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