Minutes from the Regional Governance/Grievances Reforms Work Group - Meeting #2

We had a lively discussion tonight regarding the details of the grievance process that the work group came up with last week.  The major concern was that there were not sufficient details in what type of grievances could be filed and how to fit the remedy to the violation.  We couldn't get into all these details because we needed to also look at Regional Governance.


The discussion on Regional Governance was rather short because everyone agreed that any regional administration (not governance!) system should be voluntary.  Some were supportive of the Neighborhood Councils contributing no more than $1500 towards administrative help if they opt in to it and saw how this could assist the Neighborhood Councils and the Department.


The work group decided it was important to go back to grievances and get more specific about what could be grieved and how to properly match the remedy to the grievance.


We'll be uploading the updated Grievance Flow Chart tomorrow on the blog for any comments.  The last meeting will be on  October 19, 2011 at the Hollywood Constituent Center - 6501 Fountain Ave. Los Angeles 90028 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.  We hope to see you there!

Neighborhood Council Regional Governance and Grievances

Reform Work Group Meeting
Agenda/Minutes

Wednesday, October 12, 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

·        Randy Waller – Westlake North/South NC

·        Len Shaffer – Tarzana NC

·        Robert Gelfand – Coastal San Pedro NC

·        Charles Lindenblatt – Mid City West NC

·        Ivan Spiegel – Venice NC

·        Louretta Randell – CANNDUNC

·        Carlene Davis – Board of Neighborhood Commissioners

·        Grayce Liu – Department of Neighborhood Empowerment

·        Question on whether the work group’s discussion on the grievances is cumulative from the start of the work group or can everything be back on the table.  Grayce stated that the town halls allowed for general discussion and that the work groups were intended to dig deeper into each motion and go into details so could not discuss everything all over again ever work group meeting.  Objection was raised about this and duly noted.

II.          Grievances

• Review of a flow chart of the grievance process discussed last week

                                                    i.     Concern raised about specificity of types of grievances filed and limitations of remedies

                                                  ii.     Concern also raised about a bureaucratic body ruling over NC’s – perhaps for really serious violations

                                                 iii.     Concern that a grievance system is not necessary when there is a healthy election system though acknowledges that isn’t happening right now with the City budget cuts

                                                 iv.     Question on who would decide the time limit for grievances regarding “should have known within 30 days” since that is a legal question

                                                  v.     Question on whether 5 calendar days for NC’s to respond that they received the grievance by the Department is too short.

                                                 vi.     Question on whether 45 days is enough time for a NC to resolve the grievance and that 60 days may be better

                                               vii.     Question about what constitutes a “conflict of interest” that would preclude a Peer Grievance Panelist from serving on the panel.

                                             viii.     Question on who provides the training for conflict resolution to the panelists

                                                 ix.     Question on what due process rights are provided during the hearing, e.g. right to discovery, right of rebuttal, etc.

                                                  x.     Question on what opportunities there are to appeal for the NC’s if they disagree with a panel imposed remedy

                                                 xi.     Question on whether financial disclosures would come into play for panelists, such as Form 700

                                               xii.     Question on what happens to those who want judicial review of the panel’s decision

                                             xiii.     Question on what constitutes acknowledgement of the grievance by the NC and who receives the grievance from the Department

                                             xiv.     Request to have a list of detailed grievances and specific remedies for those grievances

                                               xv.     Comment that the grievance system could lead to a NC being decertified for trivial grievances

1.     Grayce responded that decertification is the very last choice and that the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners would likely look at the seriousness of the charges for decertification and that there would be multiple chances for the NC to correct any bylaws/operating rule violations in exhaustive efforts

2.     Comment from someone who has seen exhaustive efforts in action that exhaustive efforts works and allows an NC to reorganize like a bankruptcy

                                             xvi.     Question on whether stakeholders could bring legal action against the City for the removal of an entire Board as a remedy because the election/selection of the Board is a City Chartered sanction action and could be taking rights away from an entire group of stakeholders

                                            xvii.     Comment that there is currently a built in conflict of interest currently the existing NC grievance system because the Boards are hearing their own grievances

                                            xviii.     Question on how to ensure consistent action by various panels across the City in the imposition of sanctions – Grayce mentioned that’s why it’s important for the Department and City Attorney to staff the panels in order to provide such information

                                              xix.     Concern to make sure the remedy/punishment fits the crime

                                                xx.     Suggestions for specific limitations on grievances types are: Brown Act violations, secret meetings, Chair not allowing for public comment

1.     Comment that these 3 types of grievances are the same thing under the Brown Act

2.     Suggestions for Sunshine Ordinance to deal with Brown Act issues– Brown Act, PRA

• Grayce commented that the work group should not get burdened in the grievance details right now since the work group had to deal with the Regional Governance issue as well.  There is already enough specificity in the grievance for the Plan changes, and the Commission can come up with specific remedies for violations and remedies in the future.

• Skipped this item due to time constraints - Review and discussion of the information obtain from City Attorney and questions that have come up from Board

                                                    i.     Financial penalty against the NC – not against individuals – City Attorney stated this is feasible and could direct NC’s to spend that money towards outreach in their community for example.

                                                   ii.     Reversal of Board action taken or reholding a meeting – City Attorney stated this can happen, but need to resolve what would happen if in a funding situation, the money is already spent?  Sometimes the legality of doing something is easier than the feasibility.

                                                  iii.     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

• Valid Grievances

                                                    i.     Grievances are intended to address matters involving procedural disputes, such as the Board's failure to comply with Board Rules or its Bylaws. It is not intended to apply to Stakeholders who merely disagree with a position or action taken by the Board at one of its meetings, which may be aired at public comment at Council meetings. 

                                                   ii.     Board members may not file grievances against the NC or other Board members

                                                  iii.     In limited circumstances, grievances can be about violations of the Brown Act so long as the remedy requested, such as Board training, is not a penalty under the state law violation

                                                 iv.     Grievances cannot be about the PRA, a Demand to Cure under the Brown Act (which must go directly to the NC), violation of city/state/federal law, conflicts of interests

                                                   v.     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 

• Who is on the Regional Peer Grievance Panel?  Skipped this item due to time constraints

                                                    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.     Brown Acted Bodies – Have the option of not making it Brown Acted bodies if the resource infrastructure is not there to support public meetings.

                                                  iii.     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

• Should there be a limit on how many times a person can file a grievance each year to address serial grievers? Skipped this item due to time constraints

• How are the regions selected for a Regional Peer Grievance Panel?  Skipped this item due to time constraints

                                                    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

3. Regional Governance System
• Background – Grayce provided the background in the fact sheet, reiterating the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Council’s intent to assist the NC’s through regional governance, but that because of funding constraints, that plan could not be implemented.  She also stated that any system had to be mutually beneficial to both the Neighborhood Councils and the Department.
• Town Hall Comments – Grayce stated that most of the comments were against a regional governance system and were more open to regional administrative system

                                                    i.     Comment to stop using regional governance system - administrative

                                                   ii.     Comment that the westside area hates the idea of a regional administrative system – what kind of things could this work for? There’s nothing here that NC’s can’t do already; perhaps training, election, outreach.

                                                  iii.     Comment that the Harbor area doesn’t object to voluntary administrative hub; does Department want to do the ground work to set up?  Financial support could be available for the whole region

• Should there be a regional governance system?

                                                    i.     Yes – Not selected

                                                   ii.     No – Selected by the work group

• Should there be a regional administrative system?

                                                    i.     Yes – if yes, should be voluntary and not to exceed the cost of $1500 per NC that wants to participate in paying its fair share in administrative costs, but would need more details to figure out just how much it would cost

1.     Don’t want NC’s to absorb the cost of setting up this up

                                                   ii.     No – Is this a solution in search of a problem?  Does that problem still exist?  If there is a regional issue, then NC’s should have list of the issues

1.     Just create best practices on website

2.     There is no penalty to these motions so the Department should just tell the City Council that the NC’s have stated that they don’t need this

• Comment is that the motion wanted to deal with reducing the work load of the Department, so what are other ways to do this without setting up this system?
• Miss Project Coordinators at NC meetings
• Comment that NC’s should help the Department get the extra staffing they need
• Comment that the proper place for funding is at the Controller, but that the Controller has stated that she doesn’t have the staff to handle this - related comment that Department should handle, but if they can’t, it should go to the Controller or another 3^rd party to handle 

• What do you do with a NC that opts out but does not have the capability to do this?
• Grayce mentioned that when an NC is in exhaustive efforts, the Department has the option of charging the NC for administrative and funding assistance if the NC cannot manage it themselves

·        What would a regional system look like?

• How to form the regions- Can regions be patterned on the existing Board of Neighborhood Commissioners’ regions?
• Comment that population of the regions is hard to split up like the Valley
• Authority- Subject matter coverage - Possible areas that could be included: funding, training, outreach, elections, grievances, administrative – minutes
• Functionality – did not get into because work group did not find this to be feasible

·        Could Neighborhood Councils opt out of the regional system?

o   Yes – Selected

o   No – Not selected – folks felt it was a hardship to force some NC’s to work with one another if they did not want to

o   Other –

·        If there are disagreements within a region’s Neighborhood Councils, how is that resolved?  This was not discussed.

·        How much would a regional system cost?  Would need more details, but the temporary help/as needed staff would not be as costly as permanent staff

4. Next Steps
• The work group decided that the next meeting should focus on grievances and to clarify some of the comments and questions brought up above.

·        Information to obtain for next meeting

o   Revised Grievance Flow Chart

o   City Clerk challenges rules

o   Answers from City Attorney re: some legal questions asked above

·        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.