Northridge Neighborhood Council

We welcome everyone in the area. Click here if you want to be added to our E-mail list.

This is the DONE report It has been converted to HTML to make it more readable

To see our comments to this report click here

CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE June 27, 2003

To: Board of Neighborhood Commissioners Greg Nelson, General Manager Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE)

From: Parker Anderson, Chief Management Analyst Rita Moreno, Senior Project Coordinator

cc: Claudia Dunn, Asst. General Manager

Subject: Evaluation of Certification Application of the NORTHRIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL (File No. 01-016)

Area/DONE Region: San Fernando Valley, Region 1

Proposed Name: Northridge Neighborhood Council (Previously known as: Northridge Community Council)

Field Staff Assigned: Rolando Cuevas, Project Coordinator Matthew Fitzgerald, Project Coordinator Rita Moreno, Sr. Project Coordinator

Date Application Submitted: November 21, 2001 Date of Public Hearing: July 1, 2003

GENERAL COMMENTS

The application is incomplete with several missing elements.

Initially, this application was tentatively scheduled for public hearing by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners, on March 19, 2002. The application was deemed incomplete and taken off calendar on March 15, 2002, given that the Applicant’s proposed governance structure did not comply with the Plan and the group’s indication that they would not comply with the Plan. Please note that there has been a name change, per revised bylaws submitted on June 25, 2003, from Northridge Community Council to the Northridge Neighborhood Council, as well as a boundary change. Therefore, the demographic data prepared by staff and contained in this report is no longer accurate.

The Department recommends against the certification of the Applicant. The specific issues that exist with respect to this application are, as follows:

(1) There has been little to no outreach to Stakeholders.

(2) The structure and operation of the Board are seriously deficient and require significant bylaw revisions.

(3) The lack of election procedures requires significant bylaw revisions.

(4) Additional, bylaw issues also exist and require substantial revisions and deletions.

BOUNDARIES AND AREA PROFILE

The Northridge Neighborhood Council (NNC) has requested certification for the following bounded area as amended in its bylaws, and more specifically described in the following (see attached boundary map):

North: The 118 Freeway (between Corbin Ave. and Aliso Canyon); south along Aliso Canyon Wash to Lindley Ave.; Lindley Ave. (between Aliso Canyon Wash and Hiawatha St.); Hiawatha St. (between Lindley Ave. and Zelzah Ave.); south on Zelzah Ave. to Devonshire St.; and Devonshire St. (between Zelzah Ave. and Balboa Blvd.).

South: Parthenia St. (between Winnetka Ave. and Corbin Ave.); south on Corbin Ave. to Roscoe Blvd.; Roscoe Blvd. (between Corbin Ave. and Tampa Ave.); north on Tampa Ave. to Parthenia St.; Parthenia St. (between Tampa Ave. and the Aliso Canyon Wash); north on Aliso Canyon Wash to Nordhoff St.; Nordhoff St. (between the Aliso Canyon Wash and Lindley Ave.); south on Lindley Ave. to Roscoe Blvd.; Roscoe Blvd. (between Lindley Ave. and White Oak Ave.); south on White Oak Ave. to Saticoy St.; Saticoy St. (between White Oak Ave. and Encino Ave.); north on Encino Ave. Roscoe Blvd.; and Roscoe Blvd. (between Encino Ave. and Bull Creek).

East: Bull Creek (between Roscoe Blvd. and Lassen St.); west on Lassen St. to Balboa Blvd.; and Balboa Blvd. (between Lassen St. and Devonshire St.).

West: Winnetka Ave. (between Parthenia St. and Nordhoff St.); east on Nordhoff St. to Corbin Ave.; and Corbin Ave. (between Nordhoff St. and the 118 Freeway).

The Applicant group has not provided a map that concurs with the written boundary description in the amended bylaws and more specifically described above. The footprint of the Applicant’s boundaries is irregular and does not appear to be compact and contiguous. However, the footprint is consistent with the boundaries of existing neighborhood councils. The boundaries meet the requirements set forth in the Plan.

The Applicant’s boundaries abut the proposed Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council and Granada Hills Neighborhood Council on the north; the Reseda Neighborhood Council and Old Northridge Community Council, and the proposed Winnetka Neighborhood Council and ; West Van Nuys/Lake Balboa Neighborhood Council on the south; the North Hills West Neighborhood Council on the east; and the Chatsworth Neighborhood Council on the west.

Note: At the time of the submission of this application, a boundary overlap existed with a competing application for the Old Northridge Community Council (ONCC), a second Northridge Community Council in formation. A meeting facilitated by Human Relations Commission staff, on December 7, 2001, resulted in successful mediation with the ONCC. However, the Applicant chose not to mediate with the second Northridge Community Council, although the contacts were present, because the Department was not yet in possession of a Letter of Intent delivered to the Reseda satellite office. The Department did receive the stated letter on December 6, 2001, and forwarded a copy to the applicant who again elected to not mediate. Staff continued to work and communicate with the second group, but was informed that the group would not pursue certification.

The rationale given by the Applicant for the choice of boundaries is that the chosen boundaries correspond to the zip codes designated for the community of Northridge. Also, because residents and businesses recognize this community as Northridge, and it is a named community on public maps and Los Angeles City documents. The Applicant’s boundaries extend beyond the boundaries of the named community of Northridge identified in the Northridge Community Plan (attached).

The Applicant group indicated that the number of resident stakeholders to be represented by the proposed Neighborhood Council is between 50,000 and 100,000 persons. Based on the boundary description provided and utilizing US Census 2000 data, the total number of residents for which data is provided in this report is 87,547. However, the Applicant has submitted revised boundaries with a new total resident population of 59,355.

The Applicant group would represent some or all of the following census tracts: 1112.03, 1112.04, 1113.02, 1151.01, 1151.02, 1152.01, 1153.01, 1154.01, 1173.02, 1312.00, and portions of 1131.00, 1133.01, 1134.01, 1152.02.

The Applicant group states that it is applying for certification to facilitate communication between the City of Los Angeles and Community Stakeholders on issues of concern to the community and/or to the Community Stakeholders, to provide a forum for discussion, and to act as an advocate for the Community.

SUMMARY

The Applicant submitted boundaries with a footprint that is irregular, but is consistent with the boundaries of existing neighborhood councils. The Applicant provided a rationale for the proposed boundaries, but did not include a map consistent with the written boundary description. The Applicant satisfies the requirement of a residential population of 20,000. Staff finds that the boundaries meet the requirements set forth in the Plan.

AREA PROFILE AND NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH

There is no required information missing from this section of the application.

The Applicant group describes the following as an area profile of the NNC:

· Predominately single family along with multiple family dwellings.

· Small, medium and large businesses including the Northridge Fashion Center.

· A mix of upper, middle and lower income people.

· Employment opportunities in a variety of fields including education, health services, entertainment, finances and retail.

The area profile provided by the Applicant includes general comments about the profile elements that would impact the identification of stakeholders, and the characterization of the area’s diversity. Below are the results of the demographic profile obtained by the Department using US Census 2000 data (see attached boundary maps with demographic data):

POPULATION Total Population based on: 87,547 GENDER Males: 50% Females: 50%

HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION Households: 43,006 Home Owners: 69% Renters: 31%

ETHNICITY	;
56%	White
20%	Latino
18%	Asian/Pacific Islander
5%	Black/African American
1%	Other

;AGE STRUCTURE	;
;13%	65 & Over
;17%	50-64
;30%	30-49
;18%	18-29
22%	17 & Under ;

The demographic information indicates that Whites, Latinos, Asians, young people, middle-aged people, renters, and homeowners are significant stakeholder groups within the Northridge Neighborhood Council area.

The Applicant group states that the following techniques were used to identify community stakeholders:

Recruited membership from the Northridge Civic Association and the Chamber of Commerce.

Obtained lists of all churches, schools, Neighborhood Watch groups, and other organizations.

Contacted City Council office staff to acquire lists.

Asked participants to identify other stakeholders.

The Applicant group states that the following techniques were used to inform community stakeholders:

Asked membership to distribute flyers.

Flyers were distributed door-to-door in six areas and at the Northridge Farmers Market, the Northridge Oasis Street Faire, and approximately 24 community events for a period of 6 months.

Creation of a website with information on meetings, agendas, and minutes.

Distribution of flyers in grocery and drugstore bags each month for several months.

Distribution of flyers at CSUN and the Northridge Hospital for employees, students and the public.

Announcements in two local Chamber of Commerce newspapers for several months, and press releases to the media.

Telephone calls and email messages to more than 300 local community business people and community activists.

Posting of announcements and informational materials at local libraries and park offices.

At the time of the submission of the application, in November 2001, the Applicant stated that since October 2000, two hours per week were spent conducting outreach activities by about 10 volunteers, between eight and ten hours per week by about five volunteers, and 20 hours or more per week by two volunteers.

At the time of the filing of the application, eleven monthly public meetings had been held, with between 15 and 25 attendees, with a few meetings occurring at the beginning of 2002 with over 100 in attendance. Meetings allowed the Applicant to inform and identify additional Stakeholders, and complete the elements for certification.

Signatures

The Applicant states that signatures were gathered at various meetings and represent those that chose to attend. However, citing the California Public Records Act, the Applicant chose to not submit signatures as their gathering method included personal information provided by their membership. Instead, a typed membership list was submitted. Staff notified the Applicant on December 20 and 26, 2001, that the submission of 200 original signatures was required in the application. The Applicant responded on December 27, 2001, that the signatures would be provided. On January 9, 2002, the Department received an envelope containing strips of paper with individual original signatures, as well as a partial copy of a sign-in sheet. Staff requested copies of the documents that were used to collect the signatures, which the Applicant provided on January 15, 2002, along with a database containing 119 addresses. Staff matched the strips of paper to the signature documents to ascertain whether the signatures represented individuals that were in support of the neighborhood council. Although the Applicant indicated that 480 original signatures were provided, staff found that 278 unique original signatures were submitted, and represented some level of participation and support of the neighborhood council. The Applicant did not indicate the process used to collect the signatures.

A staff analysis of the methodology for signature gathering to conduct outreach throughout the bounded area (plotting addresses on a boundary map), could not be provided since the address information was omitted by the Applicant. Most of the provided signatures did not include information related to the Stakeholder interest of the signatory. Therefore, based on the information provided by those signatories that included this information, homeowners make up 4%; businesses 3%; civic organizations 2%; residents 1%; churches, volunteers, youth, schools, workers, and others each make up less that 1% of the total number of signatories.

While surname is not an accurate method to identify ethnicity, these results seem to indicate that Latinos make up 8%, and Asians 2% of the signatories.

The applicant states the following in relation to ongoing outreach:

“We will continue the outreach we have started and try to reach every church, school, and organization and those unaffiliated in Northridge. Without funding we cannot make mailing to the general public.”

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF APPLICANT OUTREACH

The demographic profile of the bounded area provided by DONE indicates several outstanding profile elements with regard to significant Stakeholder groups:

69% Homeowners

56% White Residents

31% Renters

30% Residents aged 30 to 49

22% Residents aged 17 and under

20% Latino Residents

18% Residents aged 18-29

18% Asian/Pacific Islander Residents

The Northridge Neighborhood Council Formation Committee has worked toward the creation of the Neighborhood Council since October of 2000. Based on the demographic information and the collection of signatures for the proposed Northridge Neighborhood Council, it is difficult to assess the support of a broad array of Stakeholder interests. The Applicant had requested 2,000 copies of flyers for distribution on a monthly basis, from around August 2001 to June 2002, and the outreach efforts included those of the members of competing groups at that time. The flyers were never produced in any other language besides English. Applicant group has not requested copies of flyers for distribution since June 2002, except for a single request for 15,000 copies for their June 2003 meeting. Since staff began working with this group and through January 2003, the meetings were held outside the proposed boundaries. In addition, since December 2002, every proposed and certified neighborhood council in the San Fernando Valley has been given the opportunity to publicize its meetings in the Daily News, free of charge. The Applicant has utilized this medium in the last few months.

Per the applicant, the level of attendance at the regular meetings has been consistently between 15 to 25 individuals, which does not reflect any positive impact from the Applicant’s reported volunteer outreach efforts of 110 hours per week, 440 hours per month and cumulatively over 14,000 hours since October 2000. Although the Applicant has been made aware of the need to develop an outreach plan and to conduct targeted outreach to Latinos, Asians, young and middle-aged people, renters, and the various other groups, organizations, and institutions, there has not been a willingness to do so, and there is significant reliance on the NNC website as a means of disseminating information.

In an unprecedented effort to both support and accommodate the NNC, over five DONE staff have been assigned to assist the organization. Unfortunately, the Applicant consistently refused offers of assistance.

On June 24, 2003, the Department received a letter from Jimmy Stewart, President of the Sherwood Forest Homeowners Association, which represents 1,150 residences, stating their opposition to being included within the boundaries of the NNC.

SUMMARY

There is no indication that the Applicant has conducted outreach throughout the boundaries of the neighborhood council, nor that there has been a willingness to conduct targeted outreach to significant Stakeholder groups such as Latinos, Asians, renters, homeowners, young and middle-aged people, and the various organizations, groups, and institutions within the boundaries of the neighborhood council. The development of an outreach plan will ensure that all of the significant Stakeholders within the NNC area will be informed and able to participate in their neighborhood council. Materials must be translated into the second most predominant language, Spanish.

Based on the above information, it is the Departments’ determination that inadequate outreach was conducted throughout the bounded area and that a good faith effort was not made to outreach to the broadest array of stakeholders and to that end, the Applicant has not complied with the outreach criteria of the Plan and Ordinance.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The proposed Northridge Neighborhood Council has provided the Department with its organizational structure in the form of bylaws.

Breakdown of the Northridge Neighborhood Council’s Bylaws

Stakeholder Definition Anyone who lives, works, or owns property in the area.

Governance Structure The Board of Directors consists of between 5 and 15 voting members, and the immediate past President as an ex-officio non-voting member.

Officers of the Board President, Vice-Presidents, Secretary, and Treasurer. The officers will be elected at the January Meeting from among the Directors.

Election of the Board A nominating meeting will be held after certification. Only Stakeholders eligible to vote can nominate and second a Stakeholder, who is eligible to vote, for candidacy. An annual election meeting will be held following the nominating meeting. All Stakeholders active as of the conclusion of the nominating meeting and, upon completion of a Membership/Registration Application, shall be eligible to vote once for each open seat. Notification of the election shall be done through the council’s website, and by mailing to the council’s database.

Term for Board Initially, half of the candidates elected that received the highest number of votes shall serve a 2-year term. The half receiving the lowest number of votes shall serve a 1-year term. Thereafter, each Director shall serve a 2- year term with a maximum of 8 consecutive years.

Quorum & Official Action Thirty-three percent (33%) of the Directors currently in office constitute a quorum. It is not stated how official action shall be taken.

Standing Committees None named. Committees can be established through petition of any Stakeholder, and the decision of the Board. The President will appoint all committee chairpersons, and either the President or Committee Chairperson can appoint the members of the committee. Any Community Stakeholder may be appointed as a Committee Member. Each Committee Chairperson can also form a sub-committee to assist in carrying out its mission.

Third Party for Initial Election None stated. The President will appoint three (3) Stakeholders eligible to vote, who are not candidates, to serve as Inspectors of Elections. Elections take place in meetings, under the Brown Act, in which there is a presiding officer. The Inspectors of Elections collect the ballots, tally the results, and provide written certification thereof.

The governance structure may result in a majority of one Stakeholder group on the Board. The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and the Office of the City Attorney have reviewed this section of the application, as last amended on June 25, 2003 (attached), and the Department finds that it does not meet the criteria set forth by the Plan.

The DONE Staff, with the advice of the City Attorney, informed the applicant of the following required changes to the bylaws of the Northridge Neighborhood Council:

REQUIRED BYLAW CHANGES:

Article 5, Section 5(b & c):

Section 5(b): Please revise to omit automatic support, or re-phrase to state that the board will vote to take official action on the decisions of other groups that it wishes to support.

Section 5(c): Please delete this section. Stakeholders within your community may be able to have the support of your council.

Article 6, Sections 2, 3 & 4:

Section 2: Please delete this section. The neighborhood council is a City entity with the power specified in the Charter and Plan.

Section 3: Delete these sections. Indemnification is an issue to be determined under the law and the Council does not have the authority to direct that the City of Los Angeles automatically indemnify its actions and that of its Stakeholders.

Section 4: Please delete this section. The statement regarding distribution of assets is not correct. Any assets held by the Council become public assets. In the event of the dissolution of the Council, all assets will revert to the City of Los Angeles.

Article 11, Sections 5, 6, 7 & 10:

Sections 5 & 6: Please state the exact number of Directors.

Section 7: Please delete. Changing the number of Directors will require an amendment to the bylaws, which must be voted on by the governing body. You cannot predetermine the outcome of such a vote.

Section 10: Please state the number of interim Directors, what constitutes a quorum, and how decisions will be made (e.g. majority vote of those Directors present or the entire governing body). You must include the names and contact information for each interim member. In addition, you must state that the authority of the interim governing body is limited to decisions regarding the procedures for the conduct of the initial election.

Article 12, Sections 1, 3(h & i) & 4(h):

Section 1: Please state the process for electing the officers and how they will be elected for both the initial elections and thereafter (e.g. majority vote of the entire governing body, or only the Directors present).

Section 3(h): Please correct. The neighborhood council is required to state a process for communicating with all Community Stakeholders on a regular basis in a manner ensuring that information is disseminated evenly and in a timely manner.

Section 3(i): This process is insufficient to satisfy the requirement, as stated above. Electronic communication is an insufficient method for communication with all Community Stakeholders. Please delete the second and third sentence.

Section 4(h): You are required to state that the account statements shall be submitted to DONE no less than once and no more than twice during each fiscal year, the date of which shall be prescribed by DONE.

Article 14, Sections 2(a & c) & 9:

Section 2: It is ineffective to create non-existent obligations in your bylaws, on other City entities or third parties. Therefore, you are required to delete “the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment which is charged to provide the same to the Los Angeles City Clerk’s Office.” o Section 2(a): You must state that notices will be posted at the locations listed in the application for certification.

Section 2(c): Please delete the last sentence.

Section 9: You must allow for all Stakeholders to participate in the election. Therefore, they must be able to register to vote on the day of the election. Please delete this sentence.

Article 15, Section 1: All meetings of the neighborhood council are governed first by the Brown Act, then the bylaws where there is not conflict with any applicable laws, then any other rule where there is no conflict with the bylaws and any applicable laws. Please correct.

· Article 16, Sections 1(a) & 3(h):

Section 1(a): You must state the exact number of members that constitute a quorum since it must be ascertainable, and cannot change based on the number of seats filled. Delete the words “currently in office.” You must state the number of votes needed for the neighborhood council to take official action.

Section 3(h): The Secretary shall not determine the propriety of voting methods. The method is determined under the Brown Act. Please delete.

Article 17, Section 6: Article 17: A request for reconsideration of an action taken is different from filing a grievance regarding the actions of the governing body. Please state a separate process for how a grievance can be filed and the period of time required for such a grievance to be considered. All grievances can be appealed to DONE. You must also include a process for reconsideration. Your process as stated is insufficient.

Section 6: Your bylaws do not impose duties or obligations on third parties. Therefore, you must delete this section because it is not accurate.

Article 19, Section 1(c): Please correctly state that amendments are not effective, nor valid until approved by DONE.

Article 20: The certified entity is not created until approval from the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners is obtained. Please delete or leave a blank line to include the date upon certification.

ADVISORIES:

Article 1: The City certifies the neighborhood council as a city entity with the authority granted though the Charter and the Plan. The use of the term “unincorporated association” does not change that authorization.

Article 5, Section 5: Be advised that financial support by the Council may be prohibited or limited because of restrictions on public funds.

Article 6, Section 1: The City certifies the neighborhood council as a city entity with the authority granted though the Charter and the Plan. The use of the term “unincorporated association” does not change that authorization.

Article 10, Section 2: Voting forms should not cause in any manner the decrease in participation by Stakeholders in the Council. In the event a form is improperly filled out or is untimely, the council shall not deny the right to vote but instead provide for provisional voting.

Article 11, Section 16: You must obtain the authorization and consent of the Office of the City Attorney with respect to the legality for your proposed course of action, before enforcing any board member removal clause.

Article 12, Section 4: The Treasurer’s duties are subject to the City requirements. Accordingly, the duties specified here may require amendment.

Page 12 of 21 · Article 14, Sections 1, 1(b) & 9:

Section 1: The Brown Act requires that all meetings be open to members of the public, not just Community Stakeholders.

Section 1(b): Ethical impositions upon your board members do not rise to the level of mandatory requirements for behavior or action simply by including these aspiring statements in your bylaws. Further, ethical behavior may not otherwise expand on limits imposed under the law.

Section 9: The determination of who is “active” for purposes of determining who is a voting Stakeholder shall not be used to deny any Stakeholder the right to vote. The neighborhood council could allow a process for provisional voting.

Article 16, Sections 2(a, b, c & d) & 3(a & c):

Sections 2(a, b, c & d): Voting forms should not cause in any manner the decrease in participation by Stakeholders in the Council. In the event a form is improperly filled out or is untimely, the council shall not deny the right to vote but instead provide for provisional voting.

Section 3(a): The public has the right to speak on agenda items, under the Brown Act. The presiding officer may not eliminate that ability all together, although there can be some time restrictions.

Section 3(c): Be advised that the ballot used to vote for the governing body cannot be secret since voting will take place at a meeting of the neighborhood council, in accordance with the Brown Act. The Stakeholder voting at meetings is subject to the Brown Act. Votes must be open and ascertainable. The neighborhood council shall not deny the right of any Stakeholder to participate, including in voting and running for office, based on your definition of the term “Voting Stakeholder.” · Article 18, Section 3: Your neighborhood council is subject to the Public Records Act. You may not make yourself unavailable to the Public Records Act.

SUMMARY

On February 22, 2002, staff provided the Applicant with a written report delineating the required changes as well as some suggested changes. The Applicant responded on March 13, 2002, that the NNC refused to abide by the requirements of the Plan. Staff notified the Applicant, by phone, in November 2002, that the application would be returned as incomplete. The Applicant requested more time and submitted an edited version of their bylaws in December 2002. Staff reviewed the bylaws and provided the Applicant with a written report around the 12th of December.

The Applicant submitted newly edited bylaws directly to the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners, on February 25, 2003, and indicated to Department staff that the NNC did not recognize the authority of the Department. At the Commission’s request, staff ; reviewed the revised bylaws, and provided the Applicant with a written report delineating further required changes, and suggested changes, on June 6, 2003. Staff was again informed by the Applicant, on June 18, 2003, that it does not recognize the Department and would not be submitting amended bylaws directly to the Department.

On June 23, 2003, staff received an email from the Applicant indicating that they would be making the requested changes, and copied onto the email the revised bylaw language. Staff requested the submission of revised bylaws, and the Applicant re-sent the email message with only the bylaw text, on June 25, 2003. Staff has copied the text from the Applicant’s website onto a Word document, and accepted this as the amended bylaws.

While the governance structure allows for participation of the required stakeholder interests, it is required that the Applicant amend all referenced bylaw sections as identified above (REQUIRED BYLAW CHANGES). The Office of the City Attorney and Department staff, indicating some outstanding requirements, prepared final comments regarding the amended bylaws. A final bylaw report was sent to the Applicant on June 27, 2003.

This section has been reviewed by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and as last amended on June 25, 2003, does not meet the criteria set forth by the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils.

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The proposed NNC has not provided the Department with a copy of its accounting procedure.

This section has been reviewed by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and does not meet the criteria set forth by the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils.

PUBLIC NOTICE LOCATION LOG The Applicant submitted 5 posting locations. One site is located outside of the boundaries of the neighborhood council. One site is and has been closed for service. The Applicant was advised of these facts prior to the originally scheduled hearing (3/19/03), and had agreed to submit an amended Public Notice Location Log. The Applicant was asked again to submit an amended log, on June 18, 2003, but has indicated that there is no Plan requirement that such a log be submitted.

Staff identified viable locations in order to post for the public hearing, and provided the list to the Applicant on June 18, 2003. For the three viable sites, the information provided by the Applicant regarding hours of operation, contact persons, and types of stakeholders reached has been confirmed.

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL TREASURER

The proposed NNC has provided the Department with a description of its organizational structure including the offices of its governing body in the form of bylaws.

This section has been reviewed by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and meets the criteria set forth by the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils.

ETHICS ;

Neighborhood Councils, upon certification, are required by City regulations to comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local government laws, including the City of Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance (Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 49.5.1, et seq.). Department staff noted that the agreement and acknowledgment to comply with all applicable laws is included in the bylaws of the Applicant.

CONTACT LIAISON ROSTER

The form has been submitted and is not an accurate representation of the individuals identified by Project Coordinator as viable members of the organizing group. The Applicant was asked to submit an amended Contact Liaison Roster in January, April, and June 2003, but has declined to do so.

Based on this information, there is indication that this group is not viable, and not able to conduct outreach, specifically for purposes of the initial election.

REPORT SUMMARY

The proposed governance structure allows for a Stakeholder group to hold a majority on the Board. This section has been reviewed by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and the Office of the City Attorney, and, as last amended on June 25, 2003, does not meet the requirements under the Plan and Ordinance, as articulated in the above Section of this report entitled: Organizational Structure. The Applicant is required to amend 11 Articles in their bylaws, as specified above. While the Applicant’s bylaws do not meet the requirements set forth in the Plan and Ordinance, should the Applicant consent to the required bylaw changes as advised by the City Attorney and recommended by Department staff, the bylaws would ultimately comport with the requirements of the Plan and Ordinance.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION ;

The Department cannot recommend certification of the Applicant based on their failure to comport with the above referenced areas for compliance with the Plan and Ordinance.

Subsequent to the evaluation of additional evidence and public testimony provided at the certification hearing, the Department proposes that the following options for Board action be considered:

Option #1 ;

· Request that the Applicant voluntarily continue or withdraw its application until such time as the bylaws, Public Notice Location Log, and Contact Liaison Roster are amended, and an accounting procedure and an outreach strategy is provided to comport with the Plan.

Option #2 ;

If the Board decides to certify this Applicant, then the Department recommends that the Board:

1. FIND that the boundaries meet the criteria set forth in the Plan and APPROVE the final Staff boundary determination as:

East: Bull Creek (between Roscoe Blvd. and Lassen St.); west on Lassen St. to Balboa Blvd.; and Balboa Blvd. (between Lassen St. and Devonshire St.).

West: Winnetka Ave. (between Parthenia St. and Nordhoff St.); east on Nordhoff St. to Corbin Ave.; and Corbin Ave. (between Nordhoff St. and the 118 Freeway).

2. FIND that the applicant has satisfied the outreach criteria set forth in the Plan.

3. REQUEST that the applicant amend its bylaws as identified and specified in the Department’s Evaluation of Certification Report dated June 27, 2003, as follows:

· Article 5, Section 5(b & c):

Section 5(b): Please revise to omit automatic support, or re-phrase to state that the board will vote to take official action on the decisions of other groups that it wishes to support.

Section 5(c): Please delete this section. Stakeholders within your community may be able to have the support of your council.

Article 6, Sections 2, 3 & 4:

Section 2: Please delete this section. The neighborhood council is a City entity with the power specified in the Charter and Plan.

Article 11, Sections 5, 6, 7 & 10:

Sections 5 & 6: Please state the exact number of Directors.

Section 7: Please delete. Changing the number of Directors will require an amendment to the bylaws, which must be voted on by the governing body. You cannot predetermine the outcome of such a vote.

Article 12, Sections 1, 3(h & i) & 4(h):

Article 14, Sections 2(a & c) & 9:

Section 2(c): Please delete the last sentence.

Section 9: You must allow for all Stakeholders to participate in the election. Therefore, they must be able to register to vote on the day of the election. Please delete this sentence.

Article 16, Sections 1(a) & 3(h):

Section 3(h): The Secretary shall not determine the propriety of voting methods. The method is determined under the Brown Act. Please delete.

Article 17, Section 6:

Article 17: A request for reconsideration of an action taken is different from filing a grievance regarding the actions of the governing body. Please state a separate process for how a grievance can be filed and the period of time required for such a grievance to be considered. All grievances can be appealed to DONE. You must also include a process for reconsideration. Your process as stated is insufficient.

Section 6: Your bylaws do not impose duties or obligations on third parties. Therefore, you must delete this section because it is not accurate.

Article 19, Section 1(c): Please correctly state that amendments are not effective, nor valid until approved by DONE.

Article 20: The certified entity is not created until approval from the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners is obtained. Please delete or leave a blank line to include the date upon certification.

OBTAIN the Applicant’s CONSENT to amend its bylaws to reflect the aforementioned changes and in accord with the requirements specified by the Department in consultation with the Office of the City Attorney and DEEM the applicant’s bylaws AMENDED to reflect these modifications and FIND that the Applicant has satisfied the bylaw criteria set forth in the Plan.

4. ADVISE that the applicant amend its bylaws as identified and specified in the Department’s Evaluation of Certification Report dated June 27, 2003, as follows:

Article 5, Section 5: Be advised that financial support by the Council may be prohibited or limited because of restrictions on public funds.

Article 12, Section 4: The Treasurer’s duties are subject to the City requirements. Accordingly, the duties specified here may require amendment.

Article 14, Sections 1, 1(b) & 9:

Section 1: The Brown Act requires that all meetings be open to members of the public, not just Community Stakeholders.

Article 16, Sections 2(a, b, c & d) & 3(a & c):

Section 3(a): The public has the right to speak on agenda items, under the Brown Act. The presiding officer may not eliminate that ability all together, although there can be some time restrictions.

OBTAIN the Applicant’s CONSENT to amend its bylaws to reflect the

aforementioned changes and in accord with the requirements specified by the Department in consultation with the Office of the City Attorney and DEEM the applicant’s bylaws AMENDED to reflect these modifications and FIND that the Applicant has satisfied the bylaw criteria set forth in the Plan.

5. ADOPT the findings as contained in the Staff Report and MOVE TO CERTIFY the Applicant as the Northridge Neighborhood Council.

NORTHRIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL

Board of Neighborhood Commissioners CERTIFICATION HEARING JULY 1, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Evaluation of Certification Report – Attachments)

I. Northridge Neighborhood Council (NNC) Boundary Map (1 page)

II. Northridge Community Plan (1 page)

III. Boundary Maps with Demographic Data (6 pages)

IV. Revised Bylaws dated 6/25/03 (18 pages)

V. Hearing Transcript – Board of Neighborhood Commissioners Meeting dated 3/19/02 (53 pages)

VI. General Manager’s Report dated 3/19/02 with attachments (15 pages)

VII. Northridge Community Council Home Page and Website Information - www.northridgecouncil.org (5 pages)

To Index

NNC DONE page
To main page