Letters


• Vanguard Lives! - Danny Kaplan
• Election messed up, says Reader - Richard Abcarian
• Election messed up, says Board - Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council Board

Vanguard Lives!

Dear Beachhead,
Just wanted to send you a clarification in regards to your page 5 notice of the proposed plan for the Venice Vanguard building at 120 Mildred.
The proposed new construction is to be done on the adjoining vacant lot (1902 Strongs Drive) thus retaining the existing building at 120 Mildred as is (except for a new stucco/paint job and restoring the original exterior lighting).  The entire plan for the building is to save the existing structure, not to destroy it, as your notice suggests.   
If you have any questions regarding the proposed plan, please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to walk you through it.  
P.S. - I have been a resident of Venice for 13 years and there is no one that cares more for this building and its significance to the street and community, than me.
Thank you.
Danny Kaplan

(The information in last month’s Beachhead came from a mitigated negative declaration statement filed with the city. We’re glad to hear that the Vanguard building won’t be disfigured - Ed.)
*************

Election messed up, says Reader

Dear Beachhead,

I voted against the initiative to change voter qualifications for membership in the Venice Neighborhood Council. I did so for a variety of good reasons.

I am writing this letter, however, not to argue about the substance of that initiative but to ask for clarification of the voting process. As I approached the table to get my ballot, I was startled to see that one of the people handing out the ballots was wearing a “VOTE NO” sign on his shirt. At the same moment, I heard an agitated female voice behind me asking this person why none of the people handing out ballots was wearing a “VOTE YES” sign. He blew her off.

I was startled because the image of someone handing out ballots prominently displaying his own position on the vote taking place violated everything I have learned over a lifetime of voting. How did this come to happen? And I am not asking a narrow, technical question about whether or not the regulations governing the vote did or did not permit this. I am asking how anyone thought that such disregard for the norms of democratic voting was not going to get the same negative reaction from voters ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE!

Richard Abcarian

(Even the GRVNC Board thought the election was screwed up. See their statement, below. - Ed.)
*************

Election messed up, says Board

May 20, 2004
To: Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
From: Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council Board
Re: May 6 Special Election Meeting for Bylaws Modifications

The GRVNC Board believes that its published election timetable, including an on-site election June 27, should go forward.

The GRVNC Board would like to convey the following concerns we have about the special election meeting and the bylaws modifications voted on, May 6, at a special election meeting.

1. The May 6 election was flawed due to lack of supervision and procedures:

Neither the Board, nor the Executive Committee, was in control of the May 6 election process. The Election Committee did not administer the election. The committee did not count the number of valid signatures on the petition. Because of this failure, it was not determined until after the election that only 44 signatures - six less than the required number - were from voting members. GRVNC bylaws (Article X) state that one has to be a “Voting Member” to be able to sign the initiative petition. The bylaws also state (Article III, Section B) that “proof of community stakeholder status will be required for voting rights to be effected.”  There is no indication that any of the signers of the initiative have shown such proof of status. Indeed, the petition itself implies self-affirmation of stakeholder status was used.  It states “By my signature below, I certify that I am a Venice Stakeholder...”  The “self-affirmation” credentialing is not approved yet by DONE for Voting Members.

At the election meeting, the processing of voters and counting of ballots was left up to volunteers some of whom had no training. A lack of poll worker training and oversight as well as immature election procedures and a lack of poll worker instructions failed, among other things, to make it clear that all voters should be given at least a provisional ballot. The 30 voters without identification who were given provisional ballots found them stamped “void.” In addition, two GRVNC Board members were refused a ballot because they did not have identification! Voters were not allowed to vote by showing their GRNVC voter registration card as had been the past practice. Other voters complained that they were not allowed a secret ballot, since their registration information was stapled to the ballot. There was no one clearly in charge. Voters received varying treatment depending upon whom they approached for a ballot. Some reported being treated rudely by election volunteers.

The ballot itself was in violation of the bylaws, Art. X, Sect. B: “All revisions to the By-laws should use strikethroughs to denote deletions from the By-laws and underlines to denote additions to the By-laws.”
The election was conducted in a cramped lobby where there was a constant stream of people going to and from the Town Hall meeting in the adjacent auditorium. “Vote Yes” and “Vote No” flyers were left on the tables next to where people were voting.

The Board failed in its obligation to provide an election environment that ensured a fair process where all voters were treated with respect. The Board sincerely apologizes to any and all stakeholders who were insulted or inconvenienced.

In addition, the election was flawed by circumstances beyond the Board’s control. Voters at the May 6 Special Election Meeting may have made their choices based on deliberately false and misleading information provided by some of the petitioners.

This false and misleading information included a flyer, “Who Speaks for Venice? (attached), that was distributed throughout the community.

It states that the question of who speaks for Venice would be decided by the May 6 vote: (1) “Is it you and your neighbors - people who live, work, rent or own property here?” (2) “Or is it simply anyone who belongs to an organization with “Venice-related activities”?”

In addition, the flyer claims “fraud...plagued last year’s election.”

These false allegations that outsiders control, or will control, the neighborhood council, and that the current board won the election because of fraud, would impel many, if not most, reasonable stakeholders – absent an investigation of the facts – to vote for the petition. It cannot be assumed that voters would have supported the specific provisions in the petition had it not been for serious misrepresentations of fact.

Since the petitioners included several candidates in last year’s election and incumbent board members in 2003, it can be reasonably assumed they knew that only one case of fraud was found by either DONE or the League of Women Voters. That instance was Marta Evry’s voting by absentee ballot for her dog, Raku Bowman. From their previous involvement in the neighborhood council, the petitioners also knew that all 20 Board members are Venice residents and that only a small percentage of absentee ballots in the 2003 election came from outside Venice (and these were from property owners and Venice workers as well as a handful of volunteers in Venice organizations).

Therefore, the Board cannot endorse any of the provisions either on their merits or as an indication of stakeholder sentiments.

2. We are concerned that some of the specific language in the proposed modifications, voted on May 6, is either inadequate, confusing or disenfranchises genuine stakeholders.
This includes the following:

Bylaws Change #1 - Art. II - Membership

A. GRVNC Community Stakeholders

This change would restrict the definition of “work” as a criteria for being a stakeholder. This provision would disenfranchise artists on the Ocean Front Walk who work everyday but are restricted by ordinance to donations (If this provision is approved it could trigger another petition to include them.). It would also disqualify non-resident board members of Venice organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce or the Venice Housing Corporation who are reimbursed with a stipend or not at all. It provides for no means of verifying whether the stakeholder qualifies under these restrictions, such as at least 30 days employment. It also denies eligibility to workers, and non-resident business owners, to vote for district representatives, while allowing non-resident property owners to vote in those elections. There is nothing in the city charter that gives property owners greater status than workers in regard to neighborhood councils.

Bylaws Change #2 - Art. VI - Elections - Registration

D. Registration

This provision requires even those “who qualify as current Community Stakeholders” to again show “proof” that they are eligible to vote. At the May 6 Special Elections Meeting, many local residents were turned away because they were not carrying ID. Others, including at least one Board member, were offered the opportunity to cast provisional ballots, which were not counted. Because of a theoretical possibility of non-qualified stakeholders casting ballots, thousands of stakeholders will be required in future elections to prove that they are indeed Venice stakeholders.

The Board is opposed to any system of verification that makes it more difficult to vote in a neighborhood council election than to vote for president of the United States.

Bylaws Change #3 - Art. VI - Elections - Qualification

E. Qualification

This provision would raise the voting age in neighborhood council elections from 16 to 18. There is no indication on the ballot that voters knew they were raising the voting age, and thus disenfranchising Venice youth. The ballot did not state what was proposed to be changed per the bylaws: “All revisions to the By-laws should use strikethroughs to denote deletions from the By-laws and underlines to denote additions to the By-laws.” (Art. X, Sect. B)

Bylaws Change #4 - Art. VI - Elections - Proof of stakeholdership

F. Credentials

This provision requires that credentials be shown both to register and to vote. The list of credentials is deficient in several respects. It includes a valid passport (which doesn’t list a home address thereby allowing anyone to vote). Another is a pay stub from an employer within the GRVNC boundaries. This is the only credential that would apply to workers. However, a pay stub contains confidential salary information that a stakeholder might not want to show to a neighbor who is checking credentials. In addition, not all Venice workers get a pay stub with a Venice address on it. Stores like Ralphs, Sav-on, RiteAid, etc. do their payroll out of a regional office, hence disqualifying their employees.

In addition, there are no credentials for non-resident property owners. If their tenants pay the utility bills, then how are property owners to qualify to vote? Missing from the list of credentials is a rent receipt that would be helpful to residents and to business owners who rent their store.

This provision does provide for additional “proof” of stakeholder status to be adopted by the Rules and Elections Committee, but then makes the adoption process more cumbersome than the current procedure for changing the bylaws.

Bylaws Change #5 - Art. VI - Elections - Voting for a District Representative

G. Voting

This provision restates the ineligibility of non-residential workers (and business owners) to vote in district elections, while allowing non-residential property owners to vote (See Bylaws Change #1, above).
Bylaws Change #6 - Art. VI - Elections - Changing election procedures

H. Election Procedures

This provision makes it more difficult to create election rules than to change the bylaws. By requiring dual approval of election rules by a 2/3 majority of the Board AND a majority of the Voting Membership (presumably only those voting), it makes it exceedingly difficult to meet a normal timetable for preparing for an election.

Bylaws Change #7 - Art. VI - Elections - Absentee voting

I. Absentee voting

This provision was not approved in the special election meeting.

3. Summary:

1. The Board wishes the upcoming Board election to take place in accord with the bylaws and as previously scheduled and publicized.

2. The Board asks that DONE provide more guidance and assistance to all-volunteer neighborhood councils who are attempting to conduct proper and fair elections with limited training and expertise.
This memo was approved by the GRVNC Board, May 20, 2004.

Approving: Zoe Garaway, Peggy Lee Kennedy, Tom O’Meara, Lydia Poncé, Jim Smith, Alice Stek, Suzanne Thompson, Jataun Valentine, Laddie Williams and Sheila Bernard (Chairing and not voting, but in support).

Opposing: DeDe Audet, Bonnie Cheeseman, Greg Fitchitt, Dennis Hathaway, Paul Ryan, Sabrina Venskus, Kelley Willis

Posted: Tue - June 1, 2004 at 08:56 PM          

©