LA City Charter Section 231. Powers and Duties
The Mayor shall have the power and duty to exercise management authority over all departments, agencies and appointed offices of the City … appoint chief administrative officers of City departments and appointed offices, and the members of the boards of commissioners created by the Charter . . . appoint the members of standing commissions and boards created by ordinance that are advisory to or manage a department or appointed office, or perform regulatory functions … remove from office any chief administrative officer or commissioner
Throughout the history of Los Angeles, power has been narrowly held, business and civic institutions weak and community organizations fragmented and powerless.
Too much power concentrated in too few hands leads to corruption, which is why attempts at reform have inevitably failed.
Efforts to reform the City Charter, derailed in the 1990s by the narrow interests that controlled the political culture, tried to solve the problem caused by a weak mayor system by stripping the City Council of its role as the city’s governing body.
It gave the mayor the power to appoint top managers of nearly every department and nearly every member of civilian oversight commissions and to remove them at his or her pleasure. The only caveat was that mayoral appointments were subject to Council approval, something that has been given 99.99 percent of the time.
The goal was to make the mayor responsible and accountable for the performance of city departments.
Success of failure depended on the integrity of the mayor and on a balance of power among competing interests — a balance that was supposed to be obtained through the creation of a citywide system of Neighborhood Councils.
The NCs were only advisory, without authority of any sort beyond a bully pulpit. Their development into an effect counter-balance to the power of City Hall was sabotaged at every turn by the City Council, jealously protecting its fiefdom authority and by the passivity of the Hahn Administration.
Then along comes Antonio Villaraigosa with all his ambitions to be governor, even president, with all his conflicted loyalties and his over-reaching promises.
Day by day over the past six years we have seen how the absolute power over the bureaucracy and the watchdogs over the bureaucracy has reduced commissioners to ciphers and department managers to obedient servants of mayoral political power and ambitions.
It’s a question of integrity, of the commitment to public service, to solving the people’s problems, of balancing their competing values, interests and needs.
That has been lacking and the mayor is widely seen as a failure. The city is in a financial crisis, the interests of the few have been served at the expense of the many, promise after promise has been broken, the public trust betrayed.
Even more serious perhaps is what has happened inside the government itself, in the departments that provide the services and keep City Hall running.
Department heads and commissioners have increasingly faced the choice of being fired or knuckling under to the political demands of the mayor and his team.
A patronage system has evolved that undermines the whole point of Civil Service which is supposed to give independence and protection to the people who do the work and the managers who supervise them.
The goal of making all upper level department managers at will employees was to give the mayor the power to get rid of incompetents and mediocrities.
But that isn’t what has happened. Mayoral interference has led to the appointment of numerous managers based solely on their obedience to the mayor — not their skill or knowledge in providing leadership and solving problems.
And the goals of the mayor are all too often skewed to provide advantages to friends and contributors, to allies and special interests.With department heads coming and going with unprecedented frequency, speed and obedience to serving the mayor has become the norm.
What insulation there was from mid-level managers protected by Civil Service has been stripped by perversion of the promotion process and the Early Retirement Incentive Program that removed so many experienced and knowledgeable senior managers who served as a buffer against politicizing every level of city government.
This type of corruption is a virus that infects everyone, thwarts initiative, punishes creativity and demoralizes the work force.
This is why we need new blood in City Hall, people uncontaminated by this viral corruption and why we need to stand up now and hold them all accountable for the state of the city, before this sickness proves irreversible and fatal..
It seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn from Ron’s discussion is that mistakes were made in the Charter amendments of 1999, and those are what need to be fixed. Replacing one professional politician with another is just that, as we have seen so many times. Those who start out as amateur politicians have to think about fund raising starting from the moment of their first election, and in so doing, they immediately become professional politicians.
I would tend to disagree that neighborhood councils were supposed to be the element that resulted in a balance of power among competing interests. There is no historical evidence or Charter wording that suggests this. More to the point, it is obvious from reading the Charter language (section 9) on neighborhood councils that the twin charter commissions had only a vague idea what they were trying to create, and as a result, they created a mish-mash of requirements and duties full of self-contradictory wording. For example, one of the observations that really jumps out at you if you read the charter language carefully is this — the term “neighborhood council” is completely ambiguous as to whether it represents the area population as a whole, or whether it represents what we now refer to as the “governing board” of that region.
A careful reading of the language suggests that the charter commissioners sometimes meant one and sometimes the other, and they were either too rushed, too incompetent, or too lazy to wordsmith the language to explain what was meant. My own view is that they didn’t really know for sure what they wanted to do, so they wrote vague sentences and left all the resulting problems for others to solve.
The vague language is to the benefit of Neighborhood Councils who could have interpreted it to be leaders instead of being the uninterested City Hall sycophants most of them have turned into. Infact, except for a handful, most of them are so useless that they are a drain on city resources and should be disbanded. The four million wasted on them where they use the money for their dinners, baseball uniform for kids or emergency supplies for an earthquake is not what the money was meant for or should be spent on.
I’ve yet to see them in City Hall on any major issue that affect the city. By now, they should have been well educated on the inner workings of City Hall, and yet most of them can’t understand a simple land use case. Intead, they can’t even get their lazy asses to unite on any one issue. And, anyone who will retort that they have done wonderful things, don’t forget that there are at least 90 Neighborhood Councils and bulk of them have done nothing useful in advancing any civic discourse or educating their communities on civic matters. They are good at in-fighting and disgracing their own members even as they pretend to be important enough to have photo-ops with the politicians.
It is time we acknowledge that Charter Reform was a hurried response to prevent the disintegration of the city and a lot of dumb decisions were made. Let’s correct them by restoring the Mayor to the old powers and disbanding the Neighborhood Councils. They had more power as Neighborhood associations, and most have never risen above that level anyway.
The NCs are simply 90 or so tiny fiefdoms that get to gobble up $50,000 each on needless crap or something a buddy has in mind. It’s designed as a tapping ground for votes and campaigns to reelect the crap we have in office.
As for that Convention Center football stadium, recall that the original plan was for the Dodgers to give Chavez Ravine for an NFL stadium IN EXCHANGE for a new ballpark across from Staples center!
O’Malley had one better: Build the NFL stadium NEXT to Dodger Stadium with new freeway upgrades. The City Hall Pigs ran him out of Chavez Ravine on a rail. Then Fox got the Dodgers, and they were way too wealthy to screw with (so they didn’t). Then came a perfect puppet ownership: MCCOURTS! They were overleveraged, thus the Council could make the deal. Then came that damn divorce thing….
Thus, back to Lie-Wiki and his stupid plan for a stupid stadium no one will ever afford to go to.
Been to Staples lately for a game?
Huh?
The question is why should we have Neighborhood Councils and why should we waste over 4 million dollars on these useless bodies. They serve no purpose, certainly none that has advanced the interests of the city whole.
The Neighborhood Council system is a good example of how to sabotage the public interest. As the first commenter referred to – the “stakeholder” definition is purposely too broad. Instead of limiting the voice of the people who are property and/or business owners in a community, it includes just about anyone who says they do something in that community. In other words, competing interests. (Yes, the City Attorney is considering amending the definition). Next, as another commenter mentioned how the members could have become “real” leaders…many of them did, but in a limited capacity. Again, hands were deliberately tied by the charter because they are required to follow the Brown Act, i.e., act like mini-City Councils (and we all know how productive they aren’t). Moreover, because they have never established a consistent outreach to the communities, most people haven’t a clue about the NC’s.
It’s a waste. It was doomed from the start. Yet, the City Council members play the NC’s against the other community based groups. As a result, everyone loses. Except for the Council Members.
The solution isn’t to disband the NC’s, they just need to truly come together and flex their muscles. Use that $45,000 per year per District by considering themselves as a special interest group. Get off of their personal agendas, and start looking at things the way many of the creators intended. Try to grow the Boards instead of having the same people run everything. And join with the homeowner associations who have become even more powerful as a result of the NC’s planned failures.
Driving home from the last car show took us two hours just to drive-thru Figueroa…2 hours..#@#!
6:38 makes a lot of sense, but just what act of God will it take to make the NCs come together to flex their muscles. Not gonna happen if it hasn’t in 11 years. Disband them and the pretense of having a community voice. Without this farce, maybe some “real” community leaders will emerge, once they realize that no one represents them.
Power does not liked to be undermined….
In a democratic system, normative power is the power of belief….If people believe a situation is real, the consequences are real….Watch out for those “Jedi Mind Tricks”
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2011/01/dowie_stodder_lose_appeal.php
Speaking Viral Corruption.
Ron Kaye has convicted felon help with http://www.ronkayela.com
Click on the link above and see Ron’s former employee at the Daily News and someone who has contributed to this website go to jail.
Viral Corruption indeed!
Regarding Neighborhood Councils, I have mixed feelings:
1. First, they get $45,000 a year, not $50,000.
2. During the charter reform process, there was a discussion to give neighborhood councils “veto rights” over a decision made by a councilmember.
I have mixed feelings about neighborhood councils. On one hand I have seen a few take up grass root causes such as DWP reforms.
But the definition of stakeholder includes people who don’t live in the boundaries. So we can have business or developer interests taking over the board.
Also, so few people vote in an election, it is easy for a slate to take over. And there is the petty power trips of many board members that reminds me of busy-body neighborhood associations.
Then we have the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) who did not do a good job overseeing NCs even before their budget and staff was cut by the Mayor.
Many Boardmembers are unaware of the legal/ethical requirements of their job and don’t seem to care. They act like its a private club and are annoyed by the Brown Act and other transparency and fairness issues.
When stakeholders complain to DONE, not much happens to correct the matter.
You hit the “nail on the head”…we have a patronage system resulting in absolute power in a mayor who corrupts. Yet, all your comments pertain to NCs…NCs are a waste of time…and, they were intended to distract and keep the gadflys busy and away from City Hall.
What I find extremely odd and shocking is on many blogs its community members putting out the corruption within city hall. Yet, you watch the news and NOTHING is aired about it. Why not? To change that strategy we all need to start sending emails to our local TV stations to get them to start airing the bullshit. IF not we will simply BOYCOTT and in this economy they can’t afford that. Here’s a run down.
Jan Perry in bed with AEG developers allowed billboard permits to get a free pass. Questionable IRS back taxes
Janice Hahn in bed with LAX concession bids and paid off gangsters
Richard Alarcon indicted on 8 felonies counts of voter fraud.
Dennis Zine, dating anyone in a skirt in downtown LA and got caught with lobbyists
Jose Huizar refusing to account for $1.5 million of CLARTS FUND money and blaming the opposition for telling the media. Huizar doesn’t support LAPD here’s the proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGeD1sa48A&feature=PlayList&p=0372B522182A304F&index=0&playnext=1
Garcetti, Reyes, Huizar all responsible for sitting on their asses and allowing over 1,000 marijuana shops to open
Bernie Parks hiding out in City Hall until DWP vote was taken, receiving one of the highest pension packages, has failed his consitutents
Tony Cardenas giving money contracts to his sister and family, giving gangsters money from Gang Programs only to have them arrested like Mario Corona Communities in Schools
Greg Smith, sleeps in council pretends to be against DWP and like the other clowns votes with them
They Vote to support DWP and AEG and not the people. ITs time to get rid of all their sorry asses.
Read this story in LA Weekly to refresh your memories of the corrupt bullshit these morons are about.
Los Angeles on $300,000 a Year
http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-26/news/los-angeles-on-300-000-a-year/
While the Charter has certainly enabled a dictator mayor, with commissions and GMs that do his bidding, or are his scapegoats (or both), the old Charter was pretty darn bad too. And, with the mayor’s veto power, one may as well get rid of commissions and Council and just expand the mayor’s staff a tad more. Don’t get me wrong–I’m against this. However, the way things are presently, if they remain this way, it just makes sense. Why waste so much money and layers of democracy when it’s all theatrics?
My concern is that any which way the pieces are arranged, corruption will find a way in. Any Charter change, just like any proposed pension reform or rate payer’s advocate, should not even be defined by the present bunch. The minute they open their mouths, something bad comes out, it’s put on paper and we suffer.
My issue with neighborhood councils is there’s hardly any accountability. That is, special interests can raid their meager funds for personal gain and screw representing their neighborhood or the city as a whole. Their only power is what those funds can provide for them. They failed to exercise being spokespersons for their community as a whole. So, in a way, they did themselves in. The concept is good, but it needs more guidelines and, perhaps, responsibilities. I realize the word “accountability” is a joke since those in office do have accountability rules that are rarely enforced/imposed. Oh well, I suppose if Councilmember can grandstand and blow out hot air, so can I.
Bob G is right in that any new politician will become a professional politician the moment he/she takes office. Good call Bob.
That’s why I think, before any changes are made to the Charter, there must be some sort of campaign finance reform. Ideally, all campaigns should be publicly funded. The treasure chest for this could be the existing matching funds already used for campaigns. We need to get back to grass root debates and equal media coverage for all qualified candidates on some sort of real public television station. Okay, I know, there’s that little thing called the Supreme Court. Can that opinion change if something like this is on the ballot? Oh wait, I forgot, it’s those politicians that get contributions that would write the ballot proposal. Dang, never mind. ‘Sounded good for a moment there. I guess we’re screwed.
I think that the neighborhood councils in my part of town have, by and large, done a good job of representing community interests. That doesn’t mean that the city council rep always listens to us, and it is obvious that the city council rep doesn’t always do things the way we suggest.
In that sense, we are doing exactly what the Charter set out for us to do, which is to collect public input and in so doing, represent the broader public to the city council and to the mayor. The city council and the mayor have the real power, which is the way things should be in a representative democracy. In order for them to do their jobs, it is useful for a broader range of people to provide advice. Businesses and developers and the wealthy already have plenty of access to elected officials. The neighborhood councils allow for an alternate line of access for people who are less wealthy.
I fail to see why the failure of the nc’s to be little dictators or to be perfect in other ways is an argument for their abolition. They were never meant to have dictatorial powers, and they are at best the representatives of the people in their districts. Arguments that businesses and people who work a few hours a week in an nc district should have equal standing in the nc are flawed at best.
1:13 – you are right, slates do take over. Not enough voter turnout to get equitable balance. The seats in my NC that vote for my interests are controlled by an entity that has curried and received special favors from council members and massive development project.
7:52 – get with the new picture. This blog, and others, is the new media for spreading news. In other words, the power of the internet is growing locally. The corporate controlled news stations are relics of the past. Love to see their demographics, but they wouldn’t dare. Remember the Nielsen’s?
9:16 – forget any hope for campaign reform. The voters voted down the first hope we had in June. I forget the ballot measure, but it was to finance the next Secretary of State’s election with fees paid by new registration fees on lobbyists. Instead, the voters were fooled into believing that the would have to pay more taxes to cover the payments to the candidates to cover their expenses, etc.
Bob G, based on your input, is exactly the reason why Neighborhood Councils should be abolished. You represent the wannabes happy to live within the confines and dictates set for you by the “city council and the mayor have the real power, which is the way things should be in a representative democracy”. Why do we need the Neighborhood Councils that cost us all over 4 million dollars? Democracy can be served just as well without middlemen who serve no useful purpose.
I think neighborhood councils were set up to fail. First, they have no power. Second, they shouldn’t have power as long as they are not willing to fill out financial interest disclosures. I realize that’s not a popular stance. For the very reason a few NC members have been criticized for using their money for personal gain, that is why they shouldn’t have power without being held to the same ethical standards as others with power-’not that much comes of it–but at least the public has access to the info and can mention it in blogs.
In today’s world, advisory boards and panels mean nothing.
In response to the last couple of comments here: With all due respect, I find the comparison of city council ethics and neighborhood council ethics laughable. The story that Ron exposed about the airport contracts and Zine’s behavior would be enough, but it is clear that several other city council reps joined in to support a big donor. This was, of course, just one of many such stories, to the point that the local mainstream media don’t even think that they are stories, just business as usual.
The members of the council are, of necessity, professional politicians, and they have to provide favors of some sort to the donors of this world. Neighborhood council reps don’t hustle for campaign money, and they are bound by the same ethical provisions as any other elected city official or city employee.
And the mayor’s history of lapping up sports tickets and dinners is off the charts compared even to what city council reps do.
Yes, of course neighborhood councils were set up to fail, if by failure you mean that they could have become powerful boards with big budgets and legislative powers and the right to veto commission appointments, etc etc etc. But if that is what you want to do, then nc’s are not the proper vehicle — just enlarge the city council by a factor of three or four, and build a borough system out of the current mess. It’s probably what we should do anyway, but if we are going to get there, it will be because nc’s develop into a large enough constituency to put something like that on the ballot. It will require about 300,000 signatures, and it would have to be thought through carefully, in a way that the city council doesn’t seem to be capable of.
On the other hand, if you take neighborhood councils for what the Charter says — namely as advisory groups to the city government — then I think they are doing pretty well on the whole. Right now it is nc’s that are leading the fight against the city selling off its parking structures.
I’m the first to agree that what nc’s do and what the mayor would like them to be doing are two very different things. But that’s the reason to keep them, not the reason to abolish them.
Bob-You may not agree, but you actually expanded on my point.
To take it a bit further (and possibly a different direction) it’s because they are so independent from the mayor that I wish they had more power. However, with power must come accountability. Power equates to actions that may impact how our tax dollars are, or are not, spent.
You are right when you mention the conflicts with Council and donors. My point is, if NC’s are to be given more say (beyond advising), which is what I recall they once wanted, they must also be held to the same (or similar) standards.
So, when I say they’ve been set up to fail, that does not equate to abolishing them. That should not happen.
While the NC’s are leading the fight against the selling of parking structures, they do so only as advice. I’d sure like to see them have more say than that. I do like your suggestion of expanding Council and building a borough system. Again, however, with that comes the need to know that each individual’s vote is “clean.”
Speaking of which-how these conflicts are not enforced is of grave concern. Really, I think conflicts should expand to not voting on contracts if donations came from that direction (corporate, union, etc). I know, it’ll never happen.
To My Two Cents and others: I can’t disagree with the idea that if you give nc’s power over other people’s money and property, the way you give power to zoning boards and taxing bodies, then the members have to do financial disclosure at the level defined by law. The city council has that kind of power, from raising rates on parking meters all the way up to rezoning land for a billion dollar development or taking someone’s land by eminent domain. City Council members rightfully are required to fill out those disclosure forms. Right now, nc’s don’t have that kind of power, and the point is therefore kind of moot.
NC’s do have a small amount of money and for the most part, they parcel out that money parsimoniously. That’s why there was such a big argument about “roll over” funds — because a lot of nc’s never spent their entire allocation in each year and left some to roll over. NC’s have actually been fairly conservative in their use of the taxpayers’ money. And as I mentioned above, they don’t have authority to do the kinds of things with that money, or any other kind of power actually, that would require their members to do financial disclosure.
By the way, the use of nc funding for charitable and civic works was not really envisioned in the original organizing efforts. It was just the way that mayor Jim Hahn chose to deal with the question of nc’s wanting to open offices and/or hire people to take minutes and send notifications. So instead of building a huge bureaucracy out of DONE, he left the spending to the individual nc’s. NC’s eventually figured out that they had more than enough money to buy pencils and typewriter ribbons (OK, laptops and inkjet printers), and they could spend the rest on street fairs or the local library. This is not the kind of expenditure that requires financial disclosure by board members. We are required to be aware of the city’s rules regarding conflict of interest, but those rules are rather obvious.
The financial disclosure issue was killed off very early on, and only came back due to the NCRC recommendation to give nc’s the power to create city council file numbers. The city council dithered over this recommendation and used the financial disclosure issue as a poison pill.
I think that nc’s have done what the charter asks them to do, and yes — this in spite of being set up to fail by bad charter language, by the enabling legislation known as the Plan, and by the current mayor. I also think that expanding the stakeholder definition beyond simple residence in the nc district is another recipe for failure and seriously weakening to the system, in spite of the good intentions of those who call for the broadest definition possible.
So I don’t think we disagree as much as you might think. It’s just a matter of how ambitious you want to be in setting goals for the system. One thing we all came to understand right at the beginning is this: If you want to create a neighborhood council system that has actual power and relies on elected board members, then you have to apportion the councils according to federal and state voting rights rules. It would probably also require a unified system of bylaws and procedures; in other words, it would look a lot different than what we have, and would do different things.
Instead, we have a system which has a great potential, but it is the potential to build our own public and in so doing, to build our own political influence. We are supposed to become the peoples’ lobby, so that we can balance the lobbyists that the rich people and giant businesses already have. In order to do this, we have to represent voters.
Thanks Bob-Yes, I agree that we might not disagree.
I admit to not following NC’s as much as other departments, commissions and councilmembers, as well as not studying that portion of the Charter. What little I do know has come from a few NC members who complained about other members using their funds for personal gain–be it their businesses or something along that line. So, whether it’s a penny or a million dollars, I just feel the same should apply. Under the present circumstances, I would certainly be barking up the wrong tree pursuing that in light of what our councilmembers and mayor are doing.
That said, I sincerely believe you should run for office.
Enlightenment reading the comments of two people who certainly know most of the rules and regulations of Neighborhood Councils. Yeah! knowing what our councilmembers and the Mayor are doing, I guess it is ok to be a little corrupt. I feel so much better now. Our Mayor and Council will continue to raise that threshold of corruption and most will be comfortable as long as they are below that bar. As long as none of our politicians are behind bars, the deleterious effect they have on the general society will continue as the viral Ron is talking about.