Flawed Councils May Stifle, Not Empower

The formation of neighborhood councils throughout Los Angeles is now underway, as the city attorney and City Council work on the ordinances the voters mandated in the last election. Included is the establishment of a Department of Neighborhood Empowerment with a director, a seven-member Board of Neighborhood Commissioners and neighborhood advisory councils in all parts of the city.

Will these advisory councils result in more citizen participation, more responsive government and serve the goals that the voters overwhelmingly mandated?

We think not. In our opinion, the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, the new Board of Neighborhood Commissioners and the neighborhood councils are flawed. What will actually result is a reduction in the voice of ordinary citizens and an even more dysfunctional city government.

The Board of Neighborhood Commissioners will be composed of seven individuals who will set policy. Each will be appointed by the mayor and thus will be responsible only to the mayor. This is clearly a case of the one who pays the piper calling the tune.

All communities throughout the city are to have neighborhood councils charged with reflecting the “diverse geographic areas of the city and the diversity of communities, neighborhoods, ethnicity, race, gender, age and sexual orientation.”

However, the implementing ordinance recently adopted states, “The neighborhood council membership will be open to everyone who lives, works, owns property or otherwise identifies themselves as a stakeholder in the area.”

What will this mean in practice? The Southland Corp., with its many 7-Eleven stores, is a stakeholder in the community. Will it be empowered to make recommendations or monitor such matters as alcohol license, community signage regulations, conditional-use permits and the like, even though the owners may not live in the community?

One might reason that because these councils are only advisory, this will not be a problem.

But there is much potential for mischief and abuse in so-called advisory councils.

Advisory committees have long been misused by local government to frustrate rather than increase the voice of citizens. One need only look at the Van Nuys Airport Citizens Advisory Council to see this.

The airport council was initiated by the City Council in 1985 in response to a community outcry against the growing noise problem at the airport. A council of citizens was formed to “review issues affecting the operation and development of the Van Nuys Airport, and to provide advice and recommendations to the airport commissioners, mayor, council offices and others.” The council was composed of appointees of the mayor, Department of Airports and City Council.

*

An advisory council at first seemed like a good idea, a chance for ordinary citizens to make their voices heard and for grass-roots community involvement.

But most of the individuals appointed to the council were pro-airport or opposed significant noise controls. It became clear that the panel charged with reducing noise was nothing more than the rooting section for aviation interests.

The Department of Neighborhoods will maintain an official list of “certified” neighborhood councils. Unless existing homeowners groups become certified by official powers at City Hall, their role will be marginalized. Although this may not be the intended effect of charter reform, it may be the unintended consequence.

Some people fear that a certified list of community organizations will mean that Big Brother will take control of community input. These approved neighborhood councils may well become an elite, officially anointed group, locking out others.

*

The new charter leaves open the details of how each member of the neighborhood council is to be elected, appointed or otherwise selected. Will this mean that big money and power will dominate these councils? For example, one of the San Fernando Valley’s most influential business owners and a powerful, politically well-connected land-use attorney both live in one neighborhood and will quality for membership on a neighborhood council. It does not take too much imagination to see how the views of these two influential residents might overwhelm others on a council.

The new charter does not state that neighborhood councils must expressly follow the open government provisions of the Brown Act or the California Public Records Act. They must only “adopt fair and open procedures for the conduct of their business.” Without proper safeguards, residents could see more closed, not open government.

Until the final ordinances are drafted and adopted by the City Council, there will be much uncertainty. But one thing is clear: A failure of the new neighborhood councils to deliver more grass-roots democracy will undoubtedly take us one step closer to Valley cityhood.

Gerald A. Silver is president of Homeowners of Encino. Myrna L. Silver is a writer. Both live in Encino.