THE TAKAWAY - Those of us who witnessed the City Council's Education and Neighborhoods Committee meeting this week are entitled to feel a little uneasy.
This subcommittee of the Los Angeles City Council oversees the Neighborhood Council System. That means that it can involve itself in our affairs in all kinds of ways, from elections to funding to attempting to restrict our activities. Historically, the E&N committee has been friendly and nurturing at some times, and seemingly indifferent or downright patriarchal at others.
The current E&N committee is chaired by Bernard Parks and includes Dennis Zine and Jan Perry as members. Chairman Parks' first several meetings were open and casual, allowing neighborhood council participants to engage with Parks in a friendly manner over a wide range of issues.
Last Thursday, July 19, an agenda was posted for a Special E&N Meeting to be held the following Tuesday. It included one potentially damaging item, an attempt to take money out of our neighborhood council budgets to cover the city's costs for assisting in our elections.
It should be understood that the 2012 neighborhood council elections are only taking place because NCs fought to save them from being cancelled. The proposed cancellation was based ostensibly on the argument that having no neighborhood council elections between 2010 and 2014 would save the city money.
Of course the savings would have been less than one-thousandth of the city's yearly budget. But not to quibble. Let's continue with Tuesday's meeting.
In effect, the posted agenda gave Councils maybe 3 days to prepare any response we might wish to give. The problem was that the E&N agenda did not provide even a hint of how much those neighborhood council budget cuts might be.
Last Saturday, the officers and committee chairs of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) got together and discussed the E&N agenda item. We were concerned, and I think rightly so. One of the problems was that the city had, for all intents and purposes, left neighborhood councils in the dark even with regard to the proposed range of potential budget cuts. We had heard rumors, to be sure, but they ranged from a small amount right up to something in excess of $10,000 per neighborhood council.
The latter amount would have been a huge blow, as it would constitute nearly a third of each of our budgets.
Under the circumstances, the LANCC took an action that it has never done before. We sent out a rapid response alert to our email lists, warning people that something was up and asking them to reply to us regarding their views on possible budget cuts, and providing a link to the E&N committee should they wish to copy that body. Over the weekend and continuing on Monday, quite a few of our recipients replied, not only to us, but to the E&N committee.
With minor exceptions, there was strong sentiment that our budgets, already cut from last year, should be left alone. One common argument was that this year's $5,000 cut had already covered the costs of neighborhood council elections.
Some of the replies could be charitably viewed as a little testy. Our neighborhood council participants appear to be weary of having to fight this battle not only every year, but now, apparently, even more often than that.
On Monday afternoon, we finally got to see a real piece of data. The report from the City Administrative Officer recommended relatively modest charges to neighborhood councils. Partly, this was based on the fact that the city has already allocated more than half a million dollars to DONE (the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment) to oversee elections, and partly on the additional fact that neighborhood councils have promised to spend another $440,000 out of their own budgets for doing election outreach.
The CAO report also pointed out that we are already into the 2012-13 fiscal year, and neighborhood councils, just like other city agencies, are well into the process of budgeting and planning. The CAO's report therefore suggested that charging the neighborhood councils for election expenses be set aside this year, and be resumed for the 2014 elections. There is an assumption contained in this message, namely that there will be no elections in 2013. Also implicit in the report was the possibility that the City Clerk's office may return as the election administrator for 2014.
In other words, it was good news and bad news -- little or no charges this year, but a continuing assumption that the City Council might make good their threat of returning our elections to City Clerk control. It should be pointed out that LANCC's Election Task Force and a large number of neighborhood council participants were not happy with City Clerk control and have asked repeatedly that it be ended for once and for all.
Chairman Parks, acting in the absence of the 2 other committee members, chose to pass along a recommendation that the CAO's recommendation be modified so as to include 2012 elections in the budget charges. However, since there seems to be plenty of money to do the 2012 election cycle, Parks was ‘generous’ enough to limit any such charges to the case where cost overruns occur.
At one level, the LANCC and neighborhood council participants succeeded in communicating our views to E&N, and the Chair's recommendation was mostly in accord with those communications, although not due to them.
At another level, we have work to do. Tuesday's agenda item signifies that the City Council giveth and the City Council can take away at its own discretion or whim. We should not have to be refighting the budget battle less than 3 months after the City Council passed the 2012-13 budget. We also should not have to be fighting the battle to gain some stability in the structuring of the neighborhood council system, our system of elections, and our ability to do mid-range planning.
What should we do? I would argue that we have an opportunity to do something right now because citywide elections are coming up early next year. We will be electing a new mayor, City Controller, and City Council members.
The window of opportunity is now open. We should be talking among ourselves and all our neighborhood council associations about the sorts of commitments we expect from each candidate.
Getting the City Clerk out of our election system would be one of the first items on my list. Getting some stability in our budget system would be another -- how about an agreed upon yearly budget that doesn't change for the next 4 years as one such commitment we insist on from every candidate?
(Bob Gelfand is the 2012 chair of LANCC. He can be reached at [email protected]) -cw
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 60
Pub: July 27, 2012