Minutes from the Regional Governance/Grievances Reforms Work Group - Meeting #1

We had a very productive meeting last night at the first Regional Governance/Grievances work group meeting.  The work group tackled grievances first since there has already been so much discussion and many proposals for the last few years.  We reminded the work group that changes in the grievance system would require a change in the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils so they could completely reinvent the system if they wanted to do so.  Some work group members were not aware that changes in the Plan were on the table, and we reiterated that the motions required Plan changes to take effect.  


The minutes of the entire meeting are below, but here are some decision highlights:

1. Grievances and complaints should be combined into one system for review.
2. The Regional Peer Grievance Panel would be the final body to review a grievance after the Neighborhood Council has an opportunity to resolve the matter.
3. The Regional Peer Grievance Panel would be empowered to determine remedies that a Neighborhood Council would have to comply with by a certain time limit, or they would have their funds frozen or be put into exhaustive efforts.
4. Remedies that the Panel suggested are:
• Freeze Funds  
• Financial penalty against the NC 
• Reversal of Board action taken or reholding a meeting
•  Mandatory training for the Board or specific person
• Sanctions against the Board or individuals who took actions in their NC capacity via
  a warning, sanction or removal
• Vacating the entire Board as a step before decertification
• Facilitation of the Board meetings by the Department/mentor
• Receivership of the NC by the Department – where the Department would take over facilitation and funding operations of a defunct NC and take it through the process of selecting a new Board
•   Required changes to the bylaws/standing rules to create more checks and balances
•  Refer to District Attorney/City Attorney for prosecution
•   Dismissal of the grievance

Please provide any comments on your thoughts regarding this grievance model.  The goal is to quickly finalize the grievance process at the next meeting and move onto the regional governance structure for the remaining meetings.

If you would like to join us for the next Regional Governance/Grievance work group meeting next Wednesday, please be aware that parking is only allowed within the lot for the Pueblo del Sol Community Center.  The entrance for the parking lot is on Plaza del Sol Street.  The street parking is restricted.  Because this is a new complex, it may not show up on your car's navigation system.  Here is the link to map it online.

We look forward to hearing from you!  

Neighborhood Council Regional Governance and Grievances

Reform Work Group Meeting

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Goals:

1.  To determine how grievances/complaints are handled

2.  To start the discussion on a potential regional

governance systemAgenda/Minutes

Purpose: To develop processes and policies to create a system that increases the Neighborhood Councils’ effectiveness and ability to self govern.

I.      Welcome and Introductions

• Charles Lindenblatt – Mid City West Community Council
• Glenn Bailey – Encino NC
• Ivan Spiegel – Venice NC
• John Stammerich – Northwest San Pedro NC
• Randy Waller – Westlake North/South NC
• Daniel Gatica – Board of Neighborhood Commissioners
• Grayce Liu – Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
• BongHwan Kim – Department of Neighborhood Empowerment

·         Grayce clarified that per the City Attorney, EVERYTHING was on the table regarding grievances so the work group should be as creative as possible since the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils would have to be changed to accommodate a new grievance procedure – therefore, a completely new grievance system could be created.

o   Some work group members did not realize that Plan changes could happen and wanted this to be made clear in the minutes

·         She also explained that the work group would focus on grievances tonight since it has been discussed for years now and would hopefully be resolved quicker.  She stated that the agenda listed questions that would need to be answered for a complete grievance system, but to add additional questions as necessary.

II.    Grievances

• Current System – Grayce explained the difference between a grievance and a complaint

                                          i.    Grievance – stakeholder initiated to the NC for resolution

                                         ii.    Complaint – Board member/stakeholder initiated to the Department for resolution; can lead to exhaustive efforts and ultimately decertification

                                        iii.    Most people don’t know there’s a difference

• Town Hall Comments – Grayce passed out the notes from the town halls and asked the work group to consider the various comments about grievances when putting together a system

                                          i.    Comment that grievances and governance are different and should not necessarily be lumped into one work group

                                         ii.    Grayce explained that from the town hall comments, there was much resistance to the concept of regional governance, so it would be more like regional administrative support and grievances could then fit more

• Should there be grievances/complaints?

                                          i.    Yes – Work group agrees there should be

1.    Suggestion to start with the Commission recommendation on grievances and work from there – work group proceeded with answering questions on agenda

2.    Concerns about the restrictions on who can file grievances 

·         Board members should be allowed to file because Boards don’t listen when Board members try to get the item on the agenda and Board members will know the wrongdoings of the Board

·         Other side of Board members not being able to file is that it creates immediate factions on the Boards that are very difficult to resolve; in addition, the Board gets tied up just trying to resolve the grievances between Board members, such as one Neighborhood Council that had to deal with seventeen grievances filed between their Board members against one another

                                         ii.    No – Not selected.  In the town halls, some people mentioned that a regular and robust election system is the best way to handle grievances.  Also, the City Council doesn’t have a grievance system.

1.    Work group members stated that regular elections aren’t on the table right now and don’t want to live with Board members doing something wrong for months on end

• Should grievances and complaints be combined for reviews?

                                          i.    Yes – Work group members agree that combining the two made sense

                                         ii.    No – Not selected

• Should there be a Regional Peer Grievance Panel?

                                          i.    Yes – Work group members agreed there should be, but that NC’s should get the first crack at resolving the grievance, especially if it’s from a stakeholder

                                         ii.    No – Not selected.  Grievances could go before a mediator/ombudsman instead.  

• Who would be the initial point of contact for grievances?

                                          i.    Department – Work group member agreed should have the first point of contact

1.    Would initially review the grievance to make sure it met proper criteria

·         If met, the Department would send it to the NC (all the Board members) within five business days for resolution per their bylaws and copy the grievant.

·         If not met, the Department would send a letter to the filer dismissing the grievant.

2.    The Department should have a form for the grievance that also has a portion for the NC to complete as they resolve the grievance and return to the Department.

3.    The Department will have the option to extend the initial deadline NC’s have to resolve a grievance in case the grievance comes in during the holidays or summer when NC’s are on hiatus.

                                         ii.    Neighborhood Councils – Not selected

                                        iii.    Regional Peer Mentor Group- Not selected

                                       iv.    Board of Neighborhood Commissioners – Not selected

                                        v.    Other – Not selected

• Should the Neighborhood Councils have the first review opportunity?

                                          i.    Yes – Work group thought this was important

1.    Time frame for review - will have forty-five days to resolve – the goal is to try and work it out together and include mediators/mentors if necessary

2.    Possible Outcomes - What happens if not resolved?

·         NC chooses not to deal with the grievance (via Board resolution) at the outset and have the Peer Grievance Panel Review – Immediately sent back to the Department for next step to Panel

·         Unable to resolve or the grievant doesn’t like resolution - Immediately sent back to the Department for next step to Panel

·         After forty-five days, and the NC does nothing - Department automatically sends to Panel

3.    NC must confirm receipt of grievance to Department within five calendar days

4.    Forty-five day time limit can be extended with the approval of both the NC and the grievant if resolution is taking longer

                                         ii.    No – Not selected

1.    Who does it go to then?

                                        iii.    Other – Not selected

• What power does a Regional Peer Grievance Panel have?

                                          i.    Absolute – Work group agreed that the Panel would be the one and only level of appeal from the NC to empower the Panel and that its findings would have teeth via a Plan change

                                         ii.    Recommendation Only -  Not Selected

                                        iii.    Other – The Panel will need Department and City Attorney staff to advise during meetings

• Remedies – all the potential remedies that the Panel can make were listed for consideration; although some seem severe, the work group reasoned that 1) the Panel should be empowered to deliver serious consequences if they are going to take the time to consider these matters and 2) it would provide greater incentive for the NC to work out the grievance at the first level to not be subjected to the potential remedies

                                          i.    Decertification – Commission should maintain jurisdiction and it should be only after exhaustive efforts have been attempted though Panel can recommend

                                         ii.    Exhaustive Efforts – Department should maintain jurisdiction

1.    Panel can recommend that their remedies be carried out in exhaustive efforts by the Department if the NC does not abide by the Panel’s findings

2.    Work group decided that the Department should also maintain its jurisdiction to put a NC into exhaustive efforts without receiving a grievance if Department staff believed the NC was in violation of the Plan – they did not consider it necessary to have the Department go to the Panel first for checks and balances

3.    One of the work group members shared his experience about working with a NC in exhaustive efforts and stated the Department was very supportive with the Council and should still have the ability to put NC’s into exhaustive efforts directly without potential conflict with Panel approval first

• The remaining remedies could be options the Panel could decide upon in its findings along with a time period for completion by the NC.  If not completed by the time period (suggested fifteen days), the Panel can state that the funds would be frozen until remedy completed.  Panel can also add that the Department can take the NC into exhaustive efforts to ensure compliance:

                                          i.    Freeze Funds – currently based on funding related violations only, but would also now include if the NC did not abide by the Panel’s findings regardless of the subject matter of the grievance

1.    Some work group members expressed concern that this would punish the community if funds had been promised and funds were frozen

2.    Other work group members responded that the NC would have had to have done something pretty serious to warrant such a remedy, and they should be responsible to inform their community why their funds were frozen and how they were going to resolve the matter to unfreeze their funds

                                         ii.    Financial penalty against the NC – not against individuals – need to check with City Attorney about the feasibility of this remedy

                                        iii.    Reversal of Board action taken or reholding a meeting – need to check with City Attorney about the feasibility of this remedy

                                       iv.    Mandatory training for the Board or specific person

                                        v.    Sanctions against the Board or individuals who took actions in their NC capacity

1.    Censure

2.    Removal – there was discussion whether the Panel could remove individuals or just ask the NC to consider it under the NC bylaws’ removal policy – no final decision here

·         From Board entirely

·         From Officer position if Officers are selected by the Board – if they are not, then this would also result in removal from the Board

3.    Warnings

                                       vi.    Vacating the entire Board as a step before decertification – Panel could also have the ability to prohibit vacated Board members from running for the Board for a time period (1-2 years) – this prohibition was not discussed by the work group because of time

                                      vii.    Facilitation of the Board meetings by the Department/mentor

                                     viii.    Receivership of the NC by the Department – where the Department would take over facilitation and funding operations of a defunct NC and take it through the process of selecting a new Board

                                       ix.    Required changes to the bylaws/standing rules to create more checks and balances

                                        x.    Refer to District Attorney/City Attorney for prosecution

                                       xi.    Dismissal of the grievance

• Types of Grievances

                                          i.    Currently can’t file against Board actions and individuals – agreed that grievances against individuals could possibly not be entertained since the Board should have known better to adopt the individual’s mistake

                                         ii.    Also acknowledged though that an individual can make a NC nonfunctional

                                        iii.    Wanted a list from City Attorney what could be reviewed

                    iv.  Discussed whether there should be a process for stakeholders/Board members

                          to complain about the Department and the Commission – work group felt that this was not related to this discussion

• How are the regions selected for a Regional Peer Grievance Panel? 

                                          i.    Can use the existing elections/planning regions – some comments that these regions don’t work because too big or connects NC’s that don’t have common interests

                                         ii.    Self selection – regionals can organically form from the NC’s themselves

                                        iii.    Could not have regions at all and just have it be a citywide grievance panel

1.    comment that it was hard for Panelists to get around the entire city if on bus or because of traffic

2.    suggestion from work group member that if the Panelist is not available to travel around the City, then they should not participate in the Panel

                                       iv.    Issue was not resolved and will piggy back on the Regional Governance matter

• Who is on the Regional Peer Grievance Panel?

                                          i.    Selection process – Every NC will select 1-2 Panelists be it a Board member or stakeholder to be in a pool for the region or possibly citywide.  In addition, Panel could potential include the region’s Commissioner from the Board of Neighborhood Commissioner or a representative from the City Councilmember’s office for diversity (was not decided).

                                         ii.    Conflicts of interest – there can’t be conflicts of interest with the Panelists selected to hear a grievance. 

1.    Can’t hear own NC grievance

2.    Suggestion that Panelist not hear any in its region and only other regions

·         Some members thought this was a good idea since all Panelists could be tainted in a region

·         Other members thought this would be hard on Panelists to travel around the City or that a region would want to settle its own issues

·         Grayce suggested that a region would always have the option to send it out to another region’s panel for resolution, but to give the region the ability to resolve it first

3.    Selected Panelists should have to sign a document stating that have no COI

                                        iii.    Evidence type – the Panel could consider written and in person statements

1.    Did not have time to discuss whether this would need to be a Brown Acted body

2.    Check with City Attorney about Brown Act issues

                                       iv.    Department assigns the panel randomly, but also ensuring that it doesn’t overload any one person

1.    Suggestion of a Panel of three

2.    Some work group members who’d served on the City Clerk’s election challenge panels felt that three were too few, possibly five instead

                                        v.    Training – All selected Panelists would have to receive training as a group prior to hearing a grievance - did not have time to discuss in detail

                                       vi.    Expectations – A description of the expectation of the Panelists would need to be developed, which includes mandated training, minimal assignments and conflict of interest issues, which an interested Panelist candidate would need to review and agree to prior to being appointed by the NC.

• How is a grievance handled by the Regional Peer Grievance Panel?

                                          i.    Selection of reviewers – when a grievance comes back from the NC and needs to go to the Panel, the Department will randomly select the panel from the list of trained people

                                         ii.    Time Frame – Statute of limitations – thirty days from the incident or when a person should have known about the incident, which could apply in delayed time situations such as glitches on the quarterly audit submission or draft/approved minutes  

                                        iii.    Findings – did not have time to discuss

                                       iv.    There should be a limit to how many times a person can file a grievance each year, such as three, to handle serial grievers – did not have time to discuss in detail or to finalize

• Should there be an appellate body above the Panel?

                                          i.    Yes – Not Selected

1.    Board of Neighborhood Commissioners – the issues with the Commission being an appellate body is that the grievance could then be appealed to the City Council and that should the NC that is subject to the grievance get to decertification, the Commission would have a conflict if it had already reviewed the grievance

·         if the Commissioners wanted to be involved in grievances, there is potentially an option to have the Commissioner of a region sit on the Panel and should the NC get to decertification, the Commissioner would recuse her/himself from the hearing

2.    Department of Neighborhood Empowerment – Not selected

3.    Other – Not selected

                                         ii.    No – Work group selected this option

• Develop Flow Chart of Process – Grayce stated she would work on this to present at the next meeting

3. Regional Governance System – Did not have time to discuss
• Background
• Town Hall Comments
• Should there be a regional governance system?

                                          i.    Yes –

                                         ii.    No –

• Should there be a regional administrative system?

                                          i.    Yes –

                                         ii.    No –

• What would a regional system look like?

                                          i.    How to form the regions-

                                         ii.    Authority-

                                        iii.    Subject matter coverage

                                       iv.    Functionality

• Could Neighborhood Councils opt out of the regional system?

                                          i.    Yes –

                                         ii.    No –

                                        iii.    Other –

• If there are disagreements within a region’s Neighborhood Councils, how is that resolved?
• How much would a regional system cost?

4. Next Steps

·         Information to obtain for next meeting

o   Grayce to obtain from City Attorney the types of grievances the NC’s and the Peer Grievance Panels could review

o    Flow Chart of Process

o   Write-up of Process for final review

o   Any comments of the work group’s recommendations from the blog

·         October 12, 2011 Meeting - Pueblo del Sol - 1300 Plaza del Sol, Los Angeles 90033

·         October 19, 2011 Meeting - Hollywood Constituent Center - 6501 Fountain Ave. Los Angeles 90028

Meetings are from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.