Neighborhood Council Plan Review and Reform Initiative

Session I Stakeholder Worksheet

Stakeholder Definitions

1. Should current stakeholder designations live, work, and own property be specificallydefined?

2. If so, what should the definitions be?

a. Live

b. Work

c. Own property

Neighborhood Council Plan Review and Reform Initiative

Factual Basis Stakeholders

1. Should there be factual basis stakeholders?

2. Should all neighborhood councils be required to include factual basis stakeholders as boardmembers and/or voters or should individual neighborhood councils be allowed to determinewhether they will include factual basis stakeholders as board members and/or voters?

3. Should a common definition be required for all neighborhood councils or should individualneighborhood councils be allowed to write their own factual basis definition?

4. If all neighborhood councils should be required to include factual basis stakeholder seats ontheir boards, should the number of those seats be limited? If so, to what number or percentage?

5. Should seats reserved for categories such as educational or religious stakeholder, whichmay be held by a factual basis stakeholder, be counted against the number of factual basisseats allowed?

6. Should factual basis stakeholders be allowed to simply affirm their status or shoulddocumentation be required to verify status?

7. Should there be a single citywide regulation governing factual basis status or shouldindividual neighborhood councils be allowed to determine whether to require simple affirmation ordocumentation?

Neighborhood Council Plan Review and Reform Initiative

Current regulations regarding stakeholders

(2) neighborhood council membership will be open to everyone who lives, works or ownsproperty in the area (stakeholders);

—Los Angeles City Charter, Article IX, Section 906

(a) By Laws. Each neighborhood council seeking official certification from the City shallsubmit an organization plan and by­laws to the Department of NeighborhoodEmpowerment showing, at a minimum:

(2) that neighborhood council membership will be open to everyone who lives,works, owns property in the neighborhood and also to those who declare a stake inthe neighborhood and affirm the factual basis for it;

—Los Angeles Administrative Code, Chapter 28, Sec. 22.811.Certification of Neighborhood Councils.

It is recommended and advised that all Neighborhood Councils revise their bylaws toinclude language stating that:

1. Each Neighborhood Council should allow for the inclusion of a minimum of oneboard seat or a maximum of (10) percent of the total board composition that factualbasis stakeholders can run and vote for in all upcoming elections. If no factual basisstakeholder chooses to seek election to that seat if may be filled with a non­factualbasis stakeholder.

—Board of Neighborhood Commissioners Policy 2011­02

Neighborhood Council Plan Review and Reform Initiative

Previous regulations regarding stakeholders (in effect2001­2007)

The bylaws must state that membership in the council is open to all communitystakeholders.

Example: “Membership in this Neighborhood Council is open to all CommunityStakeholders or Stakeholders. A Stakeholder is a person who lives, works, or ownsproperty within the Neighborhood Council boundaries. In addition, ... (Insert anyadditional classes that you choose to add, also make sure that you specify anyrequirements on these optional stakeholder categories, e.g., Stakeholders alsoinclude those persons who participate in educational institutions located in theneighborhood council boundaries.)”

Note that persons who live, work, or own property within the neighborhood Councilboundaries are Mandatory Classes of stakeholders and must be included in theneighborhood council. You may add any number of additional stakeholder classes. ThePlan provides the following as examples of other optional stakeholder classes that youmight choose to add : educational institutions, religious institutions, communityorganizations or other non­profit organizations, block clubs, neighborhood associations,homeowners associations, apartment associations, condominium associations, residentassociations, school/parent groups, faith based groups and organizations, seniorgroups and organizations, youth groups and organizations, chambers of commerce,business improvement districts, service organizations, park advisory boards, boys andgirls clubs, cultural groups, environmental groups, codewatch, neighborhood watch, policeadvisory board groups, and or redevelopment action boards.

—Legal Issues for Neighborhood Councils, Office of City Attorney, 2006

Neighborhood Council Plan Review and Reform InitiativeMotion by Councilman Jose Huizar regarding factual basisstakeholders (CF 12­1682)The Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils are in the process of conducting their bi­annual Board elections. OnSaturday, October 13, 2012, the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council conducted its elections where 313 of the 792votes cast were from those claiming to be "factual basis stakeholders" who are reported to have little or norelationship with the Eagle Rock community. This was clearly an attempt by outside interests to take control of theEagle Rock Neighborhood Council and constitutes an abuse of the Neighborhood Council (NC) electoral process.

With the 1999 City Charter changes, the voters established the neighborhood council system and definedstakeholders as those who “live, work, or own property in the certified neighborhood council”. In April 2006, the CityCouncil by ordinance, as provided in the Charter, created the Neighborhood Council Review Commission(NCRC) and tasked the Commission to review the efficacy of neighborhood council system. One specific area ofreview was the definition of stakeholder.

In December 2007, the Council approved various recommendations from the NCRC’s Final Report relative to NCelections, including Recommendation 42a, as follows:

“The Plan for Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils to state that stakeholder status in NeighborhoodCouncils shall be open to those who live, work, or own property in the Neighborhood and also to those whodeclare a stake in the neighborhood and affirm the factual basis for it.”

During the hearing process leading to the adoption of the above stakeholder definition, some expressed concernthat the definition was vague, ambiguous, and overbroad and that it did not provide sufficient protection for NCsfrom takeover by outside interests. In addition, authority for a stakeholder “self affirmation” of the “factual basis”was seen as lacking an appropriate mechanism for accountability. The definition and procedures appeared toneed more clarity to protect NC integrity.

The above seems prophetic with respect to the recent Eagle Rock NC elections. The current definition has beenproblematic for some time and given recent electoral challenges at the Eagle Rock NC, it is timely that issue of“factual basis stakeholders” be reexamined in a comprehensive manner by the Department of NeighborhoodEmpowerment, with the assistance of the City Attorney, and with input from the Neighborhood Councils.

I THEREFORE MOVE that the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE), with the assistance ofthe City Attorney, and with input from the Neighborhood Councils, be instructed to prepare and present acomprehensive review of the definition and processes for qualifying a Neighborhood Council stakeholder, asset forth in the City Charter, the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils and DONE’sNeighborhood Council 2012 Election Manual, including in that review specific qualifications for “factual basisstakeholders,” limiting to a maximum of two the number of board seats for which “factual. basisstakeholders” may run or vote (with the balance being comprised of individuals that either live, work, ownproperty or go to school within the NC boundaries), and the process for documenting “factual basisstakeholder” status.

Moved by Councilman Jose Huizar, seconded by Councilman Bernard Parks