regularly scheduled board meeting, only to find that the City Clerk is gone, Neighborhood Empowerment no longer attends NC meetings, and there is some confusion over what authority facilitates the process.

One NC floundered as they waited on the the results of an election grievance and the certification of the election, only to find themselves in limbo as the time came for the new board to be seated. Two months had gone by, the old board had moved on, the new board politely waited for a determination on who seats the new board?

Second, under what authority does the new board take its seats and the resulting authority over council business?

According to the City Clerk generated Election Procedures, once the election results are certified, the old board convenes the next regularly scheduled board meeting and is responsible for seating the new board. Typically, this is painless but in some cases it has been a problem.

One NC had no quorum of the old board but simply took a quorum of the new board as legitimate authority to seat the new board and to proceed with NC business. What message does this send to new board members is the first thing they learn is that the quickest way to conduct NC business is to look for “workarounds” in order to navigate LA’s bureaucracy.

Third, what agency or authority is responsible for any appeals or claims of inappropriate board activity?

One NC had its elections certified but the outgoing Board President chose to fill the unfilled seats by appointment before passing the gavel. The newly elected board showed up at the regularly scheduled meeting but they weren’t seated and the gavel wasn’t passed. Another lost opportunity and another bad lesson for the new board members.

Through it all, some City Councilmembers have partnered with their neighborhood councils, facilitating neighborhood council board transitions by honoring the outgoing boardmembers and recognizing them for their contributions, by recognizing the election results and honoring the stakeholders for their participation, and by swearing in the new board and offering their partnership in the impending journey. It's good to have friends, especially in high places! But this was the exception, not the norm.

Ultimately, the limbo period is a huge problem for neighborhood councils because of the impending deadline for NC budgets for the upcoming 2010/2011 year. How can an NC effectively engage the community and plan for the upcoming year if they can’t find the gavel and seat the incoming board?

This failure to anticipate the conflict between the individual NC bylaws and the City Clerk election procedures was discussed at the beginning of the transition process and dismissed as a simple procedural necessity. For DONE? For the City Clerk? Certainly not for the neighborhood councils!

This failure to anticipate the limbo zone between the City Clerk and the DONE is indicative of the lack of foresight that NC’s have experienced with literally every decision that has come from City Hall. From funding issues to staffing issues to the elections to the CDD/DONE consolidation, it is apparent unintended consequences are the greatest threat to LA’s neighborhood councils.

This failure to anticipate the need to address board transitions has prompted calls for help, so many that the DONE employee on the “Help Line” acknowledged that “There have been a lot of calls on this issue.” This begs the question, “What good is the ‘Help Line’ if a large number of questions don’t motivate DONE to address the need for information?

The lesson to be learned from the current neighborhood council experience is that neighborhood councils are on their own, that their effectiveness is dependent on their initiative and on their resourcefulness, and that the future of the neighborhood council system requires immediate action from the community, not from City Hall.

(Stephen Box writes Box Soap for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

NCs Finding a Seat at the Table

CityWatch, Feb 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 14

The journey has been long and it has often been tedious and fatiguing, but it has paid off.

When the CAO's recommendations for the neighborhood council system came up two weeks ago, the BudgetLA community turned out in great numbers and went to work, fighting in the Budget and Finance Committee and in the City Council and again at the E & N Committee. Committee Chair Paul Krekorian championed the NC cause and took the proposed cuts off the City Council agenda and out to Committee, demActive Imageonstrating that a strong relationship with an NC Champion was worth its weight in public comment.

The council sessions have been rugged, the people who have worked the phones, sent the emails, spoken in public comment, shared their victories, offered their commitment and stood their ground have made a difference and that is what the neighborhood council system is all about.

As of yesterday, City Council instructions for actions on items involving neighborhood councils include the directive "in consultation with the neighborhood councils" demonstrating a huge shift in the relationship of the public with the City Council.

The City Council is still weighing options on NC elections, NC funding, Rollover funds, Bankcards, Expenditures and the structure and staffing levels for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Departments including the City Clerk's office, the City Controller's office, the CAO, the CLA, the City Attorney, DONE, BONC and CDD are all working on reports for the future.

Meanwhile, the BudgetLA community has a plan. It's a beginning, a place to start, but it's not a report, it's not a survey, it's a plan.

Plans are rare these days, especially ambitious plans that come with the commitment of the public.

This plan for the future of the Neighborhood Council System will be presented to the Mayor's office on Friday, February 19. If you care about the role of neighborhood councils in the future of Los Angeles, this is the meeting to attend.

There is a lot of ground to cover, from NC elections and NC funding to the core priorities of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we put all of our energy into being part of the solution as we take on the city's budget crisis and as we work together to position neighborhood councils as an asset in the journey to make Los Angeles a Great City.

Deputy Mayor Larry Frank hosts BudgetLA

Friday, February 19, 2010

3:00 pm

Mayor's Press Room

3rd Floor

200 Main Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

As for the NC agenda items that were in City Council over the last two weeks, Krekorian's recommendations were all passed unanimously, with an amendment to the rollover fund motion, giving neighborhood councils the opportunity to claim all money encumbered through January 29, 2010.

1) Committee recommends a) that the city report back to the committee within two weeks of the feasibility of a non profit taking over NC funding, b) making BONC the managing commission and moving DONE staff under them. “We have to move forward and study this,” Krekorian says. “We need to move. We are in a crisis.” Report back in two weeks.

2) Krekorian said "It’s clear to me this is a broken accounting system. This is a system that requires reform. Sweeping these funds into the reserve would not allow NCs what they need to meet their commitments. We need to move the funds into the unappropriated balance account, subject to certain claims. We also need a better verification process." Report back in two weeks.

3) Committee recommends that the NCs submit monthly accounting reports of bank cards to maintain the current procedure and improve transparency. Also moves that cash withdrawals from NCs be eliminated and that DONE report back, within two weeks, how that will get done. Report back in one week.

4) Committee recommends that DONE report back in 60 days.

5) Krekorian recommends total REJECTION of 50% cut in NC funding the CAO had recommended citing partnership with NCs as basis on which to move forward, calling that the “sweet spot in this issue.”

Krekorian vows to continue the discussion with the city and NCs for better, more efficient and transparent ways to move forward.

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

CityWatchLA - Crossing The Digital Divide

CityWatch, Jan 8, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 2

The Silver Lake Neighborhood Council has just taken a leap across the Digital Divide and is engaging in a relationship with Everyone Counts in an effort to implement a "digital voting" pilot project for neighborhood council elections. The program would allow stakeholders to use telephones and computers to both "opt-in" or register as well as to vote and the SLNC has set aside $5000 as seed money for the effort which now needs the blessing of the City Clerk, the City Attorney, and the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners. The recent brouhaha over neighborhood council elections conducted by the City Clerk has stirred up complaints and it was in this discussion over financial limitations, operating restrictions, standardization and outreach that the question of digital innovations came up.

Everyone Counts is a San Diego based company that has conducted elections for groups ranging from the Sierra Club to the Honolulu neighborhood board elections. Their proposal essentially consists of tailoring software to the needs of the neighborhood councils and then licensing it so that it is paid for once and can then be used for multiple elections. The pricing would theoretically be based on the number of registered voters in the City of Los Angeles and would include 24/7 tech support as well as server redundancy as guarantees of service.

As the City enters into the era of "Increase Revenue or Increase Efficiency" and all aspects of City functions are open to inspection and review, it seems reasonable to ask the simple questions such as "Can the City Clerk conduct elections for less money and with greater efficiency?" One of the first places to start would be by determining the real costs of registering candidates, registering voters, polling voters and tabulating results. In addition, what is the real cost to the city, regardless of what department does the work, of conducting NC election outreach.

A couple of things that should be considered in this proposal are the opportunities to open up the scope of influence that the leap over the Digital Divide presents to the City of Los Angeles.

1) Could this system be used to create a citywide digital Stakeholder Community that allows NC's and stakeholders to interact and communicate, long after the election is over?

2) Could this process be structured so that stakeholders could register as candidates without having to navigate so much paper and process?

3) Could this NC Election proposal lay the foundation for a new style of communication, one that allows innovations such as texting and GPS tagging so that everything from potholes to traffic collisions can be more efficiently reported?

4) Would this new style of "Connectivity" provide the City of Los Angeles with more effective and more inexpensive tools for communicating with the community in times of emergency?

As with any new proposal, there were some concerns, this time over accessibility and security. The current NC election process allows for six hours of polling at a single location. The proposal allows people to access the polling system from their own location over a period of time that can stretch for weeks if desired.

The current NC election process varies stakeholder verification standards from NC to NC but the proposed system can also be tailored to allow for pre-registration and certification to opt-in to personal ID verification to PIN numbers.

At the end of the day, the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council and Everyone Counts are standing by and ready to engage in a pilot project during the upcoming 2010 Board Elections, complementing the City clerk run election with the digital element and all they need is permission.

Is the Los Angeles ready to explore innovations in cost-cutting and improvements to efficiency or will we continue to embrace the status quo?

(Stephen Box has administered numerous neighborhood council elections, is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it )

CityWatchLA - Hey, You Talkin’ to Me?

CityWatch, Feb 20, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 15

Good, bad or indifferent … at least we’re talking.

The ongoing debate over Measure B has, among other things, stirred the most significant solar energy dialogue in recent history. Regardless of where you stand on Measure B, any conversation inevitably leads to the question "How do we make Solar energy a reality for Los Angeles."

The Department of Water and Power's management has gone before the City council, the Energy & Environment Committee, the DWP Commission and BreatheLA declaring that the department has been committed to the public process, sending speakers to neighborhood councils, and community groups throughout the city. "When this election is over, we'll have spoken before 50 Neighborhood Councils and at six Town Halls." he reported this past week.

Representatives of the "VoteNoMeasureB" know the feeling. "We know. We attend the same meetings, we engage in the dialogue, the discussion and the debate. The difference is, we walk out of those meetings with resolutions opposing Measure B." The VoteNoMeasureB website lists groups from the United Chambers of Commerce to VICA to Valley Vote to more than 30 Neighborhood Councils on its endorsements page.

The DWP has attempted to maintain a neutral position in the debate, presenting the SolarLA plan and approaching the Measure in terms of how it fits into the future of LA's renewable energy portfolio.

The debate actually takes place between the "Working Californians" who send their reps to debate the volunteers from the "VoteNoMeasureB" campaign.

On the off chance that there are still some out there who have missed the discourse, there are still 15 events scheduled between now and March 3 where SolarLA will be presented and Measure B will be debated.

Regardless of the outcome on election day, Measure B has brought Angelenos out into the marketplace of discourse and provides the very real opportunity for LA activists to work together post-election to make the future sustainable energy a reality. That is, if we're still talking. (Stephen Box is an issues activist and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Private Memoirs of an IEA

CityWatch, Nov 8, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 90

Retrospective
By Stephen Box

(Note: Neighborhood Council elections are now managed and overseen by the City Clerk. Independent Election Administrators are no longer a part of the NC election process.)

This past Saturday marked the end of my tour of duty as an Independent Election Administrator charged with supervising Neighborhood Council elections throughout the City of Los Angeles.

My final election was held in Chatsworth, where stakeholders have traditionally been identified as those who "Live, work, own property or board a horse." The week prior, I was in Coastal San Pedro where stakeholders have traditionally been identified as those who "Live, work, own property or dock a boat." Such is the diversity of Los Angeles. Of course all of that changed when our City Council imposed the new "Live, work, own property or whatever" stakeholder status on Neighborhood Councils and it was then that I knew the end was nigh.

Through it all, I learned a great deal from those I've worked with, encountering along the way a multitude of people with unique talents and perspectives who challenged me to be innovative in making the election process relevant to the needs of their local community.

I've also been humbled as I watched newly immigrated senior citizens listen patiently as a translator explained how to use a ballot, all as they prepared to vote for the first time in their lives. I listened to a candidate explain to a Forum audience that he came from a country that held no elections. Now that he was here, he felt that it was his duty to run. These experiences served to remind me that Neighborhood Council elections are a significant and important step into the world of participatory democracy.

As an IEA, I've been run ragged and overwhelmed with voters. I've sat in an empty room, bored and holding an empty ballot box, waiting for the day to end. I've been yelled at and cursed and I've been hugged and thanked and made to feel like family.

I've conducted elections in museums, churches, community centers, schools, a train station and even the Farmer's Market. I've even held meetings in parking garages and I’ve held two elections on the sidewalk after getting locked out by LAUSD. Along the way, I was perpetually reminded that it was never the comfort of the facility but it was always the spirit of the people that made for a successful election.

In spite of the fact that Los Angeles is the second largest city in the country, I now think of LA as a collection of small towns, NC sized, complete with unique character, personality, needs and desires. It's my experience that it was the ability of NC's to make unique the Neighborhood Council experience, tailoring the bylaws and election procedures to their needs and philosophy, that was key to creating ownership and responsibility.

While critics claim that the old system of elections allowed for too much variation, deviation and even failure, I counter with this: True democracy is a guarantee of process, not of result. Granted, it allows for failure but it also allows for success. Either way, the results belong to the participants and that is the essence of participatory democracy.

For all of the pontificating and posturing as the City Council weighed in on the Neighborhood Councils and revised the DNA of the system, I never encountered a City Councilmember at an NC election. Perhaps they think it inappropriate to meddle in NC politics and they might have a point, a good point.

Still, it would have been nice to see them drive by, drop off a box of Krispy Kremes and thank the volunteers. After all, this is where the business of the people takes place.

As this era fades, I'm optimistic for the Neighborhood Council system, not because of the recent changes in process but because of the people I've met, the friends I've made and the passion and enthusiasm I've encountered along the way.

To the neighborhood councils I've worked with, thanks for the ride!

(Stephen Box served as an Independent Election Administrator for a number of years. Box writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)