It's very important for voters to understand what L.A. City plans for neighborhood councils before they vote in Tuesday's election.

The Daily News did a very instructive story on neighborhood councils on 10-31-02.

It is clearly DONE's position to making sure the residents did not make up the majority on any council and to make sure that the councils must not allow the stakeholders to vote on any issue. They want miniature city councils that can ignore the residents, just like the big downtown Council ignores them now.

Greg Nelson who is in charge of DONE states:

"Neighborhoods are more than the people who live there," Nelson said. "It includes the people who contribute.

I guess he means people who contribute money to the Downtown Power Brokers or the pay to play system that permeates LA now. He adds

 "That was the whole purpose of the system of neighborhood councils: to go beyond the traditional system (in which) you have to be a resident to have a vote or interest," Nelson said. "Neighborhoods are made up of all kinds of people: people who own businesses, who own property, nonprofits. They become extremely important to the neighborhoods."

How outrageous! He is saying that people who do not live in the community and do not vote in the community should control the community for the good of the City of Los Angeles.

And here from the Center for Governmental Studies:

In Northridge, DONE is now creating a new Northridge Community Council, a North Hills Council, and a Porter Ranch Council. They state they intend to violate L.A. City Code and drop our Northridge Community Council without ever bringing it to a vote because of our insistence in allowing stakeholders to vote, exactly as stated in the LA City Charter.

They are using taxpayers’ funds, money that you paid to the City of Los Angeles and then offering these competing councils a $50,000 payment, read bribe, if they structure themselves as DONE orders them.

I guess the retribution against secession has already started.

The council has not taken any position but asks that you vote, and that vote is the community position. At least for this election, you have to be a resident to vote. Here is some information so you can make an informed decision.

Vote yes on F and H if you believe your neighbors should run your neighborhood.

Vote no on F and H if you believe DONE's and LA's view that communities should be run by someone else that "contributes" to LA.

Here is some information on the local bond issues.

Measure A

Yes gives CSUN, which is the only project in the valley, 15 million. The rest of the 250 millions is spent on the other side of the hill.

Because it is paid for by property taxes, the valley will pay back about 180 million plus interest for our 15 million "share".

Measure B

Intends to tax your home about 60 dollars a year for emergency medical care. If you feel that homes cause emergency medical care, then vote yes. If you feel other issues as stated in the bond showing cars and shootings are the cause, then vote no.

Measure K

The LAUSD bond K spends 16% of the money in the valley but the valley pays 43% of the debt.

If you feel that it is appropriate that we should pay for schools outside the valley, vote yes.

If you feel that taxes paid in the Valley should stay in the valley, vote no.

Below is the full Daily News story so that you can see exactly how residents are made powerless in the LA City DONE neighborhood council system.

We thought you would find this story from the 10-12-02 Daily News interesting. Click here for the full original

Local councils languish

By Beth Barrett Staff Writer

10-31-02 Advisory neighborhood councils have struggled to get off the ground more than three years after voters approved charter reform because of bitter squabbles among rival groups, city-imposed rules that bar the town-hall system and policies that generally limit the number of seats residents are guaranteed.

Critics say Los Angeles' fledgling effort at grass-roots reform through the councils suffers from minimal funding and city officials' insistence on structures that could favor narrow or special interests over neighborhood residents' interests.

At the heart of the delay is a debate over representation. Several critics who are affiliated with councils that failed to be certified by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment are among those who contend that neighborhood residents are underrepresented, while seats are reserved for those who work, own commercial property or are involved in nonprofit or other service efforts in the neighborhood, regardless of where they live.

"That's amazing. You couldn't have that for a legislative seat," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles nonpartisan group that researches campaign finance and elections.

"That's highly unusual -- to allow someone to serve on a neighborhood council who doesn't live there. It kind of goes against representative government. 'Neighborhood council' implies 'neighborhood.' ... At least they should live in the neighborhood."

In all, the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment has certified 55 councils covering about one-third of the city, including 18 certified in the Valley. Only three have actually elected council members in the Valley and are officially operational.

The department's general manager, Greg Nelson, defended the system as prohibiting any single category of stakeholder from getting a majority on a council unless city officials find there are extenuating circumstances.

"Neighborhoods are more than the people who live there," Nelson said. "It includes the people who contribute.

"That was the whole purpose of the system of neighborhood councils: to go beyond the traditional system (in which) you have to be a resident to have a vote or interest," Nelson said. "Neighborhoods are made up of all kinds of people: people who own businesses, who own property, nonprofits. They become extremely important to the neighborhoods."

The three functional Valley neighborhood councils -- Woodland Hills-Warner Center, West Hills and Canoga Park -- have very different structures, although their leaders said the majority of those elected live in the neighborhoods.

Woodland Hills-Warner Center has a 21-person elected council, with 17 members living in the neighborhood, although, in theory, up to two-thirds could live outside it.

West Hills had open elections in which all 25 council members could have be en neighborhood residents. As it turned out, 23 live in the neighborhood. The council includes at least five business owners.  "We didn't have any designated seats. ... We felt that would be too divisive for a residential community," said the council president, Charles Gremer.

Canoga Park, which guaranteed residents eight of 25 seats, ended up with about 20 neighborhood residents, said its temporary chairman, Don Evans.

Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association and a supporter of Valley secession, said the city set up a system that "minimizes the impact of the residents who live in a neighborhood."

"You have people making decisions for neighborhoods who return home at night to San Marino or Beverly Hills who don't have to live with the consequences of their actions and recommendations," he said. "It's an unfair system."

But others in Sherman Oaks disagree.

"We don't want another homeowners group," said Jill Banks Barad, chairwoman of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council. That council, along with the Studio City Neighborhood Council, was certified Tuesday. The Sherman Oaks council's bylaws guarantee that neighborhood residents will hold at least one-third, or seven, of the 21 seats. "We need to be inclusive of every stakeholder."

Bill Christopher, president of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment's board of commissioners, said "stakeholder interests are broader than the residential population base" in many cases.

"The ordinance and plan set up a broader consensus of community, not just a residential viewpoint," Christopher said, adding that currently "institutional or business viewpoints can be (held) hostage to more organized residential bases out there."

Mayor James Hahn, in a recent interview, told the Daily News he believes the councils eventually should get more power, but wants to see them up and running first -- a process that at the current pace could take several more years.

"Before the general managers (of city departments) present their budgets to me, I want them to listen to the neighborhood councils first," Hahn said. "I want input from the neighborhood councils: What do you think about the general manager of Recreation and Parks? Is the job of Rec and Parks being done so well you think the person deserves a raise, or do they deserve a pay cut?

"I want (neighborhood councils) to be involved in decision-making. Even though (they're) only advisory, at some point in the future we might want to look at (their) having some actual decision-making power over some decisions."

A review of the certified Valley councils shows that in most cases neighborhood residents are guaranteed only a minority of the seats. Paul Waters, coordinator of the Studio City Neighborhood Council formation committee, said the city staff discouraged one set of bylaws that was weighted more toward residents.

"I understand part of this is that the neighborhood councils are supposed to be an accurate representation of the wishes of the community, ... to assure there is no single voice," said Waters, a nonresident who serves as executive director of LA/Valley Pride. "They're not supposed to be 'son of residents associations' or 'son of chamber of commences."

Working the system

Residents of Granada Hills who fought expansion of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill saw a recipe for special interests to exert undue influence in the "diversity" promoted by the city staff.

The Granada Hills North Neighborhood Council succeeded, however, in getting approval for bylaws that essentially limit the landfill operator, Browning Ferris Industries of California, to a single seat on the 19-member panel.

The council had to "jump through all kinds of hoops," Mary Edwards, a longtime activist, said. "They (city officials) wanted to be 'all-inclusive.' That could lead to bringing in people from other areas (to) dominate. A 'stakeholder' could be someone who worked in the district on Operation Sparkle day."

City department head Nelson called Granada Hills North's plan "real marginal," but said it was approved to "accommodate" the community.

Competing plans

So far, the department board has resisted town-hall forms of governance.

Walter N. Prince, acting president of the Northridge Community Council, said a general assembly vote would be the best way to involve stakeholders, while minimizing special interests' influence. "It eliminates the problem of people with local problems trying to lobby amateur board members."

The Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council also is pressing for the town-hall format, said its chairman, Ken McAlpine. "The town hall encouraged participation to the greatest degree."

Christopher, president of the department board, said the city attorney found town-hall-style councils could not be held accountable in the way the ordinance writers envisioned.

The board last week certified the Arleta Neighborhood Council, a breakaway group from the original council.

Robert Edwards, chairman of the now-disbanded Arleta Neighborhood Advisory Council, said his group lost out after it proposed electing two people from each of six regions within Arleta.

Edwards charged city officials with selecting, instead, a council whose members are a collection of representatives of "clubs." "All these clubs are vested interests, and their interests depend on population density and growth in Arleta, which is 85 percent single-family (home) residents."

Copyright © 2002 Los Angeles Daily News Los Angeles Newspaper Group