Final Report for the Neighborhood Council Training Motion

Here is the final report for the Neighborhood Council training motion. The only changes we made were to the highlighted areas below in yellow, which updated and clarified the availability of trainings the Neighborhood Council leaders and the Department have or will provide as well as some consequences Neighborhood Councils have used for Board members who do not take trainings.

We will be submitting this report to the City Council, and you can make additional comments next week at the special meeting of the Arts, Parks and Neighborhoods Committee on Wednesday, November 30, 2012 at 3 p.m. at downtown City Hall.

Thank you all again for your comments, suggestions and time on these reports!

REPORT RE:

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL SYSTEM TRAINING PROGRAM

The Honorable City Council

  of the City of Los Angeles
Room 395, City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

Council File No. 11-1017

Honorable Members:

            As requested by your Honorable Body, this department has prepared and now transmits for your consideration recommendations regarding a Neighborhood Council System Training Program.

Background

Currently, the only mandated training courses for Neighborhood Council Board members are the ethics course for all Board members and funding program administration for Treasurers and funding second signatories.   Ethics training is a mandated state law, but unless a Neighborhood Council’s bylaws has consequences for not taking training, there is currently no way to ensure that Board members take the training.  The ethics training is good for two (2) years after completion. 

In regards to funding training, the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (Department) will not release or will freeze a Neighborhood Council’s funds if the Treasurer and second signatory do not take the training.  Funding training is good for as long as the individuals are Treasurers or second signatories though yearly refresher courses are encouraged due to changing policies and procedures.

For Neighborhood Councils in exhaustive efforts under the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils (Plan), the Department will mandate training if the staff determines that a lack of training in the fundamentals of how to run a Neighborhood Council is a main component for the Neighborhood Council’s struggles.  These trainings can include:

1.  Ethics and Legal Issues

2.  Funding Program

3.  Neighborhood Council and City Government Basics

4.  Parliamentary Procedures

            5.  Community Leadership

Trainings are currently available in the following manner and are conducted by staff or other seasoned Board members recruited by the Department:

1.  Regionally on a monthly basis

2.  Board retreats

3.  One-on-one mentoring

4.  Online videos

Neighborhood Council leaders also utilized the Citywide Congress for Neighborhood Councils this year as a vehicle to provide trainings to the Board members.

            Aside from the funding consequences noted above, there are no other consequences for Board members who do not take trainings, including the state mandated ethics course, unless the Neighborhood Council has changed their bylaws to include consequences such as a loss in voting rights if the training is not completed within a specified amount of time.

The Department tracks the ethics and funding training on an internal database though we are trying to make this information readily available on our website.

Collaboration Process for Feedback

            The Department collaborated with the Neighborhood Council regional alliances across the City to solicit feedback from Board members and stakeholders on this motion.  Starting in September and continuing through the beginning of October, the Department co-sponsored mini town halls with the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Coalition, the Harbor Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Northeast Los Angeles Coalition, the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils and the South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils.  Approximately, one hundred and fifty (150) Board members and stakeholders provided their feedback at the town halls.   In addition, the Department created an online survey for feedback on the motion where seventeen (17) Board members and stakeholders provided detailed input.  We invited Board members and stakeholders via our bi-monthly eblast to participate in the town halls, survey, blog and work group meetings.

            In October, the Department held two (2) work group meetings on Training to delve further into the details of a training program.  One (1) of the meetings was cancelled due to poor attendance.  Input was received at the second Training work group meeting as well as a final work group review meeting.  Between five (5) to six (6) Board members participated in each of these meetings.  All of the minutes for the town halls and work groups meetings were uploaded to a blog for further comments though we did not receive any. 

Proposals

            The proposals presented here are a compilation of the feedback we received in the town halls, online survey and work group process.  In addition, South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils provided its own recommendation on the training program, which is attached to this report for your consideration as well.

            The viewpoints were wide ranging regarding mandated trainings in particular with some stating that no training should be mandated because Board members are volunteers to the other end where Board members demanded mandated training in courses beyond ethics and funding.  These trainings included the courses listed above for those Neighborhood Councils in exhaustive efforts.

            The work group focused on two (2) questions:

1.  Should any other courses be mandated?

The work group generally agreed that only sexual harassment and work place violence training should be added to the mandated courses.  Even though other types of classes should be taken by Board members for the betterment of Neighborhood Council, such as leadership, how to run meetings, etc., the work group decided that these classes should be offered in a fun and engaging manner so Board members would want to learn more.  Another suggestion was to have Executive Officers mandated to take additional classes since they have more responsibilities.

2.  What should the consequences be for those who do not take the mandated classes?

There was a range of suggestions, and the work group did not decide on any one (1) answer.  These options included:

• The Plan should be rewritten to allow for the Department to determine consequences.
• The consequences should be determined by the Commission via policy.
• Neighborhood Councils should determine consequences in their bylaws.

Another possible proposal could allow the Commission or Department to determine a menu of different types of consequences with the Neighborhood Councils input.  Neighborhood Councils would then choose from and incorporate a choice into their bylaws.

The types of consequences that Neighborhood Councils have imposed on their Board members to take the mandated ethics training range from withholding business cards to changing the bylaws to suspend Board member voting rights entirely or for matters involving funding and land use.

Training Accessibility and Quality

            The accessibility and quality of the trainings offered by the Department was a common theme in the feedback we received.  Board members stated that the more ways training could be offered to make them convenient for them, the more likely Board members would take the trainings.  Suggestions included increased training videos provided online and in a DVD format and a simple Board member manual.  In addition, the quality of the trainings was commented upon with Board members requesting entertaining and relevant trainings that would help them run more effective Neighborhood Councils. 

          

           Neighborhood Council leaders have recognized the need for Board training, and the Department has worked with experienced Board members with expertise in running meetings or funding to provide direct support and training to struggling Neighborhood Councils the past year.  We have also worked in partnership with Neighborhood Council leaders to develop a peer mentoring program, Councils 4 Councils, to assist with building Board members’ capacities.  The Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils recently launched a voluntary Resource Board to assist Neighborhood Councils in the Valley in a variety of ways, including training and mentoring.  Accessibility and a high quality of trainings were offered at the Congress by the Neighborhood Councils, and this should continue along with the option of adding in a regional Congress, too.

Implementation Costs

            The current staff of the Department maintains a regular training schedule, and trainings are also offered on demand on our website via video.   We are also working in collaboration with the Office of the City Attorney to offer more live ethics training sessions.  The costs of maintaining and increasing these trainings should be factored in as well as the cost of revamping trainings to increase the quality of them.  In addition, the costs of co-hosting citywide and regional Congresses should also be included in the cost assessment for the Department and Neighborhood Councils.

            There are more training videos and manuals that can be developed and distributed for the Board members.  Although these would cost additional funding for the Department to develop itself, there may be resources within the City that could assist in the creation of such training tools.  If there is a possibility to partner with the Personnel Department and/or Information Technology Agency, these materials could be developed for little additional resources.  In addition, the tracking of Board member training requires a build out in the database that these agencies may already have or can develop at a lower cost.

Conclusion

            We expect to develop further details about the training program in partnership with Neighborhood Council leaders in the upcoming months once the Councils 4 Councils program is up and running.

            If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (213) 485-1360.  I will be available when you consider this matter in order to answer any questions you may have.

                                                                        Very truly yours,

                                                                        BONGHWAN “BH” KIM, General Manager

Final Report for the Neighborhood Council Regional Governance Motion

Here is the final report for the Neighborhood Council regional governance system. The only changes we made were to update the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils' plans for a Resource Board and include the possibility of setting up a regional administrative system for elections if the Department were to conduct elections in 2012.  The changes are highlighted below in yellow.

We will be submitting this report to the City Council, and you can make additional comments next week at the special meeting of the Arts, Parks and Neighborhoods Committee on Wednesday, November 30, 2012 at 3 p.m. at downtown City Hall.

Thank you all again for your comments, suggestions and time on these reports!

REPORT RE:

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REGIONAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM

The Honorable City Council

  of the City of Los Angeles
Room 395, City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

Council File No. 11-1018

Honorable Members:

            As requested by your Honorable Body, this department has prepared and now transmits for your consideration recommendations regarding a Neighborhood Council Regional Governance System.

Background

            With reductions in the staffing to the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (Department), the City is unable to support ninety-five (95) individually operating Neighborhood Councils.  Neighborhood Councils in areas of the City with chronically low levels of civic engagement are struggling to maintain Board quorum and meet their responsibilities to their stakeholders and the City as certified entities.  Disenfranchising the very communities that need their voices to be heard the most places the entire system at risk.  Neighborhood Councils in some regions are increasingly turning to each other for support and guidance.  Regional alliances of Neighborhood Councils are already addressing local and citywide issues affecting them.  Neighborhood Councils have formed partnerships to handle elections, outreach and administrative functions, e.g. sharing a minute taker, office assistant, website developer, bookkeeper, etc.  This past year, Neighborhood Council leaders have stepped up to form task forces on bylaws, elections, funding and peer mentoring when the Department lost over half of its staff.

In response to diminishing city resources, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils took the initiative and proposed the attached regional governance system so Neighborhood Councils in each area of the city could support one another.  While the implementation of the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils model is currently cost prohibitive, the idea of building on these already existing networks of Neighborhood Councils is still possible to continue to strengthen the Neighborhood Councils’ independence and to increase self governance through a peer-based support system of neighborhood networks comprised of six (6) to twelve (12) Neighborhood Councils.

Collaboration Process for Feedback

            The Department collaborated with the Neighborhood Council regional alliances across the City to solicit feedback from Board members and stakeholders on this motion.  Starting in September and continuing through the beginning of October, the Department cosponsored mini town halls with the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Coalition, the Harbor Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Northeast Los Angeles Coalition, the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils and the South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils.  Approximately, one hundred and fifty (150) Board members and stakeholders provided their feedback at the town halls.   In addition, the Department created an online survey for feedback on the motion where seventeen (17) Board members and stakeholders provided detailed input.  We invited Board members and stakeholders via our bi-monthly eblast to participate in the town halls, survey, blog and work group meetings.

            In October, the Department held three (3) work group meetings on Regional Governance and Grievances to delve further into the details of both the Regional Governance and Grievances systems.  Between five (5) to six (6) Board members participated in each of these work group meetings.  All of the minutes for the town halls and work groups meetings were uploaded to a blog for further comments though we did not receive any.

            The South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils also responded to this motion in the attached report. 

Proposals

            In most of the town halls across the City, the idea of a regional governance system was not supported because of the belief that Neighborhood Councils should not have another layer of bureaucracy to answer to in the system.  The term “governance” was off putting to many Board members, who quickly dismissed the proposal.

            The Board members who attended the town halls in the Valley, East and Harbor areas of the city were open to a type of regional administration system where Neighborhood Councils in a region could support one another by sharing resources to aid in their funding, basic administrative work, such as minutes taking and posting, grievances, elections, training and outreach efforts.  Neighborhood Councils could opt out of services they didn’t need, but there would be regional work, such as elections and grievances, that they would need to participate in at a regional level.  Certain services, such as funding and administrative support, would be fee based so Neighborhood Councils that desired this assistance would pay a basic fee for it.  A figure of $1500 for the year per Neighborhood Council was suggested in the work group, but the Department has not had the time to price the cost out for training and developing the temporary staffing to maintain this system.

            Because of the limited time, the work group did not focus on a Regional Governance system, but worked on Grievances instead.  The Department is considering developing a pilot program for those regions that were interested in such support as it could alleviate the staffing resource shortage for the Department to work with Neighborhood Councils via temporary staffing assistance.  Further, in light of the possibility of the Department supporting the Neighborhood Councils in holding their elections in 2012, the Department would likely have to create some type of citywide regional structure to administer the elections.

        

           In addition, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils has revised their initial proposal to launch a Resource Board of experience Board member volunteers.  The Resource Board would offer assistance on a voluntary basis to Neighborhood Councils in the Valley seeking support in the areas of training, mentoring, grievances and funding.   They are currently building their volunteer base.    

Implementation Costs

            The current staffing of the Department cannot support the set up and maintenance of a regional administrative system that covers all of the areas listed above.  Further research is needed to ascertain a set up cost for a pilot program for certain regions and for administering elections citywide based on this model. 

Conclusion

            The Department recognizes the City’s current fiscal crisis and we have responded by initiating several initiatives that taps volunteers who want to help meet the needs of a growing movement.  A regional administration system is intended to maintain critical support services while minimizing the burden to the City’s general fund. Such a system would help Neighborhood Councils with their day to day work load to free them up to build the grass roots participation they are tasked with by the City Charter and the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils.  The Department currently has contracts with temporary staffing agencies to provide as-needed administrative and funding support.  Increasing the effectiveness of an as-needed support system by better managing and coordinating the existing contractual services and adding additional as-needed positions, provides the Department with additional resources and tools while minimizing the need for additional staff positions.  To set up such a system, the Department would need more time to work with Neighborhood Council leaders in coming up with the various support options and costs.

            If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (213) 485-1360.  I will be available when you consider this matter in order to answer any questions you may have.

                                                                        Very truly yours,

                                                                        BONGHWAN “BH” KIM, General Manager

Final Report for the Neighborhood Council Grievance Motion

Here is the final report for the Neighborhood Council grievance motion.  The only changes we made were to clarify the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners' (Commission) grievance recommendation and why there would be a list of consequences.  The changes are highlighted below in yellow.
 
We will be submitting this report to the City Council, and you can make additional comments next week at the special meeting of the Arts, Parks and Neighborhoods Committee on Wednesday, November 30, 2012 at 3 p.m. at downtown City Hall.
Thank you all again for your comments, suggestions and time on these reports!

REPORT RE:

 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL SYSTEM GRIEVANCE POLICY AND PROCESS

The Honorable City Council

  of the City of Los Angeles
Room 395, City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

Council File No. 11-1018

Honorable Members:

            As requested by your Honorable Body, this department has prepared and now transmits for your consideration recommendations regarding a Neighborhood Council Grievance System.

Background

            Currently, under the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils (Plan), there are two (2) ways which stakeholders can complain about a Neighborhood Council’s actions: grievances and complaints.  Grievances are filed with the Neighborhood Council and handled by the Neighborhood Council through the grievance procedures in their bylaws.  Complaints are filed with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (Department) and can cause a Neighborhood Council to be placed into exhaustive efforts, which can ultimately lead to decertification by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (Commission).

Each year, between twenty (20) to fifty (50) grievances are filed against Neighborhood Councils.   Many of these grievances then become complaints to the Department when the filer feels that the Neighborhood Council’s grievance process was unfair.  The Department receives complaints weekly about various Neighborhood Councils though many are never converted into formalized complaints because the Department either handles them outright or the complainant refuses to file a formal complaint.

Collaboration Process for Feedback

            The Department collaborated with the Neighborhood Council regional alliances across the City to solicit feedback from Board members and stakeholders on this motion.  Starting in September and continuing through the beginning of October, the Department cosponsored mini town halls with the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Coalition, the Harbor Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Northeast Los Angeles Coalition, the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils and the South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils.  Approximately, one hundred and fifty (150) Board members and stakeholders provided their feedback at the town halls.   In addition, the Department created an online survey for feedback on the motion where seventeen (17) Board members and stakeholders provided detailed input.  We invited Board members and stakeholders via our bi-monthly eblast to participate in the town halls, survey, blog and work group meetings.

            In October, the Department held three (3) work group meetings on Regional Governance and Grievances to delve further into the details of a grievance process.  Between five (5) to six (6) Board members participated in each of these work group meetings.  All of the minutes for the town halls and work groups meetings were uploaded to a blog for further comments though we did not receive any. 

Proposals

            The proposals presented here are a compilation of the feedback we received in the town halls, online survey and work group process.  In addition, the Commission and the South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils provided their own recommendations on the grievance system, which are attached to this report for your consideration as well.

            While we did receive feedback that total elimination of the grievance process through a robust elections system was the best way to handle grievances, the general input we received was that there should be some type of effective grievance system that has an appeal process, but still allows Neighborhood Councils the first opportunity to address the matter.

            Based on this premise, the work group developed a regional peer grievance panel that combined the grievance and complaint process into one (1) system, which starts at the Department, and would take approximately ninety (90) days to resolve.  The Department would play an administrative role in tracking and sending the grievances to the Neighborhood Council and the Regional Peer Grievance Panel as well as recording and executing final determinations or recommendations of the Regional Peer Grievance Panel.

Grievance Process Flow Chart

[please see page 2 of the draft document for the unchanged flow chart]

The Commission’s recommendation adds a secondary appeal process beyond the Regional Peer Grievance Panel whereby the Commission or another neutral entity could review the grievance if the Department determined “intentional malfeasance on the part of a Regional Grievance Panel.”  Once the Commission or neutral entity makes a final determination, an appeal can then be filed with the City Council as well.

            The recommendation of the South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils keeps grievance resolution at the Neighborhood Council with the ability to appeal for review to the Commission.  Any Commission review could then be appealed to the City Council, too.

            A valid grievance that would be accepted for processing by the Department would have the following components:

1.      Filed by a stakeholder against the Board for a procedural violation of the Neighborhood Council bylaws and/or standing rules on a grievance form identifying the rule violated and the remedy sought; and

2.     Addressed an act within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of occurrence of a funding violation or sixty (60) days from the date of occurrence of any non-funding violations.

            The work group believed if Regional Peer Grievances Panels were created, they should have the authority to make a determination which:

1.     Identified what occurred and which rule was involved;

2.     Recommended what action the Neighborhood Council needed to take to make a correction and also provided a time frame for the Neighborhood Council action; and

3.     As an option, could state that if the Neighborhood Council did not make the correction, then the Department would then follow up with a consequence that the Panel could choose off a list of recommended consequences based on the type and severity of the grievance and how often the Neighborhood Council has acted in the same manner in the past.  This list would be to ensure the same consequences citywide.

A list of proposed types of consequences was also put forth by the work group:

1.     Freeze Neighborhood Council funds.

2.     Financial penalty against a Neighborhood Council.

3.     Reversal of Board action taken or reholding a meeting.

4.     Mandatory training for the Board or a specific person.

5.     Sanctions against the Board or individuals who took action in their Neighborhood Council capacity via censure, removal, suspension of Board member or of voting rights, or a warning.  This authority can also include preventing Board members from running for the Board for a certain time period, too, if they are removed.

6.     Facilitation/receivership of Board meetings by the Department or a mentor.

7.     Required changes to the Neighborhood Council bylaws and/or standing rules to create more checks and balances.

8.     Referral to the District or City Attorney for prosecution.

9.     Vacating the Board.

10.  Exhaustive Efforts by the Department, which could lead to decertification by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners.

            Regional Peer Grievance Panelists could be selected by the Neighborhood Councils in a specific region and can be Board members or stakeholders.  They would be trained in conflict resolution skills as well as Neighborhood Council policies and procedures.  The work group also entertained the possibility that the panel could have a member of the Commission or City Councilmember staff on it.  The Department and City Attorney staff should be present, too. 

Implementation Costs

            The current staffing of the Department cannot support the administrative function of reviewing, tracking and recording the grievances as developed by the work group, the Commission or the South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils.  This work would require at Project Coordinator level position and costs associated with a web-based case management system that can process and track all grievances as well as for records retention purposes.

            In addition, staffing time of the Department and the Office of the City Attorney would be necessary to prepare the changes to the Plan and ordinances for implementation.

Conclusion

            Although the work group did develop detailed time lines for the grievance process, more meetings are required by the Department, Board members, Commission and the Office of the City Attorney to establish the exact type of consequences available should Neighborhood Councils not attend to grievances as well as how the existence of the Regional Peer Grievance Panels are authorized.  The type of authorization would affect whether these panels would be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act.  While the Department supports fully open and transparent meetings for the Regional Peer Grievance Panels, staffing for Brown Acted panels would likely not be possible at the current staffing levels.

            If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (213) 485-1360.  I will be available when you consider this matter in order to answer any questions you may have.

                                                                        Very truly yours,

                                                                        BONGHWAN “BH” KIM, General Manager

Final Report for the Neighborhood Council Funding Program

Here is the final report for the Neighborhood Council Funding Program.  The only changes we made were to correct the number of funding work group members and clarify how the Neighborhood Councils' general consensus regarding a grant based funding program was that they did not want it.  The changes are highlighted below in yellow.

We will be submitting this report to the City Council, and you can make additional comments next week at the special meeting of the Arts, Parks and Neighborhoods Committee on Wednesday, November 30, 2012 at 3 p.m. at downtown City Hall.

Thank you all again for your comments, suggestions and time on these reports!

REPORT RE:

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL SYSTEM FUNDING PROGRAM

The Honorable City Council

 of the City of Los Angeles
Room 395, City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

Council File No. 11-1020

Honorable Members:

As requested by your Honorable Body, this department submits this report as requested by the City Council, to address four (4) main items in the approved motion.

Ÿ  Clarify the encumbrance policy

Ÿ  Alternative funding models

Ÿ  Develop a mechanism by which Neighborhood Councils may request to roll over funds from year to year, on a project-by-project basis

Ÿ  Neighborhood Council purchases of equipment for City and Proprietary Departments in fiscal year 2010-2011

At this time, the department recommends continued discussion to address these items, to better ascertain the feasibility of implementation and to provide a greater opportunity for input from Neighborhood Councils on proposed policies or processes. 

Background

On August 16, 2011, the City Council approved a series of motions related to the work of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (Department) and its oversight of the Neighborhood Council system.  This report responds to the motion related to the Neighborhood Council Funding Program (attached), which established a number of new requirements, gave authority to the Department to suspend Neighborhood Council funds under specific circumstances, and listed four (4) items for the Department to address and report back to the City Council within ninety (90) days.

Collaboration Process for Feedback

            The Department collaborated with the Neighborhood Council regional alliances across the City to solicit feedback from Board members and stakeholders on this motion.  Starting in September and continuing through the beginning of October, the Department cosponsored mini town halls with the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Coalition, the Harbor Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Northeast Los Angeles Coalition, the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils and the South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils.  Approximately, one hundred and fifty (150) Board members and stakeholders provided their feedback at the town halls.   In addition, the Department created an online survey for feedback on the motion where seventeen (17) Board members and stakeholders provided detailed input.  We invited Board members and stakeholders via our bi-monthly eblast to participate in the town halls, survey, blog and work group meetings.

In October, the Department held three (3) work group meetings on the Funding Program, inviting Neighborhood Council Board members, particularly those who serve as Treasurers.  The invitation was also extended to the Office of the Controller, Office of the City Attorney, the City Administrative Officer (CAO), the City Legislative Analyst (CLA), the Board of Neighborhood Commission, and the Information Technology Agency (ITA).  Between nine (9) to seventeen (17) Board members participated in each of these work group meetings.  A representative of the Office of the Controller attended two (2) of the meetings.  All of the minutes for the town halls and work groups meetings were uploaded to a blog for further comments though we did not receive any. 

Item 1

The Department was directed to: (1) clarify the encumbrance process; (2) standardize financial templates, forms, and reporting; (3) streamline approvals and management of the program; and (4) increase accountability.

Status

On February 18, 2010, the City Council voted to limit the access of Neighborhood Councils to rollover funds (C.F. 09-0600-S159), then eliminated the rollover policy for fiscal year 2010-11 funds.  Consequently, the Department encumbered funds for each Neighborhood Council based on requests for demand warrants received by April 15, 2011 and executed contracts.  The deadlines were the focus of several department communications; however, there were a number of Neighborhood Councils that were unable to plan accordingly.

The Department’s encumbrance policy is defined as monies set aside to pay for requests submitted by a Neighborhood Council by the April 15th deadline and/or operational costs, such as services provided by the Department’s contracted vendors, utility bills and month-to-month office and meeting space expenses.  The Department will be developing different guidelines to encumber funds as long as required conditions are met.

Discussions with Neighborhood Council members present revealed the belief by some that funds were encumbered, for purposes of the Department, when the board acts to commit funds at a Neighborhood Council meeting.  Work group participants also expressed that the deadlines were not provided with sufficient lead time for Neighborhood Councils to prepare, and that the April 15th deadline leaves Neighborhood Councils without the ability to pay vendors through a request for a demand warrant two (2) months before the end of the fiscal year.

The Department considers these concerns valid and has committed to providing greater notice and reviewing the deadlines for submission of funding requests.  The Department proposes to provide notice on the deadlines in January and accepting Neighborhood Councils’ requests for demand warrants until June 1st.  The June 1st deadline is contingent on the Department’s ability to implement an electronic platform for receipt of requests.

The Department has standardized the budget and all forms and reports associated with the funding program, but will continue to be challenged in managing the funding program as long as it remains a manual paper-based system.  The City’s newly adopted, state of the art Financial Management System is designed to meet the needs of large departments to manage and track highly complex budgets, but it cannot accommodate our unique Demand Warrant and Purchase Card based system for ninety-five (95) cost centers.  Both ITA and the Controller have indicated that, due to other citywide priorities, they would not be able to build a customized module in the near future.  With their guidance, however, we will be securing a professional consultant who can develop a comprehensive plan to design and build an automated paperless system.  The Department will prepare a report with a system proposal and budget to the Mayor and City Council which will be based on a thorough assessment of our functional needs.

Item 2

The City Council continued its policy to prohibit the rollover of unencumbered funds and directed the Department to report back on alternative funding models, including a grant based funding system.

Status

Discussions regarding this item focused exclusively on a grant-based funding system.  The Department presented a scenario in which funds could be allocated on a citywide or regional basis with Neighborhood Councils applying for funds for specific projects or programs.  A certain amount would be provided up front for operational expenses, perhaps twenty (20) percent, while the rest of the funding would be grant based.  A panel comprised of City staff and Neighborhood Council representatives can review each proposal and make the funding determination based on agreed upon standards.  This process would require strategic planning on the part of Neighborhood Councils to solicit the participation of all sectors of the community in determining short and long-term priorities.  Bringing everyone to the table can result in the identification of other funding sources to leverage the City’s funds. 

In the town halls, online survey and work group meetings, the general consensus was that Board members were adamantly opposed to changing the current funding system.  The main concern voiced was the feeling that the decision-making process would be removed from the Neighborhood Council to the City if a grant based funding process was implemented.  There were also concerns raised about the ability of certain Neighborhood Councils to produce better written proposals and possibly leaving out those who may not have the skills or the time.  Many stated that a grant system was too complex and time consuming for Neighborhood Council volunteers to use and the Department to oversee with its limited staffing. 

A suggestion was offered that rather than sweeping unencumbered funds at the end of the fiscal year, remaining funds should be placed in a fund intended to be parceled out as grants to Neighborhood Councils based on need.  For example, some Neighborhood Councils have the need to provide translation at meetings, placing a higher proportion of their funds in operational expenses and less on neighborhood improvement projects and outreach.

Item 3

The Department was directed to report back with a mechanism to allow for the rollover of Neighborhood Council funds from one (1) year to the next for approved projects.  Projects would be deemed appropriate by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners or a committee comprised of the CLA, CAO and the Department, which will: (1) define the type of project that would qualify; (2) provide the details as to the application and approval process; and (3) establish deadlines to complete an approved project.

Status

The Department proposes to establish a Neighborhood Improvement Project budget, similar to the Capital Improvement Project budget that allows allocated funds to roll over from year to year.  This provides an option for Neighborhood Councils that wish to implement neighborhood improvement projects that may take a significant amount of time and money to implement.  Work group participants did not agree on whether projects should be tangible or intangible, or whether they should be limited to capital projects.  They did feel, however, that the project should cost in excess of $5,000.  Some felt that the project should be completed within one (1) fiscal year given the turnover of Board members, while others argued that such a short time limit negates a rollover project.  Stipulating that the funds can only be used for the intended project or be swept by the City would encourage the completion of the project by incoming Board members.  The feeling was also expressed that capital projects should be undertaken by the City and that Neighborhood Councils should advocate for priority community projects instead of using their funds.

Item 4

The Department was directed to report back on equipment purchases made by Neighborhood Councils in fiscal year 2010-11 for city and proprietary departments, and on any guidelines that can be implemented to maximize the benefit of said purchases to the corresponding department and the Neighborhood Council.

Status

The discussion on the purchase of equipment for City Departments in FY 2010-11 clarified the process that Neighborhood Councils are to request a transfer to the City Department and not buy and donate the equipment because it presents a transparency and accountability problem.  There is also a concern that Neighborhood Councils are being used as an end around the established budgets for the departments.  Suggestions were made about how to ensure the equipment is of benefit to the community, such as having the requesting department provide a written statement indicating the equipment is a high priority for the entire department or having each department provide a list of priority items to the Neighborhood Councils.  It was also expressed that City departments should be a greater priority over schools, and some had the view that Neighborhood Councils should not give money to other City agencies since their needs were discussed and determined in the budget process.

Conclusion

The Department received valuable input from Neighborhood Council representatives and believes a final recommendation on each of the directives can be provided after allowing for more input on any preliminary recommendations.

            If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (213) 485-1360.  I will be available when you consider this matter in order to answer any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,

BONGHWAN “BH” KIM, General Manager

Thanks for your Comments

Thank you very much for providing comments on our reports.  We're finalizing the reports now and will have them posted here early next week before sending them to the City Council.  Councilmember Paul Krekorian will be reviewing the reports and also the 2012 elections at a special meeting of the Arts, Parks and Neighborhood Committee on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 3 p.m. in downtown City Hall. 

We hope to see you there!

Draft Report for the Neighborhood Council Funding Program

The original version of this draft report was passed out at the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Coalition last Saturday, but we've made a few formatting and grammatical changes to the version below.  Please let us know what you think.  We'd like all input in by November 16th.  Thank you!

*****

Honorable Members:

As requested by your Honorable Body, this department submits this report as requested by the City Council, to address four (4) main items in the approved motion.

Ÿ  Clarify the encumbrance policy

Ÿ  Alternative funding models

Ÿ  Develop a mechanism by which Neighborhood Councils may request to roll over funds from year to year, on a project-by-project basis

Ÿ  Neighborhood Council purchases of equipment for City and Proprietary Departments in fiscal year 2010-2011

At this time, the department recommends continued discussion to address these items, to better ascertain the feasibility of implementation and to provide a greater opportunity for input from Neighborhood Councils on proposed policies or processes. 

Background

On August 16, 2011, the City Council approved a series of motions related to the work of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (Department) and its oversight of the Neighborhood Council system.  This report responds to the motion related to the Neighborhood Council Funding Program (attached), which established a number of new requirements, gave authority to the Department to suspend Neighborhood Council funds under specific circumstances, and listed four (4) items for the Department to address and report back to the City Council within ninety (90) days.

Collaboration Process for Feedback

            The Department collaborated with the Neighborhood Council regional alliances across the City to solicit feedback from Board members and stakeholders on this motion.  Starting in September and continuing through the beginning of October, the Department cosponsored mini town halls with the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Coalition, the Harbor Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, the Northeast Los Angeles Coalition, the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils and the South Los Angeles Alliance of Neighborhood Councils.  Approximately, one hundred and fifty (150) Board members and stakeholders provided their feedback at the town halls.   In addition, the Department created an online survey for feedback on the motion where seventeen (17) Board members and stakeholders provided detailed input.  We invited Board members and stakeholders via our bi-monthly eblast to participate in the town halls, survey, blog and work group meetings.

In October, the Department held three (3) work group meetings on the Funding Program, inviting Neighborhood Council Board members, particularly those who serve as Treasurers.  The invitation was also extended to the Office of the Controller, Office of the City Attorney, the City Administrative Officer (CAO), the City Legislative Analyst (CLA), the Board of Neighborhood Commission, and the Information Technology Agency (ITA).  Between six (6) to eight (8) Board members participated in each of these work group meetings.  A representative of the Office of the Controller attended two (2) of the meetings.  All of the minutes for the town halls and work groups meetings were uploaded to a blog for further comments though we did not receive any. 

Item 1

The Department was directed to: (1) clarify the encumbrance process; (2) standardize financial templates, forms, and reporting; (3) streamline approvals and management of the program; and (4) increase accountability.

Status

On February 18, 2010, the City Council voted to limit the access of Neighborhood Councils to rollover funds (C.F. 09-0600-S159), then eliminated the rollover policy for fiscal year 2010-11 funds.  Consequently, the Department encumbered funds for each Neighborhood Council based on requests for demand warrants received by April 15, 2011 and executed contracts.  The deadlines were the focus of several department communications; however, there were a number of Neighborhood Councils that were unable to plan accordingly.

The Department’s encumbrance policy is defined as monies set aside to pay for requests submitted by a Neighborhood Council by the April 15th deadline and/or operational costs, such as services provided by the Department’s contracted vendors, utility bills and month-to-month office and meeting space expenses.  The Department will be developing different guidelines to encumber funds as long as required conditions are met.

Discussions with Neighborhood Council members present revealed the belief by some that funds were encumbered, for purposes of the Department, when the board acts to commit funds at a Neighborhood Council meeting.  Work group participants also expressed that the deadlines were not provided with sufficient lead time for Neighborhood Councils to prepare, and that the April 15th deadline leaves Neighborhood Councils without the ability to pay vendors through a request for a demand warrant two (2) months before the end of the fiscal year.

The Department considers these concerns valid and has committed to providing greater notice and reviewing the deadlines for submission of funding requests.  The Department proposes to provide notice on the deadlines in January and accepting Neighborhood Councils’ requests for demand warrants until June 1st.  The June 1st deadline is contingent on the Department’s ability to implement an electronic platform for receipt of requests.

The Department has standardized the budget and all forms and reports associated with the funding program, but will continue to be challenged in managing the funding program as long as it remains a manual paper-based system.  The City’s newly adopted, state of the art Financial Management System is designed to meet the needs of large departments to manage and track highly complex budgets, but it cannot accommodate our unique Demand Warrant and Purchase Card based system for ninety-five (95) cost centers.  Both ITA and the Controller have indicated that, due to other citywide priorities, they would not be able to build a customized module in the near future.  With their guidance, however, we will be securing a professional consultant who can develop a comprehensive plan to design and build an automated paperless system.  The Department will prepare a report with a system proposal and budget to the Mayor and City Council which will be based on a thorough assessment of our functional needs.

Item 2

The City Council continued its policy to prohibit the rollover of unencumbered funds and directed the Department to report back on alternative funding models, including a grant based funding system.

Status

Discussions regarding this item focused exclusively on a grant-based funding system.  The Department presented a scenario in which funds could be allocated on a citywide or regional basis with Neighborhood Councils applying for funds for specific projects or programs.  A panel comprised of City staff and Neighborhood Council representatives can review each proposal and make the funding determination based on agreed upon standards.  This process would require strategic planning on the part of Neighborhood Councils to solicit the participation of all sectors of the community in determining short and long-term priorities.  Bringing everyone to the table can result in the identification of other funding sources to leverage the City’s funds. 

While some work group attendees did not disagree completely with the concept, there were concerns raised about the ability of certain Neighborhood Councils to produce better written proposals and possibly leaving out those who may not have the skills or the time.  The question was raised as to whether a certain amount would remain for operational expenses, perhaps twenty (20) percent.   Most of those attending and those who have provided input to the Department via other means, however, were adamantly opposed to changing the current funding system.  The main concern voiced was the feeling that the decision-making process would be removed from the Neighborhood Council to the City.  A suggestion was offered that rather than sweeping unencumbered funds at the end of the fiscal year, remaining funds should be placed in a fund intended to be parceled out as grants to Neighborhood Councils based on need.  For example, some Neighborhood Councils have the need to provide translation at meetings, placing a higher proportion of their funds in operational expenses and less on neighborhood improvement projects and outreach.

Item 3

The Department was directed to report back with a mechanism to allow for the rollover of Neighborhood Council funds from one (1) year to the next for approved projects.  Projects would be deemed appropriate by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners or a committee comprised of the CLA, CAO and the Department, which will: (1) define the type of project that would qualify; (2) provide the details as to the application and approval process; and (3) establish deadlines to complete an approved project.  

Status

The Department proposes to establish a Neighborhood Improvement Project budget, similar to the Capital Improvement Project budget that allows allocated funds to roll over from year to year.  This provides an option for Neighborhood Councils that wish to implement neighborhood improvement projects that may take a significant amount of time and money to implement.  Work group participants did not agree on whether projects should be tangible or intangible, or whether they should be limited to capital projects.  They did feel, however, that the project should cost in excess of $5,000.  Some felt that the project should be completed within one (1) fiscal year given the turnover of Board members, while others argued that such a short time limit negates a rollover project.  Stipulating that the funds can only be used for the intended project or be swept by the City would encourage the completion of the project by incoming Board members.  The feeling was also expressed that capital projects should be undertaken by the City and that Neighborhood Councils should advocate for priority community projects instead of using their funds.

Item 4

The Department was directed to report back on equipment purchases made by Neighborhood Councils in fiscal year 2010-11 for city and proprietary departments, and on any guidelines that can be implemented to maximize the benefit of said purchases to the corresponding department and the Neighborhood Council.

Status

The discussion on the purchase of equipment for City Departments in FY 2010-11 clarified the process that Neighborhood Councils are to request a transfer to the City Department and not buy and donate the equipment because it presents a transparency and accountability problem.  There is also a concern that Neighborhood Councils are being used as an end around the established budgets for the departments.  Suggestions were made about how to ensure the equipment is of benefit to the community, such as having the requesting department provide a written statement indicating the equipment is a high priority for the entire department or having each department provide a list of priority items to the Neighborhood Councils.  It was also expressed that City departments should be a greater priority over schools, and some had the view that Neighborhood Councils should not give money to other City agencies since their needs were discussed and determined in the budget process.

Conclusion

The Department received valuable input from Neighborhood Council representatives and believes a final recommendation on each of the directives can be provided after allowing for more input on any preliminary recommendations.