The Neighborhood Council Review Commission Comes to Venice


By Jim Smith

I got to the hearing at Mark Twain Middle School early on the evening of Jan. 11 in hopes of getting a good seat. As it turned out the Neighborhood Council Review Commission played to a mostly empty house, even though it was the only westside hearing that will be held by the Commission. Absentees included every elected Board member of the Venice Neighborhood Council, and 90 percent of those who used to flock to its meetings and elections during the past few years.


The Commission includes an appointee from every L.A. City Councilmember and assorted dignitaries including Political Scientist and frequent “media expert” Raphael Sonenshein. Also known as the 912 Commission, for Section 912 of the City Charter, it is mandated to evaluate the neighborhood council system and make recommendations.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. With unrest mounting in L.A.’s “captive cities,” including San Pedro, Wilmington, Hollywood, Westchester and Venice, and the entire San Fernando Valley, something had to be done to, at least, create the illusion of a democratic city. That something turned out to be neighborhood councils. These councils would carve the city up into 86 bit-sized portions, but would not exert real power, nor be an official part of city government.

The scheme worked, along with millions of dollars from developers and corporations that was pumped into anti-secession campaigns in the Valley and Hollywood in 2002. While a majority in the Valley actually voted to secede, the law required that it win throughout Los Angeles before it could be set free.

With the secession option failing, thousands turned to neighborhood councils in the belief they would be better than nothing. In Venice, both new arrivals and long-time residents got involved in creating the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council. Everything went smoothly until the bylaws discussion got around to election policy. A proposal to include Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in the bylaws passed with a big majority.
But less than a month later acting President Tisha Bedrosian called a meeting to reconsider the vote. Apparently, a mobilization had taken place to get people out to vote against IRV. It was repealed by one vote.

Many supporters of election reform, including IRV, felt blindsided by the maneuver. At this point, the Council participants split into two camps - Progressives, and supporters of Bedrosian, variously called “Grvnics” (groovnics) and “Team Venice.” Other issues quickly surfaced, including attitudes toward the homeless, affordable housing, the Ocean Front Walk and gentrification.

Fuel was added to this expanding fire by Greg Nelson, the general manager of the city’s Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment, who seemed more interested in disempowering the Venice council. The major point of conflict seemed to be at election time, with neither side feeling that the election had been fair, especially when the other side won.

This tended to produce more animosity and name calling and resulted in both elected officers and other interested Venetians dropping out of the process. Others stopped participating when they realized that the neighborhood council had no power, and was likely to be ignored by city officials.

With this background, I presented the following to the Review Commission:

The City should make Neighborhood Councils more democratic and begin devolution of powers
Summary: Neighborhood Councils are neither fish nor fowl. They should be integrated into the city government structure and election code. Once deficiencies of fairness and democracy are addressed, the city should amend the charter to begin devolving powers from the city council and administration to the neighborhood councils.

Neighborhood Councils work better when the council’s jurisdiction is homogeneous. They work less well when there are sharp economic, racial or tenancy divisions. In areas, such as Venice, which is undergoing gentrification, the NC, as currently structured, becomes a battleground for competing interests.

Proposals for Reform of the Neighborhood Council System

1. Allow only residents within each neighborhood council to vote. The current rules allow absentee property owners, workers and non-resident participants in local organizations to vote. A person who owns multiple pieces of property in a number of neighborhood councils can vote - and hold office - in all of them. This violates the principle of one person - one vote.

2. Election reform:

a. Integrate neighborhood council elections into the city and state election code and procedures. Hold council elections every two years under the control of the Registrar of Voters.

b. Alternatively, develop standardized citywide election rules and procedures that apply to all NCs. Allow no NC election rules and procedures that are more restrictive than city, state or federal election rules.

c. In neighborhood council elections, abide by the city’s campaign finance reporting rules, with strict regulations on campaign contributions by individuals and corporations.

3. Provide information about who is representing our community. All candidates for Neighborhood Council Board positions and all appointees to a Land Use and Planning Committee should be required to file a Statement of Economic Interests with the City Ethics Commission, prior to their election or appointment. Form 700 which itemizes investments and interest in real property held by the candidate on the date of declaration of candidacy or appointment, and sources of income received during the 12 months prior to the date of filing should be required.

4. Structure - Allow neighborhood councils to use a Town Hall format, which is probably the most democratic structure possible. (In this structure, every member of the community is allowed to participate and make decisions, instead of leaving it to a small board of officers.)
Devolution

In addition to real or perceived problems of fairness, many residents will not participate in NCs because of their lack of real authority. A devolution, or transfer, of authority on community issues can make democracy a reality. Area wide issues can still be addressed by the City Council and Mayor. Still broader issues, such as transportation, can be coped with by the creation of a county or regional mayor and representative structure. Los Angeles can benefit by studying the reforms achieved by Greater London, in which communities have taken on city-like powers, and work in tandem with a regional mayor and council.

•••

In all likelihood, the Commission will not rock the boat. Instead, it will deliver a report to the City Council that the neighborhood council system is basically sound and only needs some tweaking. Everyone will be congratulated for a job well done, and the councils will be allowed to die a peaceful death during the next few years.

Venetians, who are concerned with rapid, and unwanted, changes to their community should consider how they want to have a voice in modifying or rejecting those changes. There are at least two alternatives. They can get involved in the Venice Neighborhood Council and turn it into an effective voice for Venice regardless of what happens to the rest of the city.

Or they can form an independent body like the old Venice Town Council, which although it didn’t have any official standing, was much more effective than the VNC has been the last couple of years.

Posted: Thu - February 1, 2007 at 11:21 AM          

©