When the City Charter was created, the goal was to have neighborhood councils be as independent as possible from City Hall. The drafters of the Charter wanted it to be free of details, and like the U.S. Constitution, be more a statement of principles. The details would be in included in ordinances and regulations passed later by the City Council. Throughout the two years of discussions by the charter reform commissions, it was clear that everyone agreed that to be effective, to be part of a system of participatory democracy, the NCs could not be a formal part of city government. they needed the freedom to hold elected officials accountable and to press for changes.

In a document called the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils, it is clearly stated that NCs shall be as independent as possible from City Hall. However, after these regulations were passed, the City Attorney felt that the state's Brown Act, the open meetings law, would require NCs to abide by the requirements of the law because, in part, NCs were created by government. That, in turn, required NCs to meet the requirements of the state's Political Reform Act (conflict of interest law) and the state's Public Records Act.

That, according to many, including myself, turned the system upside down. The city now had to divert its attention away from helping NCs become stronger public lobbyists, and turn it toward how to get NCs to comply with these laws. Much work has been done to streamline these law so they don't interfere with the fundamental job of the NCs, as stated in the charter, to promote public participation in government. No other city agency has this requirement placed upon them.

Recently, the Neighborhood Council Review Commission finished two years of work, and among its recommendations was that a "Sunshine Law" be created. This new city law would hopefully replace the three state laws. It would take the best parts of the laws, the parts that should apply to neighborhood councils to ensure transparency, but eliminate the parts that are really designed for City Councils and Boards of Supervisors, which don't care so much about public participation.

Then, it is felt, we could ask the state legislature to exempt NCs from the state laws, and point them back down the path toward independence.
The need for such a local law is underscored by the stark reality that the County District and state enforcement officials don't have the time or desire to enforce these laws as they apply to NCs. They have bigger fish to fry dealing with corrupt elected officials. Besides, NCs are either making advisory decisions on governmental matters, or making final decisions on the spending of relatively small amounts of money.

The City Charter does state that NCs "shall" monitor city services, but neither it nor the regulations explain how they are to do it.

The University of Southern California got a grant to pursue this matter. They meet with NCs and concluded that it would unique and beneficial for NCs to enter into written agreements (MOUs) with certain city departments to define, for the benefit of the departments and the public, how the two are to interact and communicate.

One of the important reasons for this is the City Charter guarantees that NCs are to receive notice of pending decisions enough time in advance to allow them to discuss and weigh in. An Early Notification System was designed for the actions of the City Council, but nothing for the actions of city departments and commissions.

USC helped guide the development of a pilot MOU between four NCs in the southeast San Fernando Valley and the Department of Public Works. During a controversy over a proposed water rate hike, an MOU was signed between the Department of Water and Power and any NCs that wished to sign it. An MOU with the Department of Transportation is being finalized. If I had my wish, the next one would be with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners.

The use of an MOU is attracting nationwide attention as a way to clarify how "independent" public lobbying groups like NCs work with city agencies that deliver services.

Even if NCs were part of city government, something like an MOU would likely be needed because city departments do a poor job of talking with each other. Every mayor has known it. Every audit has spoken about it. It's just that the city is so big that creating a coordinated atmosphere almost seems like a fool's errand. Aside from a few small exceptions in which a couple of departments have gotten together to work on a specific problem, the only coordination that occurs is when the mayor holds his monthly meetings with general managers. And believe me, you don't want to get to the point where the mayor, any mayor, thinks that NCs are part of city government, and therefore he can tell them what to do. Then, by definition, you would no longer have real neighborhood councils, and the voice of the public would be dampened.

~ Greg Nelson, Former DONE GM
Participant in the creation of NC system

Print this in pdf