To: Interested Parties 

COMMENTS  of  J. H. McQUISTON  on  City  Attorney  Opinion No. 2004:7

Analysis  of  Neighborhood  Council  Legal  Framework 

Although the City Attorney is entitled to set forth an Opinion, if it does not define the “legal framework” accurately with respect to the motivating rationale for Neighborhood Councils, the Charter-driven options, and the alternative ways these may be effected, the Opinion will be of little use.

The Opinion made inaccurate assumptions, of inconclusive facts, leading to indeterminate conclusions.  The Opinion ignored more-basic flaws in the Department and Neighborhood Council structures.

Neither the Ordinance enabling the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, nor the Plan which the Department created and the City Council enacted, complies with City-Charter mandates.  It is inappropriate to ground the Opinion on the status quo.

The Opinion should consist of three parts, to be “the first in a series of reports addressing the legislative and regulatory scheme applicable to neighborhood councils”.  First, it must set forth the purpose and role of neighborhood councils.  Second, it must set forth a structure which achieves that purpose.  Third, it must examine the current structure, which does  not achieve  that purpose, and amend it to comply with the second part.

The Opinion is deficient because it addressed none of them.  The City is not searching for a justification of the status quo.  The status quo doesn’t work.  It doesn’t satisfy the purpose.  It isn’t even compliant with the City Charter.  The City wants a workable scheme.

By letter of February 4, 2004, the City Attorney noted that neighborhood councils may have been put “on a path strikingly different from that envisioned by the Charter’s framers and City residents”.

He urged “the City’s policy makers revisit the vision for neighborhood councils and strategically chart a course that allows our residents to realize that vision.”

However, the City Attorney does not  legislate.  He gives advice on a legislator’s brainstorm.  He said his office would evaluate and make recommendations to realize the original vision, but in our City the City Council is the policy-maker.

It is unfair to require the City Attorney to originate the second part.  The City Council must be the originator, now.

The City Attorney admits of observations only lately, with respect to neighborhood-council matters.  Others have a longer association and experience with the movement.  These people can assist the Council, to effect a result which will achieve the intent and structure set forth in the Charter.

A History of Hostility by Officials

Every analysis must address the fact that the Charter’s inclusion of Neighborhood Councils was met with substantial hostility by previously-incumbent officials, as a perceived threat to their authority.  It was placed before the voters only because the Charter Commission had the power to do so by itself; as a consequence, the officials acquiesced.

Upon Charter enactment, previously-incumbent officials defused the Charter by adopting an ineffective enabling-ordinance, No. 172728, July 26, 1999. 

Thereafter, an ill-chosen option by the City Attorney hobbled the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners, including prior Charter Commission members serving on that Board, crippling their ability to create the policy for the operational Plan to which their Charter entitled them.

All this was accompanied by the realization that if the Mayor was upset with the conformity of Board or General Manager to the Mayor’s dictates, the Mayor could replace all with others more conformist.

The Council subjected the Board  to unjustified humiliation, plus butchering the Plan further; over substantial objections; seasoned politicos designated the Council’s final version as unworkable.

Presently, we have a Mayor who finds benefit in neighborhood councils, even though they may check substantially the Mayor’s power, under the current Charter.  This City Council realizes that assistance of neighborhood councils is essential for harmonious and beneficial City operations.

The next Mayor may not be  receptive to reconfiguring neighborhood councils.  Time is of the essence, for the Council to correct the ordinances and Plan, so Charter Article IX will function as intended.

                  I.  ANALYSIS OF CHARTER REQUIREMENTS

Careful analysis of Charter Article IX requires that no part may be dismissed as surplusage. 

1.  GENERAL SUMMARY

(A)  Article IX may be construed en toto as the City’s vehicle for enlisting assistance from citizens, via their First-Amendment rights, to assemble, and to petition their government about grievances.

(B)  Article IX may also be construed as the City’s vehicle for assuring that the groups, which the City intends to rely upon for the help that is critical to the City’s well-being,  accurately represent the stakeholders comprising those groups.

(C)  For specific help, the City offers assisting-groups various incentives: training, outreach, locating resources, meetings of Congresses, and grants of funds.

(D)  Article IX only requires participating groups to maintain openness, perform outreach, be inclusive,  not to discriminate, and to possess appropriate documentation of their activities.

(E)  Article IX also provides for evaluating the neighborhood councils by the City, to determine if the results expected of them by the City are achieved, and provides a means to correct defects.

(F)  Article IX does not permit the City to force any locality to form a neighborhood council, nor may the City force a neighborhood council to become certified, nor may any group be denied City access. 

2.  PURPOSE

The First Amendment guarantees that the government may not abridge people’s freedom of speech, nor infringe on civil rights, of people peaceably to assemble, and of people to petition the government for redress of their grievances.

In practice, people find it difficult to be informed about matters of City government, so they have felt disconnected from it, and thereby disadvantaged.

Additionally, people appearing before City bodies claim to represent the position of a host of others, but the City has had no way to verify their bona fides, and if those they claim to represent actually know their alleged spokesman, and if they were apprised of the subject matter.

To inform, various governments enacted an assortment of “freedom of information” statutes, and required certain governmental and quasi-legislative bodies to advertise decision-making hearings. But the spokesman’s-authenticity issue remained.

Considering the Charter’s realignment of powers, the Elected Charter Commission encountered a major issue:  If only the Mayor were given the power to execute laws, and the Council were only to legislate, then Council may not force the Mayor to execute a law the Council enacted.

Commissioners noted that the United States Supreme Court, in Springer v. Philippine Islands, denied executive power to a body which controlling law deemed “legislative”.  The City Charter deems the Council legislative in Section 240.  The Mayor is assigned the power to execute laws in Section 230.  The City Charter established the same contest between Council and Mayor as exists between Congress and the President.

To assure the Mayor’s proper execution of laws, the Council requires another, “injured” party, to take appropriate action to insure the Mayor executes the law.

That party cannot be effective if a part of City government, but a First-Amendment group can be highly effective.  Reinforcing  its “petition” to the Mayor is the prospect of a lawsuit, available only to a party not part of City government.

The Purpose stated in Sec 900 clearly encourages First-Amendment participation in City government.  It uses the word “citizen”, which governments use to describe non-governmental persons.  It aims to make “government” more responsive, clearly identifying that “citizen-involvement” is necessary to curb the unbridled Mayoral power.  But the word “and” clearly sets the City Department of Neighborhood Empowerment apart from the City’s desire to enlist the First-Amendment power of citizens.

The Purpose also requires that the citizenry be accurately represented by the spokesperson. The City needs assurance that it may believe what is being related to it by an alleged group-representative.

The Purpose clearly states that neighborhood councils have no executive nor legislative authority, are only  allowed an advisory role, and for Article IX matters may advise only on issues of concern to the neighborhood.  Of course, issues arising outside that neighborhood may generate concern within it.

The plain language of the Charter may not be interpreted to make any Neighborhood Council, organized in accordance with the Charter’s Purpose, even remotely a government agent.

Every word, sentence, and idea expressed in the Purpose validates the intent that Neighborhood Councils are to be First-Amendment groups, to enable them to fulfill the Purpose of the Article.
 

3.  DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT

There is an ambiguity in the Article.  The Article is captioned Department of Neighborhood Empowerment;  yet, sections of the Article are not about the “Department”.  Substantial ambiguity concerns the relationship of Sec 902, Board, to Sec 901, Department.  The Board per Sec 902(b) is responsible for policy setting, so the Board, not the General Manager, should be appearing at Council hearings pertaining to policy.  The critical issue is whether the Board or the General Manager gets to dictate major policy by creating the Plan of Sec 901(a).  If the Board is a part of the Department, the Board controls the preparation of the Plan.

Inasmuch as Sec 902 clearly delegates “policy” to the Board, and Sec 902 clearly delegates “management” to the General manager by inference to Sec 903, and the duties of the General Manager are separately set forth in Sec 903, not Sec 901, then the ambiguity must be resolved per Sec 902 & 903.  The phrase “Department of Neighborhood Empowerment” must refer to both Board and General Manager.

So, duties pertaining to the Department, set forth in the Article, are to be divided per Sec 902 & 903 between the Board and General Manager. 

4.  POWER OF DEPARTMENT

The Article does not give the Department the power to control any neighborhood council.  The First Amendment prohibits it.  The Department may give assistance only if asked to do so by the specific council. However, the Department may make certain specified and limited determinations, but no other, to validate bona fides.  The First Amendment, and various Civil Rights laws, permit such determinations.

Sec 905 empowers the Department to dictate regulations “binding upon all City Departments and offices”.  The practical effect is that regulations per Sec 907, created by the policy-making Board, are to be followed by all City Departments and offices, including the City Council as an elected office, and all other elected offices. Departments and offices have no First-Amendment right to object to the Section.

The Department’s power is tempered by the Mayor’s ability to fire the Board and General Manager at the Mayor’s pleasure.  This threat to the Article was exercised, and is serious.  The intent of the Article is to provide a restraint on the Mayoral power, but the ability to restrain depends on the Mayor’s acceptance of the Department’s work-products.

The United States had a similar independence-issue between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, which was lessened by establishing fixed-terms for the Reserve and by making dismissal difficult.  This type of structural independence is not yet believed ripe, for the Board and General Manager. 

5.  NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL PLAN

A determining fact in the Plan is that neighborhoods do not have to participate.  They have a choice.  The Charter permits free choice of organization, as long as minimal rights are preserved.  The result would be a City with unequal protection of law, if such councils were  actually part of the City Government; but if First-amendment groups there is no legitimacy-issue raised.

The specifics of Sec 904 permit no requirements in the Plan except those listed (“in conformance with the following”); there is no general grant of authority to add more criteria.  The minimal requirements in Sec 904 plainly derive assurance  that statements, purporting to be the voice of a council area, actually represent that area as a whole, not just an unrepresentative segment thereof.

The requirements in Sec 906 are described therein as the only mandatory ones necessary, either for official recognition or for certification as the council of an area.  Section 906(a) contains the phrase “at a minimum”.  The Charter does not prevent the neighborhood council itself from imposing additional requirements, but the listed requirements are the only ones which the City may impose.

Access and outreach  specified in Sec 906(a)(6) satisfies the City’s important demand on a locality: that statements allegedly representing the will of a locality actually do represent the will of the entire locality.

Section 906 (a)(6) would be unnecessary if neighborhood councils were a part of City government, instead of being First-Amendment groups for which the Brown Act is inapplicable.  This Section mandates that  every stakeholder must be guaranteed access and a voice in any “conduct of business, deliberation and decision-making”.  The access requirement  far  exceeds the Brown Act requirement.

Just because a group is required to conform to a statute, ordinance, or regulation does not mean it is an “official”, or part, of any government. Businesses are required to register and follow laws, rules, etc.  They are  not deemed “officials” or “government” thereby.  ACLU, required to conform to statutes, is dedicated to the work  of preserving First-Amendment rights, which work deeply-involves ACLU in governmental matters on behalf of its stakeholders; but no one claims ACLU is  part of government.  Neighborhood councils are analogous non-governmental agents, which must abide City rules and regulations while engaging in First-Amendment concerns about City matters as  citizen groups. 

6.  EARLY WARNING, PRIOR TO CITY DECISION-MAKING

Sec 907 recognizes that citizens cannot react if the City fails to give timely notice.  Particularly, attention was paid to citizens’ complaints regarding the unavailability of timely information.  Accordingly, Sec 907 has a broad reach and covers every decision-process of every City entity.

The term neighborhood council with adjective certified, or recognized, is not used or described as interchangeable with the term neighborhood council in this Article.  The term without the prior adjective is non-restrictive.

The phrase “procedures for receiving input from neighborhood councils prior to decisions by the City Council, City Council Committees and boards and commissions” in Sec 907 does not limit notice just to certified or recognized neighborhood councils.  Any neighborhood council is eligible.

Constructing a successful and timely early warning system is difficult, but the difficulty was well known to the Charter Commission.  They, and the voters, decided to insist upon its requirement.

Warning City stakeholders about City business is not something new.  Anyone may request warning, under various statutes antedating the Article; but the Article requires the City to be pro-active. 

7.  POWERS OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS

Sec 908 permits the City Council to let Neighborhood Councils hold public hearings, even if not certified.  But it does not permit decisions to be made at those hearings.  Hearings could gather facts, for example, which might be used by another entity.  Gathering facts, at a hearing or otherwise, is not definitive of a fact-gatherer’s governmental status.  Sec 908 reserves decision-power for the City Council alone.  Moreover, absent a supporting law, permission to delegate a hearing is denied, per the Section.  No supporting-law exists, so this Section remains a prohibition.

But the Charter cannot deny to neighborhood councils any powers possessed by First-Amendment groups. 

8.  CITY BUDGET PRIORITIZATION

Sec 909 “suggests” that the Charter wants neighborhood councils (certified or not) to submit annually its budget-priorities, but it requires the Mayor to provide timely notices to the certified councils.  Such notices may also be required of the Mayor to other groups, according to other statutes.  The Section, taken as a whole, is a specific requirement to disseminate City information, requiring no response whatsoever from the councils.

Information from the Mayor is required timely, so that a First-Amendment group may petition for redress timely. 

9.  CITY-SERVICES MONITORING

Monitoring is not a function protected by the First Amendment, but is not incompatible with it.

Sec 910 contains the brief Statement of Work for which the City may offer some compensation if it is performed by a neighborhood council.

Any neighborhood council (“certified” is not specified) may be “hired” by the City to perform work.  The work described in Sec 910 does not require polling or discussion within the neighborhood council.  It consists solely of observing the delivery of City services, in the neighborhood, and can be done by anybody.  Payment to the neighborhood council depends upon the monitor’s being assigned by the neighborhood council.  Essentially, the City will solicit work from a “consultant” operating under the rule of Article IX.  Thus, nothing in Sec 910 requires the council to be part of City government, to perform.

A neighborhood council accepting the work of Sec 910 is required to meet periodically with “responsible officials of City departments”:  that is, the persons responsible for the delivery of the services to be monitored.  However, those officials may not be summoned inconveniently;  Sec 910 grants no power to any neighborhood councilmember or group to control the activity or funding of any City official.

There is no express nor implied governmental power conveyed to any neighborhood council which accepts work from the City as set forth in Sec 910. 

10.  PAYMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED

Two years having elapsed since 1999, the first sentence of Sec 911 is inactive re: startup and functioning.

Sec 911 contains the sole permission to compensate neighborhood councils.  It contemplates that the work required of those organizations is not appropriate to be merely voluntary.  However, Sec 911 does not recognize a neighborhood council as an “employee” of the City.  The Section language must be strictly construed.

Accordingly, the Section reduces the City’s funding of neighborhood councils to the status of grants, not a right.  The City bestows grants to groups which are not recognized as part of City government.

The Section sets no guideline, regarding the relationship between the service and the payment therefor. It merely implies that appropriate payment will be negotiated.

Sec 911 does require the establishment of a special fund to compensate neighborhood councils, and requires an appropriation at least one year in advance.  It also provides for funding the Department.  The open hostility to the Elected Charter Commission’s vision for neighborhood councils may have driven the Commission to prescribe advance appropriations.

The Section does not require listing tasks, just an appropriation akin to a block grant.  Moreover, the Section does not require the appropriation to cover each expense to be incurred by any neighborhood council.  Nor does any State or other statute require specific expenses of a neighborhood council to be entirely-compensated by the City.  Nothing in the Charter requires more than one cent to be advance-appropriated for the neighborhood-council fund.

The appropriation to the advanced-year fund is not specified to be taken from current-year funding; thus, it may be pledged from funds to be realized in that advanced-year.  However, those appropriations may be reduced, or increased, to conform to the State’s requiring a balanced budget for Los Angeles.

But for the City Council to get its ordinances executed by a recalcitrant Mayor, the only group with the power to enforce the ordinance may be the affected neighborhood council.  That explains why payment for such services is vital to the purpose set forth in Sec 900. 

11.  REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE

Reviewing performance of the system of neighborhood councils, and its efficacy, is required by Sec 912.

Review is to be conducted by a separately-constituted commission, appointed by “Mayor and Council”.  It may be difficult to constitute the commission, because Mayor and Council may disagree.  Sec 912 gives no direction regarding the issue. nor its settlement.

The commission may not enforce its recommendations upon the City (“shall make recommendations”).

The review may begin at any time, but not later than 2006. 

12.  TRANSFERS OF POWERS, AND EFFECTS OF COUNCIL ORDINANCES

Sec 912 is silent about an ambiguity regarding which City entity may amend the system.  Sec 905 empowers only the Department (i.e, the Board as policy-setter and overseer) to “develop” plans and regulations therefor.  It empowers the Council to “adopt * * *  the regulations as proposed, or as modified by the Council”.  The power of the Council to modify the system at a time later than “six months after presentation” of the Board’s regulations (2000) is apparently withheld by the Charter.

Only after 2006 will Sec 913 permit the Mayor and Council to transfer powers prescribed by Charter for the Department to “any other department, office or agency pursuant to Sec 514".

Sec 514(a) entitles the Mayor to propose such a transfer, if approved by the two-thirds vote of the Council or the Council’s failure to act within 45 days after the Mayor’s submittal, and entitles the Council to propose such a transfer, if approved by the two-thirds vote of the Council or the Council’s three-fourths vote after Mayor disapproves.

Sec 514(c) permits ordinances created by the City Council to be “eliminated by an ordinance proposed by the Mayor or [City] Council”.  Only majority vote is required.

The ambiguity concerns the Council’s power to amend the Plan before 2006, in as much as an amendment would be a “transfer of power to the Council” under an interpretation of Sec 905.

There is no ambiguity concerning the Council’s power over the enabling-ordinance for the Department, however.  Amending that ordinance, alone, will require the Board to initiate action to amend the Plan and regulations, to comply with the enabling-ordinance.

That approach is not prohibited by Charter and is not time-constrained by Charter.

Sec 914 validates the above analysis.  It permits the Council to “adopt ordinances concerning neighborhood councils”, subsequent to the Plan’s enactment, if the ordinances are “consistent with the requirements for the Plan set forth in Sec 904".  Essentially,  mistakes and deficiencies in the system are correctable on the Council’s initiative. No super-majority is required.  The Section permits such an ordinance to “supercede any inconsistent Regulations that have become effective pursuant to Sec 905".

Thus may the Council, by enacting appropriate ordinances, cure a systemic mis-direction the Mayor or the Council previously instituted.

The Council may, by ordinance, give direction and require the Board to prepare specific amendments to the Plan, for approval or amendment by the Council.

For example, the Board may require the Board to configure neighborhood councils as First-Amendment groups which will comply with the minimum requirements of the Article, and which may receive appropriate grants from the City in return for promise to do work described in the Article. 

                  II. RE-STRUCTURE ACHIEVING PURPOSE 

A.  METHOD

Re-structure is governed by constraints, discussed in No. 14, above.  The Council may re-structure by appropriate amendments to ordinance No. 172728, concerning Chapter 28 of Division 22, Los Angeles Administrative Code.

Chapter 28 sets forth the enabling sections 22.800 to 22.813, within which the Charter requirements are restated and amended.  B, below, is numbered to correspond to Charter numbering, except for the last two Sections 22.813 and 22.814; which numbers are reversed to be more clear.

Chapter 28 needs specifics from City Council, so the Board controlled by the Mayor may not be induced to adopt policy which cannot fulfill the Purpose of the Article.

Chapter 28 presently contains specifics which depart from the Purpose of the Article.  This Re-structure utilizes as its format the existing Chapter, amending with bold face and repealing with delete face. 

B.  RE-STRUCTURED  ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE NO.___________________

An ordinance amending Division 22 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code, concerning the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.  Chapter 28 of Division 22 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code is hereby amended to read:

CHAPTER 28

THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT 

ARTICLE  1

PURPOSE  DUTIES  OF  THE  DEPARTMENT  CHAPTER

Sec. 22.800.  Purpose.  The purpose of this Chapter is to accomplish four important objectives for the City of Los Angeles:

(a)  To assure the appropriate execution of ordinances and regulations in the City of Los Angeles;

(b)  To solicit the aid of citizens whenever the City expects to formulate a City policy;

(c)  To assure advance notice to stakeholders when the City will be making decisions, so they may provide input before the City decides an issue; and  

(d)  To assure that grievances of stakeholders in the City of Los Angeles will be heard and settled by appropriate response of City government.

In this Chapter, “citizen” means any stakeholder which is not a City official nor City employee, and it does not pertain to a person’s citizenship status.  “Stakeholder” is any person who lives, works, or owns property within the City of Los Angeles, and shall be construed liberally. “Officers” means those who collect or decide neighborhood sentiments for transmitting to the City.

Sec. 22.800.  Purposes.  There shall be a department in the City government known as the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment which shall be referred to in this Chapter as the “Department.”  This Department shall be charged with the goal of promoting increased public participation in government and working to make government more responsive to local needs.  The Department shall ensure that every part of the City is within the boundaries of a neighborhood council.  The Department shall provide equal opportunity for all by enabling neighborhood groups to form neighborhood councils.  The Department shall facilitate the delivery of City services to the neighborhoods by helping to identify and coordinate the needs of the communities with the responsibilities of the City departments by coordinating and involving the relevant City staff in integrated problem-solving with the neighborhood councils. 

ARTICLE  2

DEPARTMENT  CONTROL  AND  MANAGEMENT

Sec. 22.801.  Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.  The Department shall consist of a Board of Neighborhood Commissioners for policy-setting, and a Staff managed by a General Manager for policy-execution.  The Department shall have the limited powers and duties set forth within this Chapter.

The duties of the Department shall include:

(a)  prepare and maintain a Plan for achieving each Purpose enumerated in Sec. 22.800 of this Chapter. The Plan shall provide an opportunity for any segment of the City to reform, to participate in it, or to abstain;

(b)  when solicited, to assist citizens in organizing their neighborhood, but not to issue commands;

(c)  if requested by neighborhoods, to arrange Congress of Neighborhood meetings;

(d)  if requested by a citizens’ group, to assist the group in acquiring their officers and their staff;

(e)  if requested by a citizens’ group, to arrange orientation sessions for the group’s officers and staff, if appropriate;

(f)  if requested by a citizens’ group, to help find resources to share between groups, so they may better-communicate with stakeholders, the City, and other groups;

(g)  perform other duties if specifically permitted by this or other ordinance. In case of conflict or ambiguity between this ordinance and another ordinance regarding the limitations on duties of the Department, this ordinance shall govern; and

(h)  the Department may not act as an intermediate contact between citizens or citizens’ groups and City officials or City employees.

Sec. 22.801.  Duties of the Department.  The Department shall:

(a)  implement and oversee compliance with City ordinances and regulations relating to a system of neighborhood councils;

(b)  prepare a Neighborhood Council Plan (Plan) for the creation of a system of neighborhood councils to ensure that every part of the City is within the boundary of a neighborhood council and that each neighborhood has an opportunity to form a neighborhood council, in accordance with Section 22.809;

(c)  determine methods for certification of neighborhood councils;

(d)  assist neighborhoods in preparing petitions for recognition or certification, identifying boundaries that minimize the division of communities and organizing themselves in accordance with the Plan;

(e)  help neighborhood councils to meet together on a citywide basis and facilitate these meetings if and when requested to do so by recognized neighborhood councils;

(f)  assist neighborhood councils with the election or selection of their officers;

(g)  assist neighborhood councils  to share resources, including offices, equipment and other forms of support and to communicate with constituents, other neighborhood councils and with government officials;

(h)  arrange training for department staff and neighborhood councils’ officers and staff, such as training in leadership, cultural awareness, dispute mediation, civics, communications, equipment utilization and any other training necessary to achieve the goals set forth in Section 22.809;

(I)  arrange community empowerment education for top level City officials, including elected officials and commissioners;

(j)  with the assistance of the Information Technology Agency, create and maintain an internal and external information and communication network, including a Citywide database of neighborhood organizations and similar information, that would be available for public use;

(k)  help coordinate the relationships between existing and newly created advisory committees and neighborhood councils;

(I)  perform other duties as provided by ordinance;

(m)  ensure that notification required in Section 22.809 (f) is provided to the neighborhood councils along with sufficient committee or staff reports on the matters of interest to facilitate meaningful participation and

(n)  facilitate citywide meetings to be held, on at least a semiannual basis of representatives of all neighborhood councils. 

ARTICLE  3

CONTROL  AND  MANAGEMENT

Sec. 22.802.  Board of Neighborhood Commissioners.

(a)  The Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (“Board” or “Commission” in this Chapter) shall consist of seven commissioners, one each from the seven Service-Cabinet areas.  Commissioners shall otherwise be appointed or removed in accordance with Charter Section 502.

(b)  The Board shall be the principal contact: (1) for policy matters, and (2) between the Department and other City officials.  The Board shall originate, amend, and oversee all matters of policy, ordinances, rules, regulations, and the like, including the approval of contracts and leases of the Department.  The Board may not manage the daily staff operations, but shall defer and leave to the General Manager the execution of the Board’s policies, rules, and regulations.  The Board may, however, audit the operations of the General Manager and staff.

(c)  Operation of the Board shall be in accordance with Charter Sections 503 through 508, and with Charter Section 510 as pertains to Board control, unless otherwise specified by this Chapter.

(d)  Conflict of Interest.  Members of and Nominees to the Board shall comply with all ethics and conflict-of-interest laws and regulations applicable to such Los Angeles City Boards and Commissions.

Sec. 22.805.  Board of Neighborhood Commissioners.

(a)  The Board of Neighborhood Commissioners shall consist of seven board members and be referred to in this Chapter as the “Board” or the “Commission.”

(b)  The Board shall be comprised of seven members, all of whom shall represent the City in its entirety. The members shall reflect the diverse geographic areas of the City and the diversity of communities of interest, neighborhoods. ethnicity, race, gender, age and sexual orientation.

(c)  The Board members shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council and may be removed by the Mayor and vacancies filled in accordance with the provisions of the City Charter.

Sec. 22.806.  Powers and Duties of the Board.  The Board shall be responsible for setting and overseeing policy, approving contracts and leases and promulgating rules and regulations. It shall not be responsible for the day- to-day management of the Department.

Sec. 22.807.  Conflict of Interest.  Members of the Board and Board nominees shall be subject to all ethics and conflict of interest laws and regulations applicable to governing boards arid commissions in the City of Los Angeles.

Sec. 22.808.  Organization and Meetings of the Board.

(a)  The Board shall adopt rules of order and appoint from among its members a president and vice~president who each shall hold office for one year or until their successors are elected, unless their respective membership on the Board ceases sooner.  The Board shall hold regular public meetings at least once each month and may hold meetings more often if necessary to conduct business.  All meetings shall be noticed and held in accordance with law.  Members of the Board shall be paid $50 per meeting for each meeting of the Board attended, not to exceed $250 in any one calendar month.

(b)  At least four members shall constitute a quorum, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is present.  The Board may establish a committee or committees composed of three of its members to consider matters for, to conduct hearings on behalf of, and make recommendations to the board on matters relating to neighborhood empowerment.

(c)  The powers conferred on the Board shall be exercised by order or resolution adopted by a majority of its members and recorded in the Board’s minutes.

Sec. 22.803.  General Manager.

(a)  The Department Staff shall be managed by a General Manager.  The General Manager shall be appointed or removed in accordance with Charter Section 508.

(b)  The General Manager shall execute administrative power in accordance with Charter Section 510, unless otherwise specified by this Chapter.

(c)  The General Manager shall observe the civil service provisions of the Charter in appointing, discharging, and prescribing duties to Department staff.

(d)  Conflict of Interest.  The General Manager shall comply with all ethics and conflict-of-interest laws and regulations applicable to such Los Angeles general managers.

Sec. 22.802.  General Manager.  The Department shall be under the control of a General Manager.

Sec. 22.803.  Appointment and Removal of the General Manager.  The General Manager shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council, and may be removed by the Mayor, as provided in Charter Section 508.

Sec. 22.804.  Powers and Duties of the General Manager.  The powers and duties of the General Manager shall be those specified in Charter Section 510. 

ARTICLE  4

SYSTEM  PLAN

Sec. 22.804.  Neighborhood Council Plan.  The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment shall be responsible for developing and refining the Plan whereby the Purpose of this Article will be effected.

(a)  The Department shall solicit citizens and citizen-groups for suggestions regarding potential contents of any Plan, regulation, or rule to be formulated or modified by the Department, and permit the testimony of recognized or certified neighborhood groups to be heard in full at any hearing thereupon.

(b)  The Plan shall contain clear statements of the Purpose as contained in this Chapter, and a specific system of effecting that purpose, including a system to measure efficacy and acceptance of its process by those to which it applies.  The Plan shall be composed as a draft ordinance which, if adopted by the City Council per Charter Sec. 250, will implement the Purpose without additional legislation.

(c)  The Plan shall describe the method by which citizen groups will choose their neighborhood boundary, and how the City will verify from time to time that the group accurately presents the sentiments of all its stakeholders.

(d)  The Plan shall allow any portion of Los Angeles to register a neighborhood council provided: (1) the portion is reasonably-compact, and (2) the portion is capable of being polled within the time permitted by ordinary City issues;  the Department shall establish such time-windows after consultation with the City entities subjected to Section 22.807.

(e)  The Plan shall describe how the Department may determine that a citizen-group is a true and accurate spokesperson for a locality.  It shall also describe how the Department may elevate a recognized citizen-group to the level of certification.

(f)  The Plan may not control any citizen-group, except as specified in this Chapter.

(g)  The Plan shall require that citizen-groups, either recognized or certified, shall abide by the operational procedures and prohibitions of this Chapter.

(h)  The Plan shall be revised by the Department, in draft form for amendment by the City Council, within 120 calendar days after the effective date on which the City revises any ordinance which has or will have an impact on either the Department or any recognized or certified citizen-group.

(i)  The Plan shall assure that citizens, organized into groups and recognized by the City, are not permitted to exercise either legislative or executive power of the City government.

(j)  The Plan shall provide for decertification of any citizen-group which, in the opinion of the City Council, has not performed adequately the work solicited by the City under Sections 22.809 and 22.810.

(k)  The Plan shall provide for a system by which the Board may resolve citizen petitions for redress of grievances, which arise from operations of the Department or rules or regulations thereof, which any citizen may employ at the citizen’s option.  The operational system for resolving grievances may be set forth in a Board regulation which is not a part of the Plan ordinance.

Sec. 22.809.  Development of the Neighborhood Council Plan.  The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment shall seek public input in its development of a Plan for a Citywide system of neighborhood councils.  The Plan shall contain a statement of goals, policies and objectives of the Neighborhood Council system, and shall contain specific regulations, in draft ordinance format.  These regulations, when adopted by ordinance, shall be sufficient to implement the Plan and shall conform with the following:

(a)  The regulations shall establish the method by which boundaries of neighborhood councils will be determined based on standards adopted by the Commission and approved by City Council.  The system for determining boundaries shall maintain neighborhood boundaries to the maximum extent feasible and may consider community planning district boundaries where appropriate.

(b)  The regulations must ensure that all areas of the City are given an equal opportunity to form neighborhood councils.

(c)  The regulations shall establish the procedure and criteria for recognition or certification of neighborhood councils.

(d)  The regulations shall not restrict the method by which the members of a neighborhood council are chosen, if  the process otherwise satisfies the requirements of this Article.

(e)  The regulations shall require that neighborhood councils adopt fair and open procedures for the conduct of their business.  However, neighborhood council meetings are not all required to be held within the boundaries of the area represented by the neighborhood council.

(f)  [NOTE:  SEE AFTER SEC. 22.807 FOR THIS SUPERSEDED PARAGRAPH]

Sec. 22.805.  Implementation of the Plan.

(a)  The Department shall submit a completed draft ordinance to the City Clerk, for City Council and Mayor approval, before putting the draft ordinance into practice, but after its approval by the Board in accordance with Charter Section 503(c).  The City Council shall consider the draft ordinance, and within 90 working days after the submission of the draft ordinance may amend, approve, or oppose the draft in its version at the Council’s final vote.  The City Council shall consider the draft ordinance of the Board under Charter Section 250.  If the Council fails to act within the time prescribed by this Section, the Board’s draft ordinance shall become effective, and to the extent not inconsistent with law shall be binding on all City government.

(b)  Regulations and rules created by the Board which do not amend the Plan or other ordinances do not require approval by the City Council, but shall be submitted to the City Clerk for filing.

Sec. 22.810.  Implementation of the Plan.  The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment shall complete development of the Plan and present it and all necessary regulations for a system of neighborhood councils to the Council and Mayor within one year of the establishment of the department and commission.  The Council shall consider the regulations and, within six months after presentation of the Plan to Council, may adopt ordinances to implement the regulations as proposed or as modified by the Council consistent with the requirements of the plan set forth above in Section 22.809.  If implementing ordinances are not adopted within the time period set forth in Charter Section 905, then the regulations adopted by the Board shall become effective, and to the extent not inconsistent with law shall be binding upon all City departments and offices. 

ARTICLE  5

OFFICIAL  RECOGNITION  CATEGORIES

Sec. 22.806.  Certification of Neighborhood Councils.

(a)  Benefit of Certification.

(1)  A certified neighborhood council is entitled to special attention from City government, because certification attests that the material presented by such citizen-group is the product of an accurate poll of stakeholders in the neighborhood council’s boundary.

(2)  A representative of such citizen-group is entitled to a full hearing of testimony without time-limitation.

(3)  The testimony of a certified neighborhood council shall be afforded special consideration by the City official to which it is directed.

(4)  Certified neighborhood councils may receive block grants from the City, for participating in work solicited through the Early Warning System by various City agencies and concerning local opinions on City issues. Recognized neighborhood councils may receive limited grants.

(b)  By-laws.  Each neighborhood council seeking certification from the Department shall submit and maintain documents proving that it complies with certification requirements with respect to its by-laws.  By-laws shall contain the items listed herein, and may contain other provisions, at the neighborhood council’s option, which do not conflict with the items listed herein:

(1)  the method by which their officers are chosen;

(2)  the boundary of the locality is defined, and defines a reasonable and compact neighborhood;

(3)  there is a reasonable expectation for a timely response to the City, upon receipt of notice from the City, concerning a local issue or an issue which might affect the locality;

(4)  neighborhood council’s expressed results shall reflect substantial outreach to all stakeholders;

(5)  the council’s collected and expressed results shall be representative of everyone who offers an opinion as a stakeholder in the boundary of the neighborhood council;

(6)  there is a system by which the neighborhood council shall communicate regularly with its stakeholders;

(7)  there exists a system, of the neighborhood council’s choice, whereby financial accountability of neighborhood council’s funds is assured, and auditing by the City and by stakeholders is guaranteed;

(8)  certainty that all meetings shall be open and public, and that non-stakeholders may attend;

(9)  intent that for every issue to be debated, persons representing all factions will be invited to present their arguments at length before a deliberation is concluded;

(10)  each stakeholder who wishes may participate in the conduct of business, deliberation, and opinion-forming or decision-making, without undue time-limitation; and

(11)  a reasonable method for resolving issues associated with structural by-laws issues, such as  substantial vacancies, inadequate outreach, chronic absences, mis-representations, stakeholder protests concerning a substantial amount of officers, or the like; but

(12)  by-laws do not need to require a certified neighborhood council to act on every request for a response from the neighborhood council.  The council may decide which issues it will address.

(c)  Petition for Certification.  A citizen-board may petition the Department for certification in accordance with the rules and procedure set forth in the Plan of Section 22.804, provided the conditions set forth in this Section are complied-with.

(d)  Alternatives to Certification.

(1)  Recognition.  A citizen group may petition the Department for recognition as a group.  A group which is recognized is entitled to notices per Sec 22.807, but the Department will notify City agencies that the group may not be representative of the area which it claims, and a recognized group may be denied benefits set forth per Section 22.806(a) until certified.  A recognized group need not comply with the certification requirements of this Section.

(2)  Unrecognized and uncertified.  A citizen group may partake of all interaction with the City not specifically granted solely to neighborhood councils.  Such groups may be homeowner, commerce, or other special-purpose group, and this Chapter does not put any restriction upon their contacts with the City government.  The Department may not evaluate how representative or meritorious is the advice of groups in this category; City agencies they contact shall evaluate the advice they offer, and  assign the relative weight to give that advice.  Such groups may not utilize Section 22.807 to obtain notices and data, but may use State and other statutes to garner information and notices.

Sec. 22.811.  Certification of Neighborhood Councils.

(a)  By Laws. Each neighborhood council seeking official certification from the City shall submit an organization plan and by-laws to the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment showing, at a minimum:

(1)  the method by which their officers are chosen;

(2)  that neighborhood council membership will be open to everyone who lives, works, owns property or otherwise identifies themselves as a stakeholder in the area, based on their participation in among other things, educational institutions, religious institutions, community organizations or other non-profit organizations;

(3)  assurances that the members of the neighborhood council will reflect the diverse interests within their area;

(4)  a system through which the neighborhood council will communicate with stakeholders on a regular basis;

(5)  a system for financial accountability of its funds; and,

(6)  guarantees that all meetings will be open and public, and permit, to the extent feasible, stakeholders to participate in the conduct of business, deliberation and decision-making.

(b)  Petitioning for Certification and Approval.  Neighborhood councils may petition for certification in accordance with rules and procedures set forth in the Plan. 

ARTICLE  6

EARLY  WARNING  SYSTEM

Sec. 22.807.  Early Warning System.  Proper notice to neighborhood councils is essential to fulfill the Purpose of this Chapter.

(a)  City Council, City Council Committees, boards, and commissions are required to provide information regarding their upcoming issues which may result in a City decision on the matter.  Information shall consist of the agenda and data required for City decision, and when information becomes available, it shall be sent to those to be notified, even if no agenda has been prepared.

(b)  Issues, which City government should reasonably-determine will affect the financial or social condition of a City locality, shall be delayed for a reasonable time to permit response by the neighborhood council of the locality, but issues may be decided thereafter, without further delay regardless of whether a response is absent or promised.

(c) Issues, which City Government should reasonably determine will not affect the financial or social condition of any City locality, may be decided without a delay for responses by neighborhood councils, but notice of the agenda shall be given, prior to decision, to those neighborhood councils which want notices of that kind of issue.

(d)  The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment shall publish “reasonable delay-times”  for City issues, for the purpose of this Section.  That publication shall be binding on all City agencies.  No single delay-time will be satisfactory for every Early-warning situation, even for one agency.

(e)  Exigencies.  If an issue demands a decision in less time than required by the publication of Sec. 22.807(d), it may go forward following a determination by the City Attorney or his delegate that there is an urgent and valid reason to do so.  In that case, notice to the areas to be affected shall be sent forthwith, at least 24 hours prior to the final decision of the issue in chief, together with an advisement about the state of exigency .  A decision required less than 15 days after notification is eligible to be determined under this paragraph.  However, City agents may not make a practice of using this paragraph, for issues which are merely mismanaged with respect to advance-notice.  A decision taken under this paragraph shall expire not later than 90 working days thereafter, unless the decision is reconfirmed after additional notice and without resort to this paragraph again.

(f)  In the absence of  verification that notice was sent as required, the failure to notify requires  continuation of the decision until appropriate notice is accomplished.

Sec.22.809(f)  Early Notification Procedures.