VOICES-On Tuesday, February 17, the Los Angeles City Council’s Education and Neighborhoods (E&N) Committee chaired by Councilmember Bernard Parks will once again – for the sixth and possibly a final time – hear and discuss a City neighborhood council-related motion file first referred to E&N more than two full years ago, as File #12-1681.
Seen by some as the flip- or “B” side of a pair of neighborhood council (NC) motions simultaneously injected into the working of a struggling layer of City government run by elected volunteers, and on the heels of their controversy-rich 2012 NC elections it quickly took a back seat to the “A-side” motion (and movement) that sentenced the fateful “factual basis” or “Starbucks” stakeholder definition to death well over a year ago. Both were submitted by the same maker (Councilmember Jose Huizar) in late 2012.
Without its own catchy “Starbucks” branding, however, Motion 12-1681 had already been dubbed by insiders as a “Subdivision Policy” motion for neighborhood councils, to allow a process of boundary adjustments that could, in certain instances, create new NCs from within existing ones. This could then happen again, for the first time in 13 years, without any decertification or orphaning of involved areas – and is something the NC Plan in no way ever prohibited. It just lacked a mechanism that the attendant departments at City Hall felt comfortable with – (a logical fallacy often called a “distinction without a difference”).
By any name, “subdivision” of a neighborhood council has had a legal precedent in City Commission actions since November 2002, when a certified six-community “coalition” neighborhood council was subdivided by BONC and became two certified NCs at an omnibus Commission meeting – over the objections of a majority of the stakeholders in the original NC, something the newer, proposed policy would keep from happening.
A Misnomer?-Perhaps as a foretaste of “ridicule” to come, however, Motion 12-1681 is -- to most of its current supporters, misnamed (And, much like the title character of the late singer Johnny Cash’s “A Boy Named Sue” ballad, has also had to “fight its whole life through” because of having an inappropriate name). That’s because nearly all of the interested/invested parties now pushing for the adoption of this policy into the NC Plan have no interest at all in “dividing” any neighborhoods. Labeled with a term that most often brings to mind new tract homes and planned communities (“subdivision”), the policy that grassroots proponents in a handful of LA communities are appealing for is instead a means for them to “unmerge” their neighborhood from one or more others with which they now feel mismatched. Yet, they remain chained to each other due earlier certifications (most, in the early 2000s when only a handful of better-connected activists knew what was taking place).
“Did we make perfect decisions on boundaries the first time around?” Did we get it right? “. . . probably not!” -- Raphael Sonenshein, director of the first (2006) NC Review Commission, speaking in 2013.
Rights Delayed = Rights Denied-Never “illegal” and -- many early participants believe – probably always intended, the ability to adjust boundaries and reconfigure some NCs as needed (in a City that regularly changes all other divisional boundaries: City Council, school districts, police divisions, etc.), that single top-down mandated precedent in 2002 was the last formal activity on the subdivision or “unmerging” front until 2006-07. Then, the appointed Neighborhood Council Review Commission finished its lengthy studious process that resulted in 100 or so suggested changes in the way NCs work. (Of note, ironically that process also led to the creation of a mandatory “factual basis” stakeholder category).
However, the NCRC left off developing a policy for allowing new neighborhood councils to be created out of certified existing ones – and, instead recommended that policy become a timely project of BONC to develop with future systemwide input (something finally re-started in 2012).
In the interim the neighborhood commissioners’ only attention to this issue – perhaps because they realized the aforementioned precedent set by their predecessors on BONC in 2002 might catch on before a formal policy could be enacted – was to create a simple “boundary adjustment limitation” policy. That was to be used only to keep councils from “orphaning” unwanted portions of communities and neighborhoods within their boundaries.
But even once restarted, and referred to E&N, delays continued until this week. A draft policy was crafted by regional NC Plan Review panels in early 2012, and eventually was voted for by BONC more than a year later – now 15 months ago (following even more extended public comment periods throughout the citywide system). It then found itself briefly delayed again awaiting an E&N-requested, but wholly inconclusive cost analysis attempt by EmpowerLA.
Nevertheless, the long and winding road to this point has allowed for one overarching question to be answered repeatedly – namely, “Would the NC system support this change?”
Before, during, and after the policy was drafted by the regional and then combined panels of 2012’s NC Plan Review effort (the members of which were drawn from nearly half of the City’s then 95 councils), NC system participants, were encouraged, and at times even begged, to weigh in on this possible change as well as several others. The results were overwhelmingly favorable to both subdivision/unmerger and the draft process --at every layer of the system:
1) Citywide, individual comments of support submitted online and in public meetings outnumbered negative ones by more than 2-to-1, overall). More formal NC board resolutions, votes, and a small number of actual community impact statements (CIS) were majority “pro” by a slightly smaller margin, however, several of the “con” arguments at this level only objected to the methods of stakeholder voting to show local support for creating a new NC this way – not the actual creation of such a policy.
2) At the combined three-regional Plan Review committee meeting, the draft “subdivision” policy that same group created working together received a 90-percent favorable vote of the 35+ delegates attending, as well.
3) In October 2013, before the motion was to be revisited by E&N, the policy was unanimously approved, without any changes by a vote of the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC) after they heard yet another 40 minutes of almost entirely supportive public comment on it from an atypically large evening audience in Hollywood.
But even among the two-thirds positive public comment, and unanimous vote to approve by BONC (October 2013), comments from both supporters and detractors made it plain that what the policy, as drafted, would and would not make possible was unclear to many.
No Pandora’s Box; No “Sooner” Land Rush-As one of the most overwhelmingly “grassroots” change efforts in many years within the NC system – that didn’t involve undoing something “bad” handed down from above (e.g., “factual basis”) – unmerger/subdivision has nonetheless been more often mischaracterized than any other policy adjustment in recent history.
Through public comment at individual NC board meetings, the regional review panels, BONC and now E&N, the focus from the City has often been on “how many will” and “how much money and/or added EmpowerLA staff” will be needed, if/when this becomes a reality. Added to that are the incorrect comparisons of any proposed subdivision to the City’s secession movement by the San Fernando Valley and others sometime before the NC system kicked off, or even to southern states seceding from the U.S. in 1861.
“We’re Not Going Anywhere”-Unlike the SFV situation, the handful of communities advocating and/or simply waiting for this long-delayed NC policy already feel – and some with more than a little proof – they have been sidelined and left out of the NC system, powerless to speak for themselves (without “permission” from often larger surrounding neighbor communities within their same, original NC’s boundaries). Simply put – they don’t want OUT of Los Angeles, they want back IN to the City’s participatory democracy process, as full partners with their own seat at the table. (As for 19th century southern secession—the far better comparison, although perhaps known to history buffs – is the story of the creation of the state of West Virginia as a “free” state at the onset of the U.S. Civil War.
Many May Inquire; Few Could be Certified-The answer “no one knows” how many locked-in neighborhoods may seek standalone status or whether larger, single-neighborhood councils may try to subdivide – which is even more unlikely – doesn’t meant that there will ever be much more interest than there already is (at most 4-to-5 groups inquiring with only 2-to-3 actually making any moves forward).
At the same time, the elements of the original NC Plan, amended by the proposed policy still make it unlikely that more a dozen or so applicants will eventually come through it all as new NCs, even if they have interest and begin the process -- for any number of reasons.
A simple reading of the proposed policy might make someone new to the NC system think that getting a majority of votes from the stakeholders of the original NC would be the major hurdle. New applicants would also need to satisfy all of the original documentation and application requirements their first council did – with few of the original participants still around are resources more than a decade later.
And – if they still meet all the size and/or exception-to-size requirements in the Plan, then they have to create new, distinct board structures, understand and adopt accounting requirements., and draft and pass bylaws within their formation groups which also meet the more strict, templated, and comprehensive requirements mandated by the City in the last 3-to-4 years (still today, an ever-moving target).
Then, more in no specific order. . .
n The task remains burdensome. In many first-certifications whole boards and committees spent many months, or more than a year with “certification” as the only real issue on their agenda. Most current NC boards would be unwilling to dedicate that much time – just to subdivide.
Existing NCs often have enough on their hands just preparing and submitting budgets, reconciliations, board resolutions, minutes, etc. Each year, dozens of certified boards lose their funding (for a time), for failure to submit some or all of these and otherwise miss deadlines to submit amounts of paperwork that pale in comparison to that required by the NC application process.
n New boundaries between the new and old council could still need to be negotiated and adjusted, even amended if it affected neighboring councils.
n If the exiting of one neighborhood were to leave the original NC under the 20,000 (suggested) stakeholder minimum, additional work would be required to prove it still worthy of an “exemption” in order to stay certified.
n Landlocked communities -- those not situated on at least one of the existing outer boundaries of their current council – would probably not be candidates to “unmerge” if their exit made the original NC no longer contiguous, or other parts would become isolated.
n BONC would presumably need adequate reasons and rationale for allowing the separation. Even with a full-NC “pro” vote for the effort, BONC has the final say.
n NCs already struggling to get adequate participation (see “small/large” NC voting comparisons that follow) suffering from low election turnout, or NO election – having to simply “affirm” all applicants with no stakeholder say so, with too few board candidates, unable to make quorum, etc. -- would be unlikely candidates while in that state, to even begin to suggest there should be two NCs and two boards going forward (even though it might eventually improve participation to be smaller).
n And finally, simply put, not every perceived community is a recognized neighborhood within the City of LA -- blue marker signs showing their names notwithstanding.
Various LA departments and City functions (related to housing, community development, etc.) offer their own lists of just how many recognized LA neighborhoods there are – and range from as few as 80-90 to upwards of 120. That’s doesn’t correlate directly to the 96 current NCs, however, since many single, recognized neighborhoods subdivided before their first certification (just one example -- San Pedro has three distinct NCs) just as others created coalitions, nothing suggests many dozens of new NCs could or would be recognized and qualify in all of this.
(Note: Even during initial periods of certification in the history of LA’s citywide system, not all applicants were certified. A bit of “lost” institutional knowledge re: what is now called EmpowerLA shows that while Los Angeles currently has 96 certified neighborhood councils, approximately 130 applications have been received over about 14 years, since Day#1. That indicates that 1-in-4 originally proposed NCs were never approved. The reasons varied -- some were denied, some merged, some withdrew and reconfigured themselves, and a few were eventually decertified. If a second, smaller wave of subdivision and unmerger requests are now received, “making the cut” is likely to be even harder, given all of the above and even with a voted special election mandate).
“Secede to Succeed?” -Without passage of the proposed subdivision (and unmerger) policy what may never be known, however, is just how much better stakeholder participation could be within certain City NCs, given some flexibility to restructure and breathe new life into their areas.
Because, what is “known” and can’t really be disputed based on any means of measuring it, is that smaller NCs in Los Angeles involve and engage a much, much higher percentage of their stakeholder base than do most larger ones. (There are always a small number of exceptions, but overall, see the following example . . .).
Using just recent elections as one benchmark -- a running study of the voting of the City’s five largest (avg. ~75,000 residents) and five smallest councils (avg. 15,000 residents) in the last two standardized elections run by EmpowerLA shows that in both election years (2012 and 2014) the smaller councils outperformed the larger ones both in terms of actual numbers of votes and the percentage of their residents involved. In sheer numbers, the five smaller councils brought in a total of 1,159 voters (in 2012) and 2,108 (in 2014). The supersized larger councils’ numbers were a aggregate total – for ALL five -- of 551 votes (in 2012) and 972 (in 2014). Smaller more than doubled the votes of larger, each time.
A comparison of the actual percentage of stakeholders engaged between the two groups is so staggering, as to run off the charts. But, in brief -- the smaller councils reached 13-15 times as large a proportion of their residents and stakeholders – in both those years.
(And, finally as a footnote, in 2012, the one locked-in smaller community that has been pushing for this new policy for almost four years now, involved almost 30-times as large a proportion of its people in that election. That doubled even the penetration of the five smallest City NCs).
“[W]hen … it becomes necessary for the people … to dissolve the political bands …”
(Joseph Riser is a four-time neighborhood council board member active in both the original certification processes as well as efforts … since 2011 … to allow communities to ‘unmerge’ from their original CCs and return to the system as full partners. In 2002, he led lobbying effort resulting in the first NC-related instance of the City Council asserting Section 245 jurisdiction over a commission action. Joseph can be reached at: [email protected])
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 13 Issue 14
Pub: Feb 17, 2015
