Summary of Today's Work Group Results Meeting

The final meeting of the work group focused on summarizing major points discussed in all the work groups and final comments on the Neighborhood Council reform motions.  The group reviewed a handout, copied below, as well as the most recent version of the Grievance Process Flow Chart.


Certain comments were reiterated, particularly the repeated request across the city that any additional costs in staffing or resources needed to implement the motions would not come out of the Neighborhood Council funding.


There were multiple concerns that a focus on transparency be key in funding matters at all levels.  From being clear at the City Council/Department of Neighborhood Empowerment level of funding deadlines at the start of the fiscal year down to Neighborhood Councils using simple monthly reports to update the Board on funding transactions, which then should be posted to the website.  Comments were also made that Neighborhood Councils should use the last quarter of the fiscal year (April through June) to strategically plan and budget for the next fiscal year.  Then, the funding for the new fiscal year could be executed per the plan during the first through third quarters.  The thinking behind this is for Neighborhood Councils to increase the impact they have through more proactive planning.


When reviewing the Grievance Process Flow Chart, a few changes from the last meeting were not incorporated, such as the increase in time for the statute of limitations for grievances. A final version of the  Grievance Process Flow Chart will be up on the blog on Monday.


The reports for the motions will be up on this blog by November 1st for comments.  


A huge thank you to all the work group participants for your time and efforts.  We really appreciate you!




Attendees:

• Randy Waller - Westlake North/South NC
• Sharon Brewer - Encino NC
• Charles Lindenblatt - Mid City West CC
• Frank Wada - Lincoln Heights NC
• Frenchie Andrews - Empowerment Congress Southwest NC
• Ivan Spiegel - Venice NC
• Karen Mack - Board of Neighborhood Commissioners
• Paul Park - Board of Neighborhood Commissioners
• Grayce Liu - Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
• BongHwan Kim - Department of Neighborhood Empowerment

Neighborhood Council Reform Work Groups

Meetings Summary Handout

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 in the areas of training, grievances, regional governances and funding.  After holding town halls in partnership with the regional coalitions in September, the Department then held work group meetings in October to develop further details of each motion with the following results:

Training Work Group 

This work group met once as the first meeting was cancelled due to low attendance.  Because the state ethics training and funding training for Treasurers and second signatories are already mandated, the two major questions the work group answered were:

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 answer:
• The Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Council should allow for the Department to determine consequences
• Consequences should be determined by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners
• Neighborhood Councils should determine consequences in their bylaws

Regional Governance and Grievances Work Group

This work group met three times and focuses on developing a grievance system where a Peer Grievance Panel would have the authority to review grievances after the Neighborhood Council has the opportunity to resolve the grievance.  The work group did not feel that an additional regional governance system was necessary and didn’t want to focus on this issue.

Please see the proposed Grievance System Flow Chart for the work group’s suggestion.

Funding Work Group

This work group met three times and planned to continue meeting regularly to address the funding problems and propose solutions.

The work group focused on the following issues:

- Alternative funding models

- Clarify the encumbrance policy and develop a mechanism by which NCs may request rollover funds on a project-by-project basis
- NC purchases of equipment for City and Proprietary Departments in fiscal year 2010-2011, and guidelines to maximize the benefit for the department and NC

- Feasibility of developing an electronic system for the NC Funding Program

1.  Grants - Similar to the town hall comments, the work group decided quickly that a grant program for the main funding allocation was not going to work.  Some attendees commented that perhaps rather than sweeping unspent funds, the City should create a trust account for grants to meritorious NC projects and to assist NCs that regularly provide translation at their meetings.

2.  Project Specific Encumbrances - With regards to project specific encumbrances, the work group wanted clarification of encumbrances.  The Department provided the definition of encumbrances as stated in the City’s budget book (page 380): “An unpaid obligation incurred for current or future services such as for personal service, materials, equipment and capital improvements.”  As further clarified by the Controller’s Accounting Staff, an encumbrance is a mechanism for fund accounting in recording a reserve of available resources (appropriation with support of cash) in order to meet the future obligation (contract payments).  Normally, a department is required to have the encumbrance in place after contract execution and before services are rendered, or goods are purchased or delivered.

However, for the NC funding program at the fiscal year end on June 30, 2011, an exception was made to allow NCs to submit accountable documentation recognized and approved by the Department to substantiate the amount to be encumbered. The documentation was then reviewed a second time and approved in the City’s financial management system (FMIS) by the Controller’s office.  Funds are encumbered by the Department when a complete demand warrant is received by the established deadline and entered it into the database, not when the expenditure is voted on and approved by NCs. Those in attendance expressed that the deadlines were not provided with sufficient lead time for NCs to prepare, and that the April 15th deadline leaves too much time before the end of the fiscal year without the ability to submit demand warrants for payment.  The Department committed to providing greater notice and reviewing the deadlines.

Some City Departments have Capital Improvement Project budgets that allow them to rollover money from year to year.  This may be an option for NCs that wish to implement neighborhood improvement projects that may take a significant amount of time and money to implement.  Attendees did not agree on whether projects should be tangible or intangible, or whether they should be limited to capital projects.  However, they did feel that the project should cost in excess of $5,000.  Some felt that the project should be completed within one fiscal year given the turnover in the board, while others argued that negates a rollover project and that 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.  The feeling was expressed that capital projects should be constructed by the City and that NCs should advocate for this instead of using their funds.

3.  Equipment Purchases - The discussion on the purchase of equipment for City Departments in FY 2010-11 clarified the process which is that NC’s 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 NCs 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 department provide something in writing that states the equipment is a high priority for the entire department, or a list of priority items.  It was also expressed that City Departments should be a greater priority over schools, and that NC’s should not give money to other agencies since their needs were discussed and determined in the budget process.

4.  Electronic Funding Platform - The final item was the discussion over the possibility of developing an electronic platform for the NC Funding Program.  The program is currently all paper-based, leaving great room for error.  The processing of demand warrants involves multiple people further complicating the issue.  An electronic platform would require that all requests be complete and in electronic format, and would be linked to an internal system for review and reporting.  Those in attendance with greater accounting and systems knowledge recommended the linking of the NC budget and the demand warrant request through an off-the-shelf program that can be personalized for NCs.  Most agreed that NCs needed to take greater responsibility for their own accounting, including hiring temporary staff if needed.

All of the notes for each meeting are on EmpowerLA.Blogspot.com.  The reports for each of the motions will be available for comment by November 1, 2011.  We will try to incorporate any further comments into a final report to the City Council by the end of November.