Letters Debate Neighborhood Council Status


When good newspapers go bad
On Aug. 26, readers of the Marina Argonaut were able to read only one side of this debate. Officials at the Argonaut told GRVNC Prez Suzanne Thompson that there “wasn’t room” for the Board’s letter. A week later, apparently, there still wasn’t room for the other side of the story. The Beachhead is printing both letters on this page.
• From Greg Nelson, General Manager, Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment
• From GRVNC Board

August 20, 2004
To:  The Venice Community
From:  Greg Nelson, General Manager, Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment
Re:  GRVNC 2004 Election

In order to ensure that the events surrounding the recent Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood election are not driven by rumors, this is our best attempt to clarify some of the misinformation and misunderstandings that we've been hearing.

The stakeholders of the GRVNC approved a set of bylaw changes. Those changes, as is the case with all neighborhood council bylaw changes, must be approved by our department. If the changes have a significant effect on the bylaws that were approved by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners, or if we feel that there is enough controversy involved in the proposed changes, we ask the commissioners to hold a public meeting and vote on the proposed changes. GRVNC bylaw changes meet both these tests.

About the same time, the GRVNC governing board approved its own set of proposed bylaw changes, but their action required ratification by the stake! holders. This was included as part of the election on the board members that was held recently. But since this election has not been finalized, there is nothing for the commission to approve.

Since the two sets of recommendations conflict with each other in places, it's a good guess that the commission would consider them at the same time.

Our department does not certify or approve any elections. The election is final when the arbiter has considered and ruled on the challenges. The problem is that there is no arbiter, and the GRVNC board can't name one because the terms of so many board members expired that they can't put together a quorum to conduct business or speak officially for the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council.  Too many terms expired on a date certain, June 30th. Some other neighborhood councils have a more flexible provision that accounts for situations such as the one being experienced by GRVNC.

There is no provision in the bylaws for the terms of the board members to be extended until the election challenges are resolved. That was a proposal in the board-approved bylaw changes, but, as mentioned, those changes aren't effective until the election is resolved and the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners approves them.

Because it is not clear when the GRVNC will have the ability to make decisions, and because it was our impression that there are some who believe that the board can conduct business and spend money, we felt that we had no choice but to temporarily suspend the GRVNC's access to their city funds.  We have a responsibility to ensure that the public’s money is spent in accordance with the Neighborhood Council Funding Program that was adopted by the City Council.  Those rules require certain decisions to be made the Neighborhood Council in public meetings.  In the case of GRVNC, there is no board or body authorized to act.

If nothing more were to happen, the GRVNC would be forever unable to conduct business, and the only choice would be decertification. However, we are making every attempt possible, in working with the Office of the City Attorney, to find a new approach that would enable there to be a resolve to the issue short of decertification.  Our hope, as we said in our correspondence before the last election, is that the stakeholders of the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council will be able to participate in an open and fair election.
Since there is no election arbiter, we aren't sure who has submitted challenges, or where those have gone. In the meantime, it would be best if the challenges were sent to us for safe-keeping.

Some people have submitted formal complaints against the GRVNC using the form that's available on our Web site. Please understand that according to city ordinance, those complaints must be transmitted to the GRVNC board so they can have the first attempt to resolve them. Of course, the problem is that there isn't a board that can act on them.

The Grass Roots Venice experience has taken to a place that we’ve never been before.  The answers are not readily available, but they will be forthcoming.

I cannot end this message without reminding everyone that this dilemma is something that we warned would happen if the election were to be held in the way it was held. Our solution was a simple one. The board, we said, should extend its terms for 90 days. We'd approve that bylaw change immediately. And then the board would do nothing else but plan and organize a new election that was unarguably fair and open, and that provided the stakeholders of Grass Roots Venice adequate time to become candidates and vote.

More to come.

---------

August 23, 2004
From: GRVNC Board
To: Greg Nelson, General Manager, Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment

Dear Mr. Nelson:

We are writing to you in sincere hopes of resolving any concerns that you have with the legitimacy and finality of the June 27, 2004 election for open Board seats on the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council (GRVNC).. Representatives of our Board are prepared to meet with you at a time and place that you designate. We believe it would be in the best interests of GRVNC, Venice stakeholders and DONE that the meeting take place at your earliest convenience.
Our election committee chairperson, Sabrina Venskus, has previously communicated with your office concerning our desire to meet and resolve any perceived problems. She supplied you on July 16 with a number of election-related documents that you had requested. Since then, neither she, nor the Board, has received a response from you.
The June 27 candidates election was held under our bylaws which were approved by DONE in 2002. The GRVNC bylaws state that amendments to the bylaws may be accomplished only upon the completion of three distinct steps: introduction (either by the Board or by GRVNC Voting Members); ratification by the Voting Members at large); and approval by DONE.
The winners of the June 27 election have been seated on the Board in compliance with the existing bylaws and the election rules. The election rules state:
Article XIV. Seating of Elected Board Members
B. Newly elected governing board members shall be seated in accordance with the GRVNC Bylaws pending the final results of a recount or an election challenge.
Per Article XIV. Section B., the newly elected board members have been seated pending a recount or an election challenge. We are unaware of any request for a recount. If there are election challenges that need to be resolved, the process is provided for in the election rules. The election's Independent Election Administrator Casey Peters in his Final Official Certified Canvass of July 10 directed the community to file challenges, if any, with DONE. That report, as well as the election rules, were widely circulated in Venice.

Here is the relevant section of the Election Rules:
Article XII. B. Election Challenges
2. DONE shall use any method to handle the challenge.
3. DONE may, with the concurrence of the GRVNC, engage the services of another person(s) or organization to act as the Arbitrator. The arbitrator selected cannot have participated in the conduct of the election in any way nor have any vested interest in the outcome of the Election Challenge.
In regard to the public funds to which GRVNC had been entrusted, we can assure you that they have been expended only after a public discussion and decision by the Board. We take this obligation very seriously and are concerned that your suspension of the funding can be misinterpreted by the public. As stated above, there has been a Board quorum for every meeting both before and after July 1. In addition, our treasurer was elected to a two-year term in 2003.
In your email of August 20 to The Venice Community, you made reference to proposed GRVNC bylaw changes. There are two sets of bylaw changes. One set of proposed bylaw changes, submitted by stakeholder petition, were voted on May 6 and mainly approved. They were forwarded to your office by the Board. The Board approved certain bylaw changes on April 7. The Board's bylaw changes went to a stakeholder election on June 27, as per your recommendation in your letter of June 11. They were also approved. This election on bylaw changes was separate from a candidates election, held on the same day. You had advised us not to hold the candidates election for 90 days, however, after much deliberation, the Board respectfully decided that postponing the election created more problems than it solved.

Regardless of differing opinions on the candidates election, our understanding is that there is nothing more to finalize in the June 27 bylaw election. The approved changes were sent to Mark Lewis and Jamiko Bell in your office on June 30, with a request that they be approved by DONE. We are waiting for a response from your office on both sets of changes. Please let us know which, if any, of these changes would have to be approved by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC) rather than by DONE.
In your August 20 email you state, “Our department does not certify or approve any elections. The election is final when the arbiter has considered and ruled on the challenges.” We can assure you that the election was held in a fair and open manner under the guidance of election chair Sabrina Venskus and Independent Election Administrator Casey Peters. It was held under election rules and procedures approved by the GRVNC Board on June 14, and submitted to your office that same evening. Those rules were submitted promptly to your office. The rules provide for DONE to select an arbitrator if there are any challenges (see "Final Election Procedures" at www.grvnc.org/NewSite/June27.htm). In addition the IEA Report was sent to your office by Peters on July 10 and again by Venskus on July 16, along with other documentation.
In conclusion, we are proud of the conduct of the June 27 election in which more than 500 stakeholders came to the polling place to vote. The election resulted in the seating of an even more diverse board than had previously existed. The new members take their responsibilities very seriously and are contributing to the overall neighborhood council program and goals.
We believe that under the city charter both DONE and the neighborhood council have an obligation to work together for the benefit of the stakeholders. This should involve at a minimum a willingness to meet together to discuss problems and seek solutions.

We, therefore, respectfully ask the following of you:
1. That you meet with Board representatives at your earliest convenience.
2. That you lift the suspension on GRVNC funding by the city.
3. That you promptly appoint an arbitrator, if you have determined that such is needed, to investigate and rule on any election challenges, as provided in the election rules.

We, the GRVNC Board, look forward to a cooperative and mutually beneficial relation with you and with the staff of DONE.

Approved by the Board by unanimous vote on August 23, 2004.

Posted: Wed - September 1, 2004 at 03:46 PM          

©