LA Philanthropy Watch

On Thursday, March 18, the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council hosted a candidate forum; 19 candidates (from a field of 23) attended.  With the exception of Charley Mims, whom I had met at a meeting in the community years ago before councils were established, I was unfamiliar with the candidates and their positions.  (I gathered that Mr. Mims has not been embraced by the reform slate.)

I didn’t think to count people in attendance, but I believe the candidates and GGPNC volunteers who were staging the forum came close to outnumbering the audience.

At the beginning of the forum, the moderator read the ground rules, which were quite restrictive.  Was this deemed necessary to keep exchanges respectful?  The candidates were not allowed to direct comments to other candidates, to ask questions of other candidates, or to mention other candidates by name.  The audience was permitted to ask only questions that were submitted in writing in advance.  Virtually no background information on the council, the election, or the candidates was offered to the audience during the forum.

The candidates had 2 minutes each to introduce themselves.  Then a short series of written questions were read, one at a time, and each candidate had 1 minute to respond.  So we in the audience observed how candidates presented themselves; we learned a bit about their views and approach to two or three issues – including their position on “reform.”

But it was surprising what we didn’t learn.  While several candidates mentioned their experience with the council, it was not clear which ones were incumbents.  (GGPNC committee volunteers need not have seats on the council.)  Apparently several appointed incumbents were running for elected seats, while other incumbents on the board had launched the reform slate.  But which ones?  No one at the forum identified themselves as part of a slate or, as far as I recall, even made reference to a slate.  (Perhaps this was banned by the restrictive ground rules.)

If the reformers win, and I anticipate that the slate will have a very good showing, they will have succeeded in changing the dynamics of neighborhood council elections – at least in our neighborhood.

There are drawbacks with the introduction of professional campaign and election strategies to a grassroots volunteer group.  Slates may increase polarization, making divisions more distinct and indelible.  A civic-minded volunteer who wishes to participate may be required to choose a side – to take advantage of the visibility, resources, and reach that only affiliation with a slate can provide.

As the dynamics of the council evolve, GGPNC may increasingly come to resemble – for good and for ill – other legislative institutions.  The council may even develop into a stepping stone to higher office, which would represent a distinct change.

As I have mentioned, slates are also likely to boost participation, which is more likely to be regarded as an unalloyed benefit.

[Image of the first speaker at Thursday night’s forum, Christina Khanjian, who – it turns out – is running on the Los .Feliz Forward slate.  There is a better picture of her at Los Feliz Forward.  Update: The site has been taken down.]

[Last post in a series.]

Previous posts:

• Third post: Elections and Appointments: How Much Democracy Is Too Little?
• Second post: Does Participation Increase as Democracy Gets Closer?
• First post: Neighborhood Councils Bring Direct Democracy Close to Home

The GGPNC has 19 seats; 10 council members are elected by stateholders – people who live, work, or own property in the council district.  The council appoints the remaining 9 council members.  No other neighborhood council appoints such a high percentage of its membership.  This has developed into the most visible and contentious issue in the council election.

The Los Feliz Ledger, which featured the October 2009 headline “GGPNC Re-Elects Itself,” has editorialized against the practice.  A slate of 10 candidates, with a webpage titled “Los Feliz Forward” and links from the Los Feliz Facebook page, has formed with the pledge to reform the council.

I am aware of this controversy only because of the coverage provided by the Los Feliz Ledger.  Until the evening of the candidate forum, I had never discussed the issue with any neighbors, nor heard it discussed.  Note that the Los Feliz Ledger is hardly impartial; the editor is clearly in the camp of the ‘reformers’ and critics of the reformers regard the newspaper’s coverage as representing the editor’s viewpoint.

The provision in the GGPNC bylaws specifying appointment of 9 of 19 members seeks to guarantee that each of five interest groups have at least one representative on the council.  The constituencies guaranteed representation by appointment are: business, religious, educational, recreational, and “non-residential or charitable.” The authors of the GGPNC bylaws were apparently concerned that without special appointments, these groups might otherwise lack representation on the council.

While assuring representation for every critical group in the community is well-intentioned, no other neighborhood council in the city has seen fit to carve out so many appointed slots in its bylaws.  One might also question why these five interest groups required special protection, while others went unprotected.  What about renters?  Or bicyclists?  And why 10 appointed seats to protect 5 special constituencies?

Critics suggest that in appointing 9 of 19 council members, the council has become a ‘self-perpetuating’ group.  This criticism focuses not just on the undemocratic structure of the council – with a bare majority of council members elected by neighborhood stakeholders, but also on actual council decisions in selecting representatives.  Disappointed candidates and others found reason to fault the council’s judgment.  Charges of cronyism surfaced on one side.  On the other side, critics were regarded as bringing discord and ill-feelings to the table.

The council’s critics set out to reform GGPNC and they appeared exceptionally well-prepared to compete in last Saturday’s election.

Election results will hinge on turnout.

[Editor’s note: I am on spring break this week; all posts were written on Saturday and scheduled to appear during my absence.  This is why I make no reference to the election results, which may be known by now.]

Next post: Reflections on the Candidate Forum and the Election Campaign

Previous posts:

• Second post: Does Participation Increase as Democracy Gets Closer?
• First post: Neighborhood Councils Bring Direct Democracy Close to Home

Neighborhood councils in Los Angeles are an attempt to bring direct democracy to our neighborhoods.  The Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council, as certified by the city, encompasses Los Feliz, including Griffith Park, Franklin Hills, and portions of East Hollywood and Silver Lake.  But if you compare the map of the Los Feliz Improvement Association (the neighborhood association, which had an analogous role to City-sanctioned councils for many years) with a map of GGPNC, there is a rough match.  GGPNC is mostly Los Feliz.

I have lived in Los Feliz for a dozen years in a charming house within walking distance of a host of shops on Vermont.  I’m near enough Griffith Park to run on the trails at least a couple of times a week.  (The run features wildflowers in bloom now.)  It’s an attractive neighborhood.

I have had an avid interest in politics since my early teenage years.  I have had many gigs in political campaigns stretching back more than three decades.  I enjoy reading and discussing politics, public policy, and political philosophy.  I write distant elected representatives to offer counsel on the decisions they make and I call local government staff to prompt action when I think it’s needed.

So, I am invested in my neighborhood and I am politically active.  Yet, although I have lived in the district since the GGPNC was formed, until last Thursday night, I had – with one exception (attending a meeting years ago to object, along with 200 of my neighbors, to a permit parking proposal) – no experience or interaction with the council.

Saturday I voted in a GGPNC election for the first time; the preceding Thursday I attended a candidate forum.

Although the Los Feliz Ledger (delivered on my front lawn every month) has provided coverage of issues related to the GGPNC, I know relatively little about how the council has functioned, what it has accomplished, or why my neighborhood may be better off because of it.

I believe most of my Los Feliz neighbors – 30,000 or so – are not much better informed about, nor more highly engaged with the GGPNC than I am.

Saturday evening (as I write) the Los Feliz Ledger predicted a turnout of 1,000 voters.  One observer I spoke with early Saturday afternoon offered an estimate of turnout (at that point) that would suggest a much higher number of participants – in the neighborhood of 1,500.

It is likely that the highly motivated, well-organized Los Feliz Forward slate succeeded in boosting participation.

[Editor’s note: I am on spring break this week; all posts were written on Saturday and scheduled to appear during my absence.]

Next post: Elections and Appointments: How Much Democracy Is Too Little?

Previous post: Neighborhood Councils Bring Direct Democracy Close to Home

The Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council (GGPNC) is one of 90 councils representing neighborhoods throughout the City of Los Angeles.  The plan to establish the councils, which operate under the auspices of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, was adopted in 2001 following adoption of a new city charter in 1999.  The councils bring direct democracy into nearly every neighborhood in the city.  (Westwood’s neighborhood council is the newest; a few neighborhoods are still unrepresented.)  The council system is designed to make city government more responsive to neighborhood concerns.  There are only 11 15 seats on the city council.  Since neighborhood councils are much smaller, there are far more opportunities for citizen participation, while the concerns of a distinctive neighborhood are more likely to receive attention.

Saturday, March 20 the Office of City Clerk held an election for 10 seats on the council (as well as elections in eight other neighborhood council districts).  All stakeholders in the district at least 13 years of age – yes, 13 – were eligible to vote.  This is an example of neighborhood autonomy.  Each neighborhood council drafts its own bylaws, which in the GGPNC permit 13 year old voters.

A stakeholder is anyone who lives, works, or owns property in the district (plus anyone else who can confirm a stake in the district).  GGPNC’s website places the district’s population at 37,000.  Based on demographic information and a number of conservative assumptions, well over 30,000 residents were eligible to vote, plus an unknown number of additional stakeholders. (Unlike most local, state, or federal elections, stakeholders need not be registered voters to participate in a neighborhood council election.)

The City Clerk will begin counting ballots on Monday and release official figures within a week.

This is the first in a brief series of posts offering impressions of the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council from the perspective of a low-information resident (myself) who participated as a voting stakeholder for the first time since the council was formed.

[Editor’s note: I am on spring break this week; all posts were written on Saturday and scheduled to appear during my absence.]

Next post: Does Participation Increase as Democracy Gets Closer?

This is my final post on the 18^th annual summit of the Empowerment Congress (a program of the California Community Empowerment Foundation), which was held last Saturday at California State University at Dominguez Hills.

The program included a welcome and introductions, a year-end review of activities in the Second District by Mark Ridley-Thomas, and a keynote address by Marian Wright Edelman for everyone assembled.  The second half of the conference featured nine break-out sessions.  I attended the workshop titled ‘Accessing County Services to Enhance and Empower Communities,’ which featured a panel discussion moderated by Steven Vasquez (CEO of GoodLife with Gabby).

Panelists included:

• Val LiHang Jacobo (CEO of the Jasmar Group and managing partner of Vajon LLC), who said, in speaking about organizing within the Pacific Islander community, “Empowerment is an art form… But the word itself is disingenuous.  It presupposes that you don’t have it.”
• Mary Jones-Darks (founding member of Baldwin Village Community in Action), who related her experiences attending community meetings, sitting in the back, and finally becoming an active volunteer.  She offered an insight that will resonate with many volunteers: even if you have 20 or 25 people in your group, “it’s going to be 4 or 5 of you doing all the work ….”  Later she spoke about the diversity of ethnic and cultural groups represented in her neighborhood.  “We live in the community together and we have to learn how to do that…. It’s a work in-progress.”
• Maria Verduzco-Smith (retired from Xerox, she has served in many leadership roles in the Lennox Coordinating Council), who offered a number of insights into activism including, “Once you’re an activist, they always ask you to do something else.” and
• Grace Cainoy Weltman (founding executive director of the Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles) , who became active in the Empowerment Congress as a USC student 16 years ago.

Ms. Weltman presented an overview of strategic approach taken by Empowerment Congress to create active, engaged citizens prepared to take charge of their communities:

Educate – holding annual summits and town hall meetings; finding opportunities to train communities and constituents; disseminating information; and developing leadership within the community.
Engage – convening around specific issues; finding opportunities to get people involved; staging dialogues and community discussions; responding to issues and events in a timely way; and sustaining activities and events.
Empower: mobilizing communities and groups around specific issues to act and make changes that improve their lives – arranging meetings with decision-makers and elected officials; conducting public campaigns (phone banks, post cards, media engagement); speaking and testifying; proposing solutions; and hosting events.

This is a model that works.  Two of the panelists related their embarrassment, before becoming activists, about their neighborhoods – because of the social problems associated with them.  Mary Jones-Darks, who lives in Baldwin Village (near Crenshaw), which had transitioned from an affluent community to one with many needs, told people she lived “south of the 10 freeway.”  Mary Verduzco-Smith, born and raised in Santa Monica, moved to Lennox and told people that she lived “east of the airport.”

But once they became active – taking responsibility for their communities, organizing their neighbors, and bringing about positive changes – they experienced a pride in their neighborhoods.

(The photograph features Grace Weltman.)

This is the second post in a brief series about the 18^th annual summit of the Empowerment Congress, which was held last Saturday at CSU Dominguez Hills.  (The first post is here.)

Mark Ridley-Thomas spoke at the gathering, offering a year-end review of activities in the Second District during 2009, before introducing keynote speaker Marian Wright Edelman.    The range of activities highlighted included this handful:

• a Florencia 13 gang injunction in partnership with Sheriff Lee Baca;
• beginning a series of motions before the Board of Supervisors to end child deaths – “I am on a mission and I encourage you to join me!”;
• a congestion pricing plan for the 110 and 10 freeways;
• an environmental battle in Baldwin Hills over oil derricks; and, of course,
• the decision of the Board of Supervisors to reopen Martin Luther King, Jr. Hospital (which LA Philanthropy Watch covered in a previous post).

The brief video shown just before Mr. Ridley-Thomas’ remarks illustrated the significance of the Empowerment Congress – and the citizens who are inspired to action on behalf of their communities.  There were clips of the Supervisor imploring residents of his district to demonstrate their support for MLK hospital by attending the Board of Supervisors’ meeting when the reopening of the facility was under consideration.  And turn out, they did.  There was standing room only at the Tuesday morning meeting.

The Empowerment Congress and the citizen-activists who comprise the organization create the conditions to bring about change.  Their presence at a Board meeting bore witness to the importance of the hospital to their community in a more powerful way than Mark Ridley-Thomas could have mustered on his own.  This gets to the heart of what community organizing is all about.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the Empowerment Congress is a program of the California Community Empowerment Foundation (which is one of scores of projects of Community Partners).

My next post on the annual summit will feature Marian Wright Edelman’s keynote address.

(Photo of Mark Ridley-Thomas holding up his iPhone as he urged the audience, at the beginning of his remarks, to text donations in support of aid efforts in  Haiti.)

Sixteen hundred people attended the 18th annual summit of the Empowerment Congress on Saturday at CSU Dominguez Hills.  The theme was “We Are the Second District: Educated, Engaged, and Empowered for Action.”

The Second District, of course, is the area represented by Mark Ridley-Thomas, who was elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in November 2008.  More than 2.3 million people reside in this huge, sprawling district – one of five in the nation’s most populous county – which includes “Carson, Compton, Culver City, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood and Lynwood, portions or all of ten out of fifteen Los Angeles City Council Districts and the unincorporated communities, of Alondra Park, Athens, Del Aire, Dominguez, East Compton, El Camino Village, Florence, Ladera Heights, Lennox, View Park, West Athens, West Carson, West Compton and Willowbrook.”

Supervisor Ridley-Thomas launched the Empowerment Congress in the early ’90s after his election to the Los Angeles City Council and continued to nurture the organization during his tenure in the California State Senate and, now, as County Supervisor.  Initially, the Empowerment Congress was one of many citizen-activist groups without a formal tax designation, but four years ago it became a program of the California Community Empowerment Foundation, which is a project of Community Partners, the LA 501(c)(3) that serves as an incubator – offering support and infrastructure – for fledgling organizations.

What’s the role of the Empowerment Congress?  As near as I can tell: to train the constituents of Mark Ridley-Thomas to become community organizers – to learn, first-hand, how to organize their neighbors and enlist local government in their efforts to solve neighborhood problems.

What a great idea!  This is hands-on democracy that’s straight out of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and an ideal role for the nonprofit and voluntary sector.  And, obviously, based on the enthusiastic crowd that turned out on a Saturday morning and the stories that local activists told, the Empowerment Congress has been highly successful.

In the next few days, I will offer a series of posts on this summit.

A December 3 News Update in the Chronicle of Philanthropy features the results of a national survey on volunteering.  Some of the results:

Americans who volunteered their time and skills in the past year donated an average of 10 times more to charity than folks who don’t volunteer – $2,593 vs. $230 annually.

Two-thirds (67%) of volunteers say they generally make financial contributions to the same organizations where they volunteer.

Almost half (47%) surveyed volunteers are more motivated by what they get from their experience than by what they can do for others.

Half (51%) are more likely to volunteer for an organization that has other volunteers in their age group – especially volunteers under 35 years old (59%).  A third (33%) of this under-35 group volunteer in order to network professionally (vs. 14% of volunteers over 55).  Volunteer rates increase with educational level: 61% of Americans with post-graduate degrees volunteer; 56%, with college degrees; and 36% of high school graduates.

Top reasons to volunteer:

• Supporting a cause they care about – 72%
• Because it is the right thing to do - 69%
• To fill an unmet need in the community – 54%
• To set an example for family and children – 53%

Almost a third (31%) of volunteers say they are more likely to volunteer because of the economic slowdown.  Middle aged adults (35-54) were more likely to volunteer (56%), than those older (38%) or younger (33%).  More than half (54%) of women volunteered at least monthly vs. 43% of men.

A Fund Raising Tip: The link between volunteering and giving is well-established.  This is at the center of basic fund raising strategy.  People are more likely to give – and to give progressively larger gifts – if they are involved with your nonprofit.  Volunteering is among the best ways to increase their involvement.  If they care enough to volunteer, and have an opportunity to see up close the difference your organization makes, their commitment will increase – and their willingness to give dollars (not just time).

Skilled Volunteer Roles: Finding meaningful roles and assignments for volunteers can be challenging for nonprofits.  The October 15 Chronicle of Philanthropy featured an article [subscription required] by Ben Gose, “Can the Nonprofit World Handle a Flood of Helpers,” which discussed the disappointing experiences – such as not getting their phone calls returned – prospective volunteers had when they contacted a charity they wished to help.   An April 2009 survey by Deloitte found that 95% of nonprofits want and need pro bono assistance and skilled volunteers, yet 35% do not have sufficient infrastructure to train and manage volunteers and 24% have no plans to deploy skilled volunteers or pro bono support in 2009.

As Karen Baker, California Secretary of Service and Volunteering, told the Chronicle, most nonprofits don’t even have a system for handling phone inquiries from volunteers, and while volunteers might bring enthusiasm to their role, “most nonprofits aren’t as prepared as they would like to be to take good advantage of that energy.”

The survey of 1,005 respondents from October 21-25 was conducted by Harris Interactive for the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and VolunteerMatch.

Greg Baldwin at VolunteerMatch was disappointed with the results of the Entertainment Industry Foundation’s iParticipate campaign to write volunteering themes into TV programs (which I mentioned in an October 25 post).  “But despite the best of intentions and millions of dollars worth of promotion and PSAs yesterday’s star-studded TV event didn’t work as planned,”  writes Mr. Baldwin; he reports that his organization received more hits on its website as a result of Google searches than TV shows.

Allison Fine offers sensible comments with some perspective in response.  She suggests, for instance, that we don’t live in an either/or world and that the messages may move people eventually (even if they didn’t click on VolunteerMatch’s website last Thursday).  She also writes, “This is an opportunity  for volunteer matching websites and organizations, and the nonprofit organizations that use volunteers, to engage with EIF to develop a longer-term strategy of how to continue to raise the importance and opportunities of volunteerism.”

Here is a free link (no subscription required) to a September Chronicle of Philanthropy article on the TV campaign.

Editor’s note: On October 22 I reported on the Reimagining Service initiative and suggested that I would explore issues related to it in future posts.  This is an installment in that series.

Have you noticed Volunteer Week – October 19 through October 25 – on TV?  Today was the last day.  The Chronicle of Philanthropy described the themed programming last month (no subscription required for this link), “In an unprecedented effort coordinated by the Entertainment Industry Foundation, a leading Hollywood charity, more than 60 national TV programs have agreed to incorporate story lines about volunteers into their scripts, highlight real-life volunteers, air public-service announcements, or ask cast members to create a ‘tag’ at the end of their show encouraging people to volunteer.”  ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC (as well as several cable networks) took part.

The Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF) has also launched the iParticipate initiative, complete with website that boasts a blog, Facebook links, and a widget to search for volunteer opportunities, to encourage volunteerism and service.  (EIF was also involved in UCLA’s Day of Community Service, which I reported on in a September 23 post.)

Heather Carpenter, who blogs at Nonprofit Leadership 601, was distressed to find scathing criticism of these do-good initiatives – from Glenn Beck (with whom Ms. Carpenter is unfamiliar).  Here’s the YouTube link, titled – Glenn Beck: Obama’s Call for Volunteerism = “Communism”.

In brief, Beck objects because he sees a sinister hand in EIF’s initiatives, each of which “falls into line with President Obama’s Corporation for National and Community Service and a call for more service and volunteerism …”

“Well, this is fantastic,” he exclaims. “It’s almost like we’re living in Mao’s China right now!”

He proceeds to mock, in turn, Michelle Obama, Ashton Kucher, NBC, and Disney.   Why Disney (apart from the fact, as Beck notes in passing, that they’re “the owners of ABC Television”)?  Because beginning in January, Disney will offer a free day at Disney World or Disneyland to folks who volunteer for a day at a nonprofit.  This exchange – a free day at a theme park for voluntary service (”Isn’t it working for free?”) – concerns Mr. Beck.

“Celebrities are coming together to make it cool to volunteer.  Disney gives you a free day at the park.  This is all fine, but doesn’t it seem a little bit convenient that all of this comes out now at the same time the Obama Administration is calling for it?  Mmm.  Obama controls the message through the media he holds in his pocket.  Or in his little hand – that soon, if you disobey, he’ll just go–” And here Beck, holding one palm up, forcefully smacks the other hand down on it – as if crushing a small, pitiful creature.

While the unpolitical Ms. Carpenter isn’t familiar with Beck, John C. Ronquillo is; he begins his post by saying, “…I view Mr. Beck first and foremost as an entertainer.”  Nonetheless, Mr. Ronquillo is unprepared for this bit of performance art.  “Upon my first viewing of the video, I was angry, but also perplexed. Is it really conceivable that Beck is truly that anti-volunteerism?”

Apparently so.  In an era when a major television news network is virtually indistinguishable from talk radio, and when Barack Obama is associated with service and volunteerism, it may be difficult to find consensus on their value or on the value of promoting them.