August 10, 2007

With Time Running Out, Stakeholder Meaning Remains Biggest Challenge for 912 Panel

By Ken Draper

Like the pop September Song classic says, the days dwindle down to a precious few. And that could be the theme song these days for the 912 folks.

More formally, the NC Review Commission. They have a promised report due the City Council in September and they remain unable to come together on some key issues. Most notable among them, the definition of stakeholder.

That should come as no surprise, stakeholders and neighborhood councils can’t agree either on whether your gardener, or a parent of a child in one of your schools, qualifies to sit on your board or vote in your elections. Not only are there disparate … and passionate … views on how broad the stakeholder definition should be, but even the advocates for the basic “lives, works and owns property” crowd can’t agree on what ‘works’ means.

The Commission began its review of LA’s Neighborhood Council System more than a year ago. They held a series of regional hearings in the early going, then finished up with a series of community workshops. The last of which was held in South LA a couple of weeks ago. An estimated 200-250 stakeholders attended the hearings. According to the sign-in sheets, 350 stakeholders participated in the workshops.

In addition, Cal State Fullerton’s research team has interviewed several hundred past and present neighborhood council board members and will provide the final numbers and analysis to the commission shortly. Hopefully in sufficient time to weigh on the report that already has some recommendations finalized.

In the meantime, the results and analysis of the community workshops has been completed by Katherine Padilla & Associates.

The question remaining: Is the Commission populated by enough ‘Solomons” to sort through the agendas and biases of the non-profit representatives and the liberal and conservative visions of the neighborhood council representatives to generate some unselfish wisdom and a document with enough clarity and power to actually change things.

NCRC Community Workshop Results Summary

What We Learned-Executive Summary

Background
The Neighborhood Council Review Commission (NCRC) held seven 3-hour long community workshops in June and July 2007 at locations throughout the City. The purpose of the workshops was to capture the widest range of opinions possible about Recommendations to improve the Neighborhood Council System. Commissioners actively participated in “taking the show on the road.” At all seven workshops, they served as facilitators and recorders who skillfully engaged workshop participants in interactive small group discussions where meaningful dialogue about the Recommendations-- and their implications-- took place. The Commissioners and staff received positive, and often enthusiastic, feedback about the discussion format of the workshops. The opinions expressed proved insightful to the Commissioners, who will use the feedback to further refine the Recommendations.

Topics and Recommendations Addressed
Although the list of draft Recommendations consists of 18 pages, workshop discussions and displays focused on five Key Issues and related Recommendations. They included:

1) What is a Stakeholder? 2) How should Neighborhood Council elections be handled? 3) What are the obstacles to Neighborhood Council participation and how can they be overcome? 4) Should the City continue to provide money to Neighborhood Councils? 5) How much power should Neighborhood Council have to influence policy?

Workshop participants could express their opinions in several ways: by participating in the “breakout” small group discussions; by providing their reactions and observations after reconvening and hearing small groups’ summarize their agreement/disagreement with the Recommendations; by reviewing large display boards of the Recommendations and placing a colored dot signifying their approval or disapproval; and by submitting their comments in writing on a “Comment Sheet” or “post-it” note.

Workshop Results
The results of the discussion groups are presented below. They are categorized by Key Topics and their relevant Recommendations.
What is a Stakeholder?

The topic, What is a Stakeholder? and the pertinent Recommendations, elicited the most emotional exchange of ideas. There was strong objection to the words “self-affirmation.”

Beyond being a resident and owning property, those who state that they have a stake in the neighborhood will need to prove it, according to workshop participants. There is a strong fear of Neighborhood Council being “taken over” by special interests.

How Should Neighborhood Council elections be handled?
There was evident support for standardization. How to maintain “institutional memory,” which exists in experienced Board members, is a concern. Staggered two-year city-wide elections handled by the City Clerk were preferred, as they eliminate the election burdens from Neighborhood Councils.

What are the obstacles to Neighborhood Council participation and how can they be overcome?
Neighborhood Councils operate under Brown Act requirements. In general, workshop participants support the idea of simplifying the process; however, they valued the “protection,” the specific codes of conduct, which the Brown Act offers. There was support for replacing the Brown Act with the less complex Sunshine Law --if it offers the same “protection.”

Should the City continue to provide money to Neighborhood Councils?
Yes! Nearly all participants agreed that the City should continue providing funds, and they did not wish to pay a percentage of their funds to the City to handle administrative costs, as one the Recommendations suggested. They also overwhelmingly agree with the Recommendation that unspent Neighborhood Council funds should go into a regional or citywide fund to be used for outreach—instead of being returned to the City’s General Fund.
How much influence should Neighborhood Councils have to influence policy?
Workshop participants frequently indicated that they would like to see Neighborhood Councils’ opinions, particularly about land-use, be respected by City Departments and elected officials. All three Recommendations offered by the Commission drew wide support, including that new “structures of influence” be created, while Neighborhood Councils would remain advisory only, and that the City make it easier for Neighborhood Council to find out the response to their input.

Next Steps
The Commission will consider the feedback from the workshops, along with other data, to refine the Recommendations which they will present in a report to City Council in September 2007.