Neighborhood Council Election Lightly Attended


By Jim Smith

Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted? Neither statewide political elections nor the much maligned neighborhood council seem to be able to attract many voters. The June 6 primary election turnout – 33.63% of registered voters – was the lowest in California history. To make matters worse, only 23.37 of eligible votes, those who could have registered and voted, bothered to do so. Can you blame that on George Bush?


Likewise, in local politics the Venice Neighborhood Council (sans Grass Roots) held an election on Sept. 17 that was massively unattended. A total of 492 Venetians, absentee landlords and others showed up to vote in the lowest turnout since the council was formed. Another 29 people went through a convoluted process in order to vote by absentee ballot. They boosted the total votes to slightly more than the 509 votes cast in the disputed election of 2004 when absentee balloting was not permitted. This year’s vote was not even half of last year’s when 1,204 people voted, and it was a pale reflection of the 1,310 votes in 2003 when the Progressive slate swept the election.

The “unprogressives” who have been in charge of the neighborhood council since last year were successful in limited turnout, either intentionally or inadvertently. In bylaw changes slipped through earlier in the year, they eliminated district representatives in favor of “Community Officers” who represent everyone, or no one.

In an effort to keep candidates from coming together to advocate a coherent platform (the dreaded slates), they permitted each voter to cast a ballot for only one of the seven community officers. In addition, there was no contest for president, vice president, or community outreach officer. There was a contested election for Land Use and Planning Committee Chairperson, but neither of the candidates was particularly acceptable to slow growth or no growth advocates in Venice.

The Neighborhood Council also required voters to show a photo ID. Similar rules in states including Georgia and Missouri have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

The major reason why the election was so ignored is because of the inept performance of the council during the past year. When it did get itself together to take a position, it was usually in opposition to the views of the community. A case in point was last month’s vote by the Land Use Committee in favor of a hotel on Abbot Kinney Blvd. that would tower 10 feet over the maximum height allowable under the Venice Specific Plan. If there is any issue that united most Venetians - except the Unprogressives - it is adherence to the size limitations in the Specific Plan. Nearly every street in Venice now sports an out-of-scale cuboid mansion.

Another performance of the council that turned off even more people was its fumbling of a modest commercial building moratorium. Despite repeated meetings since last February, neither the Land Use Committee nor the Board has been able to bring itself to take a vote on the issue, even though quite a few Venetians have come out to unpleasant meetings to ask for a moratorium, any moratorium. Meanwhile, Councilmember Bill Rosendahl has moved efficiently with his proposal for a much stronger moratorium on condo conversions.

Here are the “representatives” of the new and nearly moribund Venice Neighborhood Council.
• President: DeDe Audet (a pleasant 80-year-old Republican from the Oxford Triangle). Running unopposed, she received 71.5% of the vote.

• Vice President: Yolanda Gonzalez (a not-so-pleasant property manager, landlord and Republican). Running unopposed, she received 67.6% of the vote.

• Community Outreach Officer: L.J Carusone (an East Venice Business Person who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic Party County Central Committee last June). Running unopposed, he received 69.6% of the vote.

• Land Use and Planning Committee Chair: Challis Macpherson (An Oxford Triangle Resident who either used to or still works for Playa Vista). She defeated pro-development Architect Michael King by 10 votes (210-195). A write-in candidate, Katerina Tana, received 25 votes. Running with opposition, Macpherson received 39.4% of the vote.

- Community Officers: A total of 19 people ran for seven offices. Each voter was allowed to vote for only one candidate. The top vote getter was Progressive Ira Koslow with 80 votes. Next with 72 votes was Joe Murphy, brother of well-known developer, Frank Murphy. They were followed by Nadine Parkos with 50 votes and Eileen Pollack Erickson with 41 votes. Some neighbors in the canals say that Parkos is quite conservative. Erickson was involved in opposition several years ago to a Venice Community Housing Corporation project to build affordable housing in her neighborhood. Mike Newhouse got a seat by winning 40 votes as a write-in. He has not been active in the past, however, his campaign statement sounded “progressive-ish.” Spike Marlin, who is fighting eviction from Lincoln Place, and has been active in the fight to save those garden apartments, also won 40 votes. The final person to be elected was Sylviane Dungan who was a District Representative during the past year and who often took positions contrary to progressives and unprogressives, alike.

The election results mean that the unprogressives are firmly in charge. Progressives such as hold-overs Peter Force and Rebecca Tafoya and new members Ira Koslow and Spike Marlin can be expected to speak out against over-development and for affordable housing, and may at times be joined by Newhouse and Dungan, but they will still be a distinct minority.

The question for Progressives - who sat out this election - will be whether to ignore the VNC and deal mainly with Rosendahl’s office and the L.A. Planning Boards, or to begin building a strong challenge in next year’s election.

Posted: Sun - October 1, 2006 at 04:24 PM          

©