CROSS TALK - If there is one thing that characterizes political activities, it is that singular events can be viewed in vastly different ways by different people. An editorial article in CityWatch on Tuesday described the actions and motivations of Education & Neighborhoods (E&N) Committee Chairman, Bernard Parks, one way. Here is another … my personal … interpretation.
Its first sentence is pregnant with meaning: “There are several Major issues pending before the City Council and there is legitimate concern that our neighborhood councils are either not informed, or then have not discussed them and taken position, or they do not realize the extent of impact to their communities these issues would have, or they have not communicated their views to the City Council. For example … the waste-shed facilities proposal …”
In response, a MOTION was put before the LA Neighborhood Council Coalition.
This language could be taken to indicate that Mr. Parks and Ms. Perry (the motion’s co-author) are taking forceful, even punitive action, to be sure that the NCs fulfill their obligation to “…advise the City …”
It could be interpreted to say that NCs don’t perform effective outreach and, therefore, do not represent the needs, thoughts and desires of their constituents.
I don’t think that we, NC activists, need to characterize ourselves as victims but should respond to what appears to be a wonderful opportunity. We NC activists have been challenged to engage in a process to increase and fulfill our City Chartered advisory responsibilities.
The Parks/Perry Motion is attached to an old (2010) motion which would effect trash pickup by the City for BOTH single family residences and multiple residences. (At present, private waste management companies serve apartment buildings and commercial properties.) The is but one of the issues Mr. Parks and Ms. Perry would tag as “Major Issues” requiring NC consideration and involvement.
I suggest that this Motion be received as an opportunity to expand NC involvement in our City Government … to effect more specific interaction between the City’s Decision Makers (the Mayor and City Council) and the NCs.
That, however, will require:
#1 – The “Major Issues” are defined and itemized by the Mayor and City Council
#2 – The background and importance of all “major issues” be systematically provided to the
NCs with enough time allowed (minimum 90 days) for information gathering,
processing, presentation, deliberation and decision-making by the NCs.
#3 – The NCs be given ample opportunity to present their views to the Mayor and City
Council.
#4 -- That the NCs accept and systematically assign specific responsibility to empowered
Representatives or Committees to receive, review and prepare responses to these
“Major Issues.”
#5 - That a “feed-back loop” be established for each “Major Issue” that will be used to
review the results of the Decision-Maker’s decisions and
#6 - That the NCs be afforded the opportunity to regularly report back to the Mayor and City
Council on the status of the “major issue.”
Actually, the specific response of the LANC COALITION includes most of these considerations. It was proposed, deliberated and passed by an overwhelming majority of the participants in the June 2, 2012 LANC Coalition Meeting and will appear in the Minutes of that meeting (when approved).
It now remains to be seen if these actions of the E&N Committee and the LANC Coalition will result in the necessary “cultural changes” of the Mayor, City Council and 95 NCs.
Utopia may be an impossible dream … but how good is it to work in that direction?
(Dan Wiseman is a long-time neighborhood council activist an alternate on the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates Committee and secretary of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Alliance.) –cw
Tags: Neighborhood Councils, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, City Council, LANCC, LA Neighborhood Council Coalition, Parks’ motion, LANCC motion
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 46
Pub: June 8, 2012
