L.A. takes new swipe at Venice Council
40,000 Venetians Disenfranchised by Someone
Downtown
By Jim
Smith
Los Angeles’ long history
of deciding what’s best for Venice hit another low point, Nov. 16, with
the release of an “arbitrator’s” decision overturning last
June’s election of Venice Neighborhood Council Board members.
Still at issue is whether the Grass Roots
Venice Neighborhood Council (GRVNC) now has a quorum that will allow it to
continue functioning. Supporters of the Council say there are still 11 members -
a bare majority - who can function in spite of the city’s decision to
invalidate those elected by more than 500 Venetians in
June.
The entire Board met on Nov. 22
and heard from Greg Nelson, Director of the L.A. Dept. of Neighborhood
Empowerment (DONE). Nelson announced that he had cut funding to the Council and
considered it unable to function. However, when Board member Michael McGuffin
brought up the issue of a still viable quorum, Nelson said he would look into
it.
The Board has since been unable to
meet since one of the 11 - Lydia Poncé - is in the hospital with injuries
from being hit by a car.
This is not
the first time that the city has interfered with the functioning of the
Neighborhood Council. After the June 2003 election, DONE took until October to
decide that challenges to that election were invalid and the election Board
could begin functioning.
In the months
before the 2004 election, DONE delayed approving rules and procedures for the
election. Finally, GRVNC went ahead with the bylaws-mandated election with
unapproved rules that closely paralleled a draft of city-wide election rules
sponsored by DONE. After last June’s election, Nelson cut off the
Board’s funding until the city attorney’s office ruled in September
that the Board funding and ability to act had to be respected until challenges
had been ruled upon by an
arbitrator.
Like sheep going to
slaughter, the Board approved an arbitration of an election challenge by Richard
Myers, a losing candidate for an at-large position with 7 percent of the vote.
It was not until after the decision had been issued that the Board learned the
arbitrator’s name: Gary De La Rosa, who is a project coordinator with the
city’s Human Relations Commission. His decision - which had been held by
DONE since Nov. 9 - came as a shock to GRVNC activists. Nelson again immediately
cut off GRVNC’s funding.
Board
members had been waiting to hear when there would be a meeting to agree on
ground rules, such as how to give input, respond to challenger allegations, and
present documentation. That call never came. There was no announcement of who in
the Human Relations Commission would be conducting the arbitration, no
discussion of ground rules, no questions from the arbitrator, no right to
respond to opposing allegations - in short, in the opinion of many, no
arbitration took place.
In the letter
from the Human Relations Commission, Venetians learned that it had been
determined that GRVNC had violated its bylaws by holding a Special Election
Meeting on June 27 with not one but two issues, the election of candidates and
the vote on bylaws. The bylaws say that only one issue may be on the agenda of
the special meeting.
When the plans
were developed for the June election, it was announced that two separate
meetings would be held on June 27 - one for election of candidates and one for
confirmation of bylaw changes submitted by the Board. Not one, but two, election
experts saw no problem with this procedure. Paul Ryan, an attorney with the
Center for Governmental Studies, wrote GRVNC’s election rules and was in
charge of planning the election up until a few days before it took place. He was
replaced as Independent Election Administrator by Casey Peters, who was fresh
from overseeing radio station KPFK-FM’s election for station board.
Neither saw a problem with holding two separate elections on the same
day.
But, without consulting the GRVNC
Board, De La Rosa ruled that a violation had occurred - two elections instead of
one - and that violation had been so heinous as to require the negation of the
June election.
The Arbitrator could
have proposed other remedies than overturning the election, including
criticizing the Board in writing and emphasizing the importance of the one-item
meeting, or even throwing out the results of the voting on the bylaws instead of
the voting on the candidates. Instead, the punishment - of throwing out the
election - immobilizes the Council at a critical time for
Venice.
No allegation of voting fraud
was made, and none was found. In spite of obstacles - many placed there by DONE
which stalled on approving election rules - the June election went smoothly with
509 stakeholders voting. No segment of the community was neglected. The winning
candidates included two self-employed professionals, a medical doctor, a
long-time employee of Ralphs supermarket, the president of a tenants'
organization, an L.A. Unified Schools Art Teacher, a resident of a HUD housing
project, a well-known mural artist, a lobbyist for health food companies, an
architect, and the son of an ambassador. These elected councilmembers - who have
just been negated - have much more going for them than is described above but
these brief descriptions should prove the point that they are reflective of the
diversity of Venice.
Why does the city of Los
Angeles seek to crush the emerging local leaders of Venice? They are diverse.
They are active. They have shown the ability to listen to, and act on, the needs
of all of Venice, including the poorest who are often neglected by
government.
It should come as no
surprise if some in our community react to DONE - and the L.A. city government -
with anger. By negating our legitimate representative body, Venetians have been
left with few city-defined avenues of protest.
The actions of the city call into
question the rationale of the neighborhood council system. If a neighborhood
council that has acted morally, honestly, and - within its limitations -
effectively, cannot be allowed by DONE to continue functioning, then what in
reality is the purpose of the neighborhood council
system?
Venetians have a history of not
going quietly into the night. Too much is at stake in our community. We need a
form of self-government - no matter how weak - to grapple with the problems of
everyday living that confront our stakeholders, be they tenants (70% of Venice),
homeless (at least 400), children living in poverty (18%), and all those
troubled by a continued decline in the quality of
life.
L.A.’s Hit List
–
On the outs: Suzanne
Thompson, President; Alice Stek, VP; DeDe McCrary, 2nd VP; John Davis,
Secretary; Deborah Krall, Penmar North; Bridget Graham, Oakwood; Dennis
Hathaway, Penmar South; Emily Winters, Milwood/Central; Michael McGuffin,
Presidents’ Row/Triangles; Zoe Garaway,
Canals/Peninsula
Still hanging on: Jim Smith,
Treasurer; Francisco Letelier, Government Relations; Tom O’Meara,
Communications, Inge Mueller, North Beach/Rose Ave.; and At-large members:
Elinor Aurthur; Peggy Lee Kennedy; Lydia Poncé; Sabrina Venskus; Don
Geagan; Kirsten Weirick; Suzanne Thompson (resuming her at-large
position).
Posted: Wed - December
1, 2004 at 05:29 PM