LA Philanthropy Watch

Why do we have neighborhood councils?  What do neighborhood councils do?  Is there any reason for people in Los Feliz to be interested in the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council?

At a time when rumblings of succession were stirring in the San Fernando Valley, the Harbor area, and Hollywood, a new City Charter was adopted, which created the framework for establishing neighborhood councils throughout Los Angeles.  Neighborhood councils, according to the Charter, are designed to “promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

A 2007 USC Policy Brief, “Toward Community Engagement in City Governance: Evaluating Neighborhood Council Reform in Los Angeles,” presented the findings of a multi-year study of neighborhood councils.  The report, written by Juliet Musso, Christopher Weare, Mark Elliot, Alicia Kitsuse, and Ellen Shiau, evaluated neighborhood councils along a number of dimensions and found that among the issue-areas on which neighborhood councils focus, land use and planning issues are the most prominent.

“Land use and planning (including transportation) together constitute the single most important issue area to councils at 49% of all issue-oriented activities. Activities related to specific discretionary actions, such as requests for zoning changes and other project-level variances, account for nearly half of land use agenda items. These specific project activities comprise a quarter of all issue activities.” [p. 32]
…
“Citywide, land use was the single most frequently cited area of accomplishment (29%).  Community beautification and transportation were mentioned at 23% and 11% respectively.” [p. 34]

A typical land use issue arises when a developer proposes a construction project that violates zoning restrictions in the area.  In such a case, he must seek a variance from the City Planning Department.  Following adoption of the new City Charter, neighborhood councils now have an advisory role in this process.

While there is no guarantee that the Planning Department will follow a council’s recommendation, in practice it often does so.  That’s why we have neighborhood councils, after all: to get citizen input about their neighborhoods.

In the case at hand, the owner of the property at 1801-1817 New Hampshire intends to raze the buildings and construct a new apartment complex.  While the new project – based on architectural drawings – arguably has less charm than the garden apartments pictured, the proposal clearly has greater potential for earning revenue.

The owner has commissioned two sets of architectural plans.  The first, which violates the zoning requirements and thus requires a variance, creates one large building with a number of aesthetic features to increase the ‘charm’ quotient of the project.  The second, within his legal rights and consistent with zoning in the area, consists of three boxy buildings drained of pleasing aesthetic features – this version is ugly – but it has the same number of units (from which to collect rent) as the charming version that requires a variance.

So, is he bluffing?  Would he really build the homely version of the complex – 3 buildings allowed by the zoning code – to maximize the number of rentals within current zoning rules if he didn’t receive the variance?  Should the council say ‘No’ and call his bluff (hoping that his architect will go back to the drawing board and make those 3 boxy buildings more attractive)?  Or should the council play it safe and allow a variance – to permit a single building spanning 3 lots – because the single building proposed is more attractive than the alternative presented?

Council members were in disagreement about whether the threat to build a particularly unsightly complex was a bargaining ploy or a likely possibility.  At their May 18 meeting, the board deadlocked 6 to 6 on the motion, with 2 abstentions.  The chair chose not to break the tie.  The builder would go before the City Planning Department without a recommendation – either for or against – from GGPNC.

The supplement to the June 1 agenda includes minutes from the May 18 meeting and the recorded vote.

In my previous post (”The Case for Reform of Standing Rules, Policies, and Procedures“), I attempted – based on a series of conversations – to state the case for reform as I understand it.  That background provided context for an interview with Tor Hyams.

Tor Hyams, chair of the Rules & Elections Committee, and I spoke last week before the June 15 meeting of the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council governing board.  An appointed member of the board, he became an officer – Vice President of Administration – following the March elections.  As head of Rules & Elections, he has a key role on the leadership team spearheading the reform effort.

“My goal,” he told me, “… is to institute as much reform as necessary, which I believe personally is quite a bit.”

He expressed the view that that in the recent past the board decided what the rules were – on an ad hoc basis – whenever they wanted a rule about something.  He objected in particular to a lack of transparency, which he thought ill-served the public.

On June 10 the Rules & Elections Committee began a discussion on how to kickoff the movement for reform – as the new majority on the board views it.  From the agenda:

Item 5. Discussion of most effective strategy to analyze and amend existing bylaws.  Discussion and action as appropriate.

As Mr. Hyams explained, the Executive Committee wished to have a strategy going in regarding review of the bylaws and consideration of changes.  The committee appointed Barbara Ferris to staff this project; she will manage the review process for the committee.

Mr. Hyams links this review process to the board’s role in representing the public.  “The bylaws are written to serve them,” he said.

Item 6. Plan for creation of codified GGPNC’s Standing Rules, Policies and Procedures document.  Discussion and action as appropriate.

Plans for codifying standing rules, policies, and procedures will proceed along the same lines.  Unlike amendments to the bylaws, adopting new rules and rule changes does not require approval from the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE).

Tor Hyams is more interested in the standing rules, which he believes haven’t received the attention they deserve, than in amending the bylaws.  He believes that in the past the board has created rules from time to time, but has hardly been consistent about following them – especially after the makeup of the board or of the Executive Committee has changed.

“It is important to establish rules so the public has correct expectations.”  Without established, accessible rules, stakeholders who approach the council are in the dark about how things work.  And, of course, the board is more likely to act consistently from case to case, if rules are understood and followed.

I mentioned the opaque and haphazard process of funding community groups.  “This is a huge issue,” Mr. Hyams responded.  He is committed, as I believe Jessie Kornberg is (“GGPNC Board Begins to Consider Rules, Policies, and Procedures”), to cleaning up and clarifying the process by establishing policies and procedures.  This will serve, in his view, to make everyone aware of the rules and to manage expectations.  He believes decisions about funding will be better as a result.

As he mentioned at the June 15 board meeting, Tor Hyams links the reform effort at GGPNC to the checks and balances created in the U.S. Constitution.  He is convinced that with the right rules in place, it will be more difficult for a board majority to push through an agenda that doesn’t serve the public.

(Photo of Rules & Elections chair and board chair at June 15, 2010 meeting.)

“You know the Calvinball rules,” says Hobbes.  “Yeah, yeah,” replies Calvin, “Anything we make up.  Well, you’ll pay for this.”  (“Calvin and Hobbes,” August 1, 1993 by Bill Watterson.)

Last week, following a campaign that pledged to bring reform to the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council, a new majority on the governing board began enacting changes in the council’s standing rules and bylaws.  Why the commitment to reform?

Board members and observers of GGPNC offer many critical accounts of the activities of the governing board (prior to the recent election), including objections to the way particular issues were handled and narratives about the way individuals have been treated.   Issues of process, rather than simply the decisions made, are at the heart of these criticisms.

Following a series of conversations, I have pieced together a critical picture of the board that – for better or worse – many stakeholders have embraced.  While I don’t agree with every premise, and can’t confirm every fact, I do believe that the critique offered represents a reasonable, coherent point of view, which underlies the movement to bring about reform – and explains why the Rules & Elections Committee has set out to review the bylaws and standing rules of the council.

Here is my reconstruction of that critique:

The board’s agenda was often antithetical to what a neighborhood council should be doing.  As an example, critics point to the board’s approach to a request by a stakeholder for consideration of permit parking.  Instead of providing a forum for presentation and discussion of the issue; assuring a fair, informed give and take; and (out of this process) determining the considered views of stakeholders – board members deliberately set out to sabotage the proposal.

Whether or not preferential parking is a good idea (so this criticism goes), it should not be the role of the governing board of the neighborhood council to prejudge the merits of the proposal – and then to focus on assuring that the process yields the predetermined result (rejection of preferential parking, in this instance).

Another frequently-cited example is what critics regard as the board’s approach to zoning variances, such as fences that exceed height restrictions in residential neighborhoods.  According to this line of criticism, the board reflexively opposed requests for variances – regardless of the unique circumstances presented or the views of the immediate neighbors.

It’s fine, according to this critique, for the Los Feliz Improvement Association (for instance) to adopt a default position opposing all variances.  But taking this stance is not all right for the neighborhood council, which is charged with serving all stakeholders in the district – regardless of their points of view.  The board should be committed to ensuring impartial, open, inclusive consideration of diverse viewpoints.  Board members on the neighborhood council should not be entrenched advocates for one point of view, nor should they be willing do whatever it takes to ensure that the preordained position wins.

Critics can cite numerous examples in recent years of the board’s improper approach (in their view) to issues that have come before the council.

In sum, in the view of reformers: the board embraced a role fundamentally at odds with what a neighborhood council ought to be doing.  It staked out positions (sometimes publicly, sometimes surreptitiously) without regard for the views of stakeholders.  It failed in its role of providing a fair hearing for divergent points of view.  Furthermore, the board appeared to be willing to engage in all manner of shenanigans to get its way.  The ‘process’ became whatever worked to reach the predetermined end.

In my next post, I present the reform agenda as viewed by Tor Hyams, Chair of the Rules & Elections Committee: Reform Agenda Spearheaded by Rules & Elections Chair Tor Hyams.

In my last post on the neighborhood council (”GGPNC Board Begins to Consider Rules, Policies, and Procedures“), I suggested that the governing board was poised to begin putting into place ‘rules of the road.’  Last week five proposals – big and small – from the Rules & Elections Committee were considered by the board.  All five passed.  Some represented housekeeping on the board’s part; the last one – certainly the most significant – changed the bylaws regarding appointed members.  (In my next post I’ll suggest why all these proposals count as ‘reform’ from the standpoint of the board’s new majority.)

The five proposals:

i. Business cards – A standing rule identified who is entitled to receive business cards.

ii. Website access – The secretary will have access to the website, though committee chairs will have primary jurisdiction for their committees’ web pages.

iii. Absences – A standing rule set parameters regarding excused and unexcused absences.

iv. Ethics – A bylaw established that all board members must complete a required ethics course or be ineligible to participate in board meetings.

v. Finally, another bylaw change: “Selection of Appointed Board Members shall be made by a majority of the District Representatives.” District representatives, as opposed to appointed members, are all elected by stakeholders.  Formerly the decision on appointments was made by the entire board – including appointed members (who, it has been suggested, traded votes to assure that everyone was reappointed).

This change in the bylaws proved to be the most contentious of the proposals.  Three appointed members who were present strenuously argued against – and then voted against – the proposal, which still received the supermajority required for it to pass.  This change in the bylaws pares back the power of appointed members – including the three board members present who opposed the motion.  Other appointed members, however – including the Chair of the Rules & Elections Committee, Tor Hyams – voted for the change.

At times the debate revealed, from my vantage point, simmering animosity as well as disagreement.  The interplay among members of this board is akin to an unhappy marriage, where resentments and aggravations lurk just beneath the surface.  The issue of appointed board members appointing and reappointing themselves has sharply divided the board for some time – and was an issue in the recent election.

During debate on the issue, Charley Mims suggested that the proposal was “frivolous” because the board majority could appoint or reappoint anyone they wanted to, whether or not this rule were in place.  Based on my observations, I would respectfully disagree with this judgment.

What I observed was an unmistakable lack of deference to the leadership of the Rules & Elections Committee.  The group I casually describe as the ‘new majority’ frequently finds itself in disagreement.  During debate on a number of proposals, this majority found itself split more than once – with members arguing (and voting) against Tor Hyams, who has spearheaded the reforms.  In short, members of this majority display limited willingness to vote a ‘party line.’  If last week was any indication, the reform agenda may be destined to hit some rough patches – unless there is more consultation and fine-tuning before proposals are presented to the board.

Mr. Mims, while leading a much smaller group, commands a more reliable block of votes than this elected majority.  This minority is outnumbered – and so must peel off members from the other side to prevail (by blocking motions or amending motions before passage, which it succeeded in doing last Tuesday night).  But prevail or not, it will continue to make itself heard.  The divisions on this board will not soon disappear.

As noted in my previous post, the GGPNC board voted on June 1 to suspend all fund disbursements.  The timing was awkward, because a member of a community group was present to request a grant to support the 2010 Griffith Park Shakespeare Festival to be staged at the Griffith Park Old Zoo.  Independent Shakespeare Company, which received $5,000 from GGPNC in 2009, is seeking funding for this season’s production of Othello and Much Ado About Nothing.  Raising $125,000+ is not easy in the best of circumstances, but this is an especially tough year for nonprofits.

Budgeting and finances were an issue in the recent GGPNC election.  During the campaign, one newly elected member pledged frugality; another member of the Los Feliz Forward slate objected to specific spending priorities of the council.

Jessie Kornberg, the board’s secretary and a member of the Rules & Elections Committee, has experience as the executive director of a nonprofit organization.  Her critique of the board’s fiscal management focused on fundamental principles.  She pledged, during the campaign, to “bring my long-range planning expertise to bear on the GGPNC’s budget process to encourage an organized system for evaluating and awarding funding proposals.”

This is the approach followed by foundations in the nonprofit sector: there are funding guidelines, application forms, deadlines for submission, and a process (which is, in Max Weber’s terms, ‘rational’ and ‘efficient’) for making decisions.  The process, spelled out in writing, is readily accessible.  A nonprofit organization that seeks funding from a foundation knows how things work going in (whether or not its request ultimately receives an affirmative response).

In actual practice, relationships, past giving history, and other considerations all make the process less rational – and less fair – than it would be in an ideal world.  Because money is in short supply, and needs within the nonprofit sector are great, worthy institutions fail to get funding.  This may frustrate foundation decision-makers as well as nonprofits.  But having an established system for making decisions is a huge step in the right direction – rather than just winging it from month to month depending on who shows up with a request.

In the absence of a regular review procedure at GGPNC, the funding of community groups has been ad hoc.  Without structure and guidelines, the process is robbed of transparency and fairness, disadvantaging nonprofit and voluntary organizations in the neighborhood.  Haphazard decision-making hampers the board as well, rendering it incapable of doing any long-term planning.  There is no way to prevent the embarrassment of a worthy group appearing near the end of the fiscal year with a request, and finding that through lack of foresight there is no money left to allocate.

This is a situation ripe for reform.  I expect the new council majority to put in place “an organized system” for funding community groups.

Furthermore, as the Rules & Elections Committee has begun its work, I would anticipate creation of ‘rules of the road’ in a number of areas throughout the council’s operations.  The next several months promise to be eventful for the neighborhood council.  Folks interested in this process might want to attend tonight’s meeting of the governing board: 7:00 p.m.  at the Los Feliz Community Police Center (second floor of Citibank), 1965 North Hillhurst.

(Photo from Wikimedia Commons.)

Last week, the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council governing board met for the second time with a new majority in place.  As I observed in previous posts, new officers were selected without much muss or fuss (“Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council Elects New Officers”), and the new majority deliberated at a pace and in a manner than would preclude criticism that the board didn’t listen, wasn’t respectful, or was intent on reaching a preordained decision (“Did GGPNC’s New Majority Reveal a Different Approach at its May Meeting?”).

There were more signs of change at the second meeting.  As far as I could tell, this was the first time that a more or less clear ‘party line’ vote occurred (on a motion to suspend fund disbursements) and an equally clear ‘party line’ discussion (of an outreach report on the recent election) took place.  I will comment on the latter discussion in a future post.  Regarding the budget:

My impression – after attending board meetings in May and June – is that finances have not been a strength of this board (which has been true of a number of neighborhood councils).  I am not sure why this has been so at GGPNC, but it is clear that newly elected board members intend to tighten things up.

Presentations on the budget at the two most recent board meetings revealed uncertainty and confusion.  At the May 18 meeting, the outgoing treasurer appeared to report that the council’s budget for the remainder of the fiscal year (which ends June 30) was several thousand dollars – though the exact numbers were not firm – in the black.  The bottom line: there was still money left to spend.

By the June 1 meeting, after locating lost receipts and identifying previously approved expenditures, the newly installed treasurer reported that the budget was actually in the red.  The council had overspent (or, more accurately, over-committed – since not all the approved expenditures have been disbursed).

Mark Mauceri introduced this motion:

“The GGPNC shall temporarily suspend all fund disbursements, except for essential services … until such a time a financial report is presented that is completely in balance with our own records and verified against the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment’s (DONE’s), enabling the board to make the most informed decisions regarding financial commitments and expenditures.  Further, a request shall be made that DONE withhold the execution of any outstanding demand warrant until the board has had a chance to review those expenditures in light of the council’s actual finances.”

The discussion (pro and con) and vote (pro and con) on this motion divided the board:  Members of the new board majority (including elected members and appointed members who expressed an affiliation with Los Feliz Forward during the campaign) were supportive, while four appointed members (none of whom were affiliated with the slate) dissented.

When push came to shove, the members of the majority insisted that until they knew how much money was available, they shouldn’t be spending any more.  Four appointed members of the board voted against the motion.  The motion passed.

Both the discussion and the vote on the motion illustrated contrasting views regarding the board’s financial stewardship of taxpayer dollars.  In a future post I will have more to say about this contrast and what I believe it suggests about the direction the board is likely to take going forward.

Editor’s note: I am aware that neither i. the members of the board who were, during the election campaign, affiliated with Los Feliz Forward, nor ii. the members of the board who were not so-affiliated are (respectively) in agreement on every issue.  Furthermore, it is my working assumption that members on both sides of this divide have a pragmatic interest in working with each other.  After my initial posts on a series of issues – such as the budgeting and finance – I will be less tempted to take a backward-look at the campaign leading up to the March elections.  But as a lead-in to continuing coverage of GGPNC, I will (over the next few weeks) allude from time to time to the divisions marked by that election in order to provide some meaningful context.  That election had significance; I’m trying, in my initial series of posts, to make sense of it.

Since the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council governing board did not meet in April (due to lack of a quorum), the board has scheduled a special June 1 meeting to play catch-up.  There are 14 items on the agenda, including reports from the President, the Executive Committee, and the Treasurer.  The Outreach, Green, and Culture & Events Committees will also make reports.  A number of motions will be considered, as well as appointments to fill vacancies on the Budget and Finance Committee and the Rules and Elections Committee.

The meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at the Los Feliz Community Police Center.  The Executive Committee will meet one hour earlier in the same place.

Board meetings are held the third Tuesday of every month; the next regularly scheduled meeting will be Tuesday, June 15.

As the gavel was passed from Charley Mims to Ron Ostrow at the May 18 neighborhood council meeting, the new presiding officer quoted his predecessor to this effect: Robert’s Rules of Order is a tool; it is not a weapon.

Mr. Ostrow then outlined for the board, including new members who may have been unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure, how he intended to proceed; in setting out a clear framework, he could facilitate deliberations without engendering misunderstanding or the appearance of favoritism.

While I have heard suggestions that the meeting ran long because of Mr. Ostrow’s approach, I believe there was a more significant reason – apart from an agenda with 17 items on it – that the session stretched into the early morning hours.  This board was simply not going to be rushed.

The board devoted just over an hour and fifty minutes to discussion of one of four items from the Planning, Zoning & Historic Preservation Committee Report.  The Alcove Café & Bakery sought to increase seating (from 144 to 228); to serve mixed drinks, not just beer and wine; to extend the hours for serving alcohol; to establish a banquet facility; and to provide Happy Hour service. (The neighborhood council is empowered to make recommendations to the City Planning Department, which has decision-making authority regarding variances / conditional use permits.)

The board was not willing simply to defer to the Zoning, Planning & Historic Preservation Committee, which had held a hearing on the request and then submitted a report and recommendations.  The new majority was intent on giving this issue a thorough first-hand look.

This was my first board meeting, so I am hardly well-versed on the history of applications for variances.  But I know that at times they have generated much controversy – raising questions about whether or not applicants have received fair hearings.  Applications by Home Restaurant in 2007 and 2009 (to increase seating and hours of operation) generated a thicket of charges and countercharges.  While I did not witness this drama play out in committee rooms or city offices, the written record suggests that the dispute became rancorous; it has been enduring as well.  Allegations of ethnic bias stemming from this case helped fuel Los Feliz Forward’s successful campaign to take control of the board.

Other objections about the way the neighborhood council had handled such requests include: Committee hearings gave voice to disrespectful and ill-informed comments.  There was no willingness to acknowledge applicants’ attempts to accommodate criticism.  The board was predisposed to oppose development.  The board failed to seek middle ground and win-win solutions.

Last week, in the wake of this harsh critique of past practice, members of the new board majority considered the Alcove application at length.  Board members took time to listen, to acknowledge, even to praise – and time to articulate careful, measured grounds for saying, ‘No’ (although the Alcove received a ‘Yes’ on most of what it asked for).

I’ve heard critics of the former board majority advance two ideas regarding decisions about variances: i. the board should formulate guidelines to assure that decisions are derived from the application of clear principles and ii. the board should recognize each application as unique and not simply make decisions based on past precedent.  If only things were so simple.  Each of these ideas is sound and sensible, but together they pull us in different directions at once.

Discussions – and decisions – regarding variances will continue to be challenging.  There are conflicting interests at stake.  A thriving business creates impacts that may adversely affect other stakeholders – whether they’re seeking a place to park their cars or just peace and quiet.  Extending the hours to serve alcohol from midnight to 1:00 a.m. is likely to result in additional customers and more drinks served – boosting a restaurant’s bottom line.  That’s good for business.  But the neighbor who lives next door or down the street may have an entirely different perspective on what’s good for the neighborhood.

While there is no balancing act that will eliminate conflicts such as these, there are ways of listening – and responding – that may convey a sense of openness and fairness, even to an applicant who has been denied or to a neighbor who is disappointed with an approval.  Furthermore, if one listens closely enough and one is resourceful enough, it may be possible to find solutions that bridge differences.

Will this board find creative ways to reduce adverse impacts of development on the neighborhood?  Time will tell.  But certainly, on the basis of the Alcove discussion, no one could credibly claim that the board didn’t listen, wasn’t respectful, or was unwilling to search for middle ground.

A new majority on the governing board, after pledging to bring reform to the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council, won a convincing victory at the polls in March.  At the May board meeting, new board members took their seats, new officers were elected, and a new president presided over the meeting.

Now what?

One of my challenges (as I’ve begun to pay close attention to the council) has been to get a fix on what is going on at GGPNC.  It’s clear that the council has experienced conflict and that ill-will has separated people on the governing board.  But I’m much more interested in policy and practice, and their effect on decision-making, than in personality conflicts or quarrelsome board meetings (though, assuredly, those may affect outcomes as well).

What policy differences have split the board?  Or, to look to the future: What policy changes are we likely to see going forward with a new governing majority in place?  Will stakeholders notice any differences?

I intend to write numerous posts, from a number of distinct vantage points, seeking to explain and clarify where the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council is headed.  In this post and the next one, I look at some clues related to issues of openness and inclusion.

Let’s begin with a quick glance back – based on the public record – at the conflict the board experienced in the past year.  There is no reason for me to choose sides or rekindle past conflicts.  I’m just trying to put a handful of campaign themes into the context of the board’s recent history.

“On the second floor of the Hillhurst Citibank on Wednesday, June 17^th, a calm, civilized meeting began at 7:00 p.m.  By midnight, it had escalated into a shouting match, as tempers flared and disagreements bubbled to the surface.  The Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council (GGPNC), there for their monthly board meeting, was erupting in turmoil.” [“Discord of the Board,” by Jessica Ogilvie, Los Feliz Ledger, July 2009]

While the article provides more detail, that’s enough to get a sense of things.  Whether or not the Ledger’s coverage has been biased (as some board members contend), there is, as far as I know, no dispute that board meetings had become contentious, sometimes devolving into shouting matches.  (On the question of bias, I’ll simply note that the Los Feliz Ledger publishes letters to the editor: so it’s possible for alternative points of view to find their way into its pages.)

I am in no position to judge whether the quarrelsome meetings resulted from sharp-elbowed provocations of the minority, or from unabashed hubris on the part of the majority.  Or both.  Or neither.  It’s enough for my purposes to establish that acrimony at board meetings was hardly unprecedented.

A few months later the October 2009 Ledger (”GGPNC Re-Elects Itself,” by Jessica Ogilvie) provided coverage of another meeting, which (in retrospect) marked a turning point in the history of GGPNC: the Saturday, September 12, 2009 meeting to select individuals for the nine appointed positions on the board.  That meeting – and the ill-will it generated – inspired the movement to take over the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council governing board.

“The selection process for those nine seats was contentious and revealing. After a grueling seven-hour session all incumbents but one were returned to board seats.”
…
“As some board members became visibly and audibly frustrated, [the board chair] reiterated a plea for order.  ‘I have asked people to remain civil in your comments,’ he said.”

Again, whether or not anyone has objections to the Ledger’s account of that marathon meeting, the story accurately portrayed the views – held with considerable conviction – of a number of participants and observers, who objected to the way the board had conducted itself.  These individuals came together, formed a slate of candidates pledging to change the way the board operated, and organized a successful campaign to replace the board majority.

That campaign revealed impressions of a board that didn’t listen, that sought to impose its own agenda rather than to find middle ground, and that was staunchly resistant to change.

Here are a handful of quotes from the Los Feliz Forward website (which I can’t link to, since it has been scrubbed from the web):

“We can’t do that [move forward] by ‘opposing, opposing, opposing’.  We can do that by good planning and reasonable negotiation.
WE REPRESENT YOU – We are your voice. We value your opinion. We’ll ask, but more importantly, WE WILL LISTEN.”

“Working together on this campaign has demonstrated our ability to organize and consider all points of view… and that is what this Neighborhood Council needs.”

“Stakeholders who come before our committees need to be treated with respect, consistency and they need to know the ‘rules of the road.’  We’re here to advise, facilitate and be your voice at City Hall if necessary.  We’re not here to obstruct or impose our own views over the needs of our constituents.”

This history of conflict and Los Feliz Forward’s campaign for reform set the stage for the first meeting of the GGPNC board featuring a new majority.  That meeting will be the subject of my next post: “Did GGPNC’s New Majority Reveal a Different Approach at its May Meeting?“

The Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council met last night for the first time since February (”Surpise! The Echo Park neighborhood council is back in business,” The Eastsider LA).

A majority of board members of the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council (a number of whom had just lost an election) failed to show up at the April board meeting – thus delaying the swearing in of new members by a month.  At Echo Park, the situation – what The Eastsider LA describes as “boycotting board members” denying the council a quorum – was drawn out for much longer because (according the the president of the Echo Park neighborhood council) election challenges had kept the new members from coming on board (”Echo Park neighborhood council goes missing in action“).

Following the GGPNC election, opponents of the Los Feliz Forward candidates filed challenges with the Office of the City Clerk – Elections Division, which declined to accept them as valid.  Thus, the challenges didn’t keep newly elected members from taking office this month.  On page two of this link – Challenges Under Review and Results by Region, you’ll find: Region F – Greater Griffith Park – None Accepted.