NC WATCH-Maybe I was too quick with the congratulatory words on the recent Neighborhood Council (NC) elections. But then again … maybe its time to re-think this entire process. Overall the turnout for candidates and voters was far in excess of the last elections in 2012.
Out of the 95 NC’s -81 held elections, 2,169 candidates filed for one of the 1,268 open seats which was 24.87% higher than 2012. Twenty NC’s had historic high voter turnout, with the overall turnout up over 2012 by 27%.
Those statistics are impressive especially when one compares it to the recent Primary local elections. For the first time it was a joint effort between the office of the City Clerk and EmpowerLA, the Department that handles the day- to- day operations for the LA Chartered NC’s. It also included eight independent election administrators; ten poll managers; 15 assistant poll managers; as well as 659 volunteers.
So…”where’s the beef??” or in this case where is the article? It was recently brought to my attention that there were 94 challenges brought against various NC’s in the recent elections. In a universe of 25,529 voters that isn’t horrendous. It was almost a 90% increase over 2012 challenges but the number of voters also increased.
A closer look at these challenges revealed some basic problems that need to be addressed before the next elections in 2016. The charges ranged from candidates not being qualified to electioneering in the restricted voting area- to problems with translation. The one thing that stood out about these challenges was… NOT ONE WAS DEEMED WORTHY OF A HEARING.
All of them received an individual response, which appeared to be a form letter with an applicable sentence or two applying to the particular situation. They were sometimes sent to the recipient but most of the time just put on the EmpowerLA NC web site. The City Attorney was copied on all of them, along with the Independent Election Administrators and EmpowerLA. None that I could see were signed by a person-just the department. Not one was judged to have merit! I understand that in 2012 none of the 45 challenges was deemed to have merit either.
Ron Ziff, Vice-President of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council, had asked for copies of the challenges and responses under the Public Records Act. He sent them to me and quite frankly I spent my Sunday afternoon engrossed in both the challenges and the responses. Some were frivolous and self- serving; others were from the usual complainers; but there was enough substance in a good percentage that made me wonder, how the decisions were made and who made them?
Ziff had done an analysis of all of the challenges and commented:
“Many of the challenges uncovered difficulties in the election system. None of the Challenges were resolved. Some challenges were outside of the authority of the departments. Some were frivolous and a waste of time. But, some were over what may have been legitimate violations and should have been addressed in some fashion. What is important is that unfairness, or even the appearance of unfairness, could have been avoided if the Challenges were investigated and judged by independent third parties. The system has been planned that way in the past. It could have been done that way in this election. Responses to the Challenges were promised in 12 days. Often it took much longer.
“Complaints were filed over issues that are claimed to have happened and can be avoided in the future by proper planning. These allegedly included electioneering at the polling places, private groups providing translators that told people how to vote, and groups and businesses providing documentation that allowed outsiders to vote.
“The timelines provided didn't match the situations. A Challenge against a candidate had to be filed within 3 days of the candidates filing. But sometimes the filings were lost in the system for weeks. A challenge had to have documentation. Sometimes that required a Public Records Request, which can take 10 or more days.
“Some of the problems should have or could have been solved by regular conferences between the two departments handling the elections to work out difficulties as they appeared. Unfortunately, the problems in the system were a disservice to both the Candidates and the Voters.”
Why a higher standard?
The one question that keeps coming up is… why are the Neighborhood Council members held to a higher standard than the City Council Members? Do any City Council candidates have their candidacy disqualified because they don’t have the right qualifications other than residency? Then again that might be a good idea-we could eliminate at the front end those who shouldn’t be running.
That brings up the “Constitution.” Several challenges were filled with constitutional references. When in doubt quote the constitution. Congress does it all the time.
Of course, each NC has its own set of bylaws governing its elections. As an example some NC’s require documentation to prove voters either live, work or own property within the boundaries of that neighborhood. Other have what they call “Self Affirmation” and sign a form attesting to their right to vote under federal penalty if caught lying. I couldn’t find any cases where penalties had been levied.
The other question mentioned frequently is, why is the effectiveness of a Neighborhood Council determined by the number of candidates it has in an election? The mandate from City Hall was to recruit loads of candidates, which in turn would increase voter turnout. Board members were urged to recruit people to run against them. The statement from one independent election official was “If you lose you can still stay active on a committee.”
Can you imagine any of our elected officials recruiting candidates to oppose their own candidacy? I understand that a sizeable vote turnout is part of the City Charter NC mandate in engaging the community. NC’s did some amazing things to “get out the vote” which is why I have suggested they be an official part of the City’s promotional efforts in future elections. Recruiting people to run against for your seat, as an incumbent is inane!
Both NC’s and the City departments involved are conducting careful reviews of this most recent election. Now is the time to work on making changes for the next time. I am looking further into the challenges that were made and why none were deemed worthy. They are public record and a few are real “doozies”. They should not be swept under the rug but at the same time I want to know why they did not qualify, so stay tuned!
I do have a couple of suggestions for the NC elections next time. It is ridiculous for 95 NC’s to have 95 different election rules…they should be made uniform. This way paid staff and volunteers will all know the rules. There should be an independent Citizen panel to judge whether the challenges are real or capricious. In fact there should be an NC Election Panel, which would work with EmpowerLA, the City Clerk and the City Attorney’s offices to insure smooth and fair elections for everyone.
I realize that each NC wants to retain its “uniqueness” but by having some standardization. It will make the system more efficient; eliminate human errors; and everyone will benefit.
I can hardly wait to see the comments on this one!
(Denyse Selesnick is a contributor to CityWatch covering activities, policies and foibles in NC Land. She is Co-Chair of the Program Committee for the LA Neighborhood Congress September 20, and a former officer and Board member of the Tarzana Neighborhood Council. She can be reached at [email protected])
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 53
Pub: Jul 1, 2014