Panel Endorses Neighborhood Council System

The Elected Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission took a first step Saturday toward fundamentally restructuring city government, endorsing a system of elected neighborhood councils with some decision-making powers.

The move, which still faces a number of hurdles, would be unprecedented. Many American cities have neighborhood councils, but all are in advisory roles.

The commission’s action was tentative. It is scheduled to take public comment and reconsider the proposal before putting it on the ballot for voters next spring.

But in an initial attempt to define the types of decisions neighborhood councils should make, the commission voted to give the neighborhood bodies control over a small but as yet unspecified portion of the city budget. The neighborhoods could use the money to purchase “additional capital projects or additional services” from the city.

It left for another day thornier questions of what role neighborhood councils should have in making decisions about how land can be used.

Commission Chairman Erwin Chemerinsky, a USC law professor, offered this example of the sort of financial decisions that neighborhood councils would make: One council might decide that its area would benefit most from having a library stay open an additional day, while another might prefer to spend a portion of its discretionary funds for an additional staffer in a park.

The commission voted to give neighborhood councils the right to weigh in on city-wide budget priorities in an advisory capacity.

But the concept of having neighborhood councils with only advisory powers was soundly rejected. Recalling his days on a student council whose every decision was vetoed by administrators, Chemerinsky said: “I don’t see any point in institutionalizing student government.”

Commissioner Bennett Kayser, a schoolteacher and longtime neighborhood activist, said a visit to Portland for a neighborhood council convention last weekend solidified his views that advisory-only powers would be a sham.

Advocates of advisory powers suggest that neighborhood councils in other cities have been very influential even without the power to make decisions. But Kayser said that participants in cities such as Dayton, Ohio, which is frequently cited as a neighborhood council success story, told him they have influence on noncontroversial matters such as neighborhood cleanups. However, “they weren’t even invited to the table” for discussions on more serious matters, such as whether a landfill should be located in the same neighborhood as a prison.

The elected commission’s actions put it at odds with those of a second charter commission, appointed by the City Council. That commission has tentatively endorsed advisory neighborhood councils, which would be guaranteed first crack at reviewing “certain” as yet unspecified city decisions and making recommendations on them to the City Council.

The appointed commission must win approval for its proposals from the City Council before they can be submitted to voters. The elected commission can place its proposals directly on the ballot. Both commissions have committed themselves to trying to iron out differences in the hope of lessening confusion by presenting one unified plan. But the neighborhood council issue appears to be a likely stumbling block.

The elected commission’s actions also put it at loggerheads with corporate interests that have complained about the cost and complexity of dealing with an additional layer of government.

Particularly vocal has been Sam Bell, president of a group of 24 major corporate chief executive officers who call themselves Los Angeles Business Advisors. On Saturday, Bell reiterated what some commissioners have taken as a threat that big business will fund a campaign against any proposed charter that provides for elected, decision-making neighborhood councils.

“LABA suggests that it is . . . likely that such councils will kill charter reform,” Bell said, adding that he was not making a threat. “LABA cannot support” elected, decision-making neighborhood councils.

Three directors of Times Mirror Co., which publishes the Los Angeles Times, including Times Publisher Mark Willes, are members of the business group. The group, whose position on neighborhood councils is similar to that of The Times’ editorial pages, wants to increase opportunities for civic participation by radically expanding the City Council from 15 to 35 members--a move its says would have little or no additional cost.

An elected commission subgroup has estimated an annual price tag for neighborhood councils of up to $15 million.

Just as adamant that decision-making neighborhood councils are essential to charter reform are some homeowner groups, which have suggested that they will not support a new charter without them.

Commissioner Paul Boland suggested trying to get homeowner and business groups to work out their differences, particularly on acceptable roles for neighborhood councils in land-use matters. But the immediate business reaction was frigid. “We will participate but . . . there is not a lot to discuss,” said Matt Klink, a spokesman for the business group.

The commission did not decide how many neighborhood councils to have, how to draw their boundaries or how much staff they should have.

But the commission tentatively settled another participation question by deciding that only registered voters who reside in the neighborhood should be able to select and serve as neighborhood representatives. This would leave others with an interest in a neighborhood’s affairs, such as businesses, absentee property owners and social service providers, with advisory roles. It would also exclude formal participation by noncitizens, who in some Los Angeles neighborhoods are a majority of the adult population.

Saturday’s decisions, made with the support of eight or more of the 15 commissioners, were taken in the absence of five of them. Commission staff said that Gloria Romero was campaigning for an Assembly seat, Marguerite Archie-Hudson was campaigning for a state Senate seat, Jackie Dupont-Walker and Marcos Castaneda were campaigning for others, and Rob Glushon was attending his son’s bar mitzvah.