Draft Report for the Neighborhood Council Regional Governance Motion

Here is a rough draft of our report back to City Council on the Neighborhood Council Regional Governance motion.  Please review it and let us know what you think.  Please focus any comments as to the feasibility of the proposals and try to get them to us by November 16, 2011 so we can incorporate them into the final report.

Thank you!!

****

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. 

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. 

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.

Draft Report for the Neighborhood Council Grievance Motion

Because there is a basic flow chart for the draft of the grievance report, we couldn't upload it here without some formatting issues.  Please click here to go to the proposed report.  You will notice that many of the time line details that the work group developed are not in the draft report.  We tried to keep to the basic concepts and not get bogged down in too many details at this point.  We'll bring back all those necessary details if we are told by City Council to finalize the process.

Let us know what you think!  Please try to get all comments in to us by November 16, 2011.  Thank you!

Draft Report for the Neighborhood Council Training Motion

Here is a rough draft of our report back to City Council on the Neighborhood Council training motion.  Please review it and let us know what you think.  We are looking for comments as to the feasibility of the proposals so any suggestions are much appreciated.

Please look for the remaining draft reports to go up on the blog tomorrow.  Thanks for your patience!

****
 

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, 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 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 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 could then choose from and incorporate a choice into their bylaws.

            The accessibility and quality of the trainings offered by the Department was a common theme in the feedback.  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.  Accessibility and a high quality of training was 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 many 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, and in collaboration with Neighborhood Council leaders, have developed a peer mentoring program, Councils 4 Councils, to assist with building Board members’ capacities.  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 additional 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.

Final Version of Grievance Process Flow Chart

Here is the final version of the Grievance Process Flow Chart as corrected on Saturday, October 22, 2011.  Please let us know if you have any comments!

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. 

Second Revision of the Grievance Process Flow Chart

Please review the changes and clarifications the Regional Governances/Grievance Work Group made to the Grievance Process Flow Chart on Wednesday night and let us know what you think!
Don't forget that the last meeting to review the work group results and make comments is tomorrow at the Hollywood Constituent Center, located at 6501 Fountain Avenue, Los Angeles 90068.  The meeting will start at 10 a.m.

Hope to see you there!

Minutes from the Regional Governance/Grievances Reforms Work Group - Meeting #3

The last work group on regional governance and grievances focused on grievances.  Deputy City Attorney Darren Martinez was present to answer legal issues.  It turned out that many of the legal issues resulted in too much detail at this point for the Department's City Council report so they were skipped. 

There was a major clarification in the proposed grievance process that the Peer Grievance Panel wouldn't be outright imposing remedies on grievances they found to be true.  The Panel would make a recommendation to the NC to address the grievance with a time frame for compliance.  If the NC did not meet the time frame, the Panel could choose to have the Department follow through with some consequences suggested by the Panel.  The exact list of consequences for the various types of grievances could not be addressed because of time issues, but is something the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners could address if the City Council adopts the grievance system.

We'll be updating the grievance systeem flow chart and uploading it tomorrow for everyone to comment on.  We look forward to hearing from you!

Neighborhood Council Regional Governance and Grievances

Reform Work Group Meeting
Agenda/Minutes

Wednesday, October 19, 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 CC

·        Glenn Bailey – Encino NC

·        Randy Waller – Westlake North/South NC

·        David Hechter – North Hollywood West NC

·        Mary Garcia – Midtown NoHo NC

·        Len Shaffer – Tarzana NC

·        Carlene Davis – Board of Neighborhood Commissioners

·        Darren Martinez – City Attorney’s Office

·        Grayce Liu – Department of Neighborhood Empowerment 

II.          Grievances

·        Clarification of grievance and complaints

o   Grievances are handled by the NC

o   Complaints are filed with the Department and can lead to decertification

o   Comment that needs to make clear what can lead to decertification

o   Department will still need to review certain issues that the grievance system doesn’t cover, e.g. allegations of funding mishandling  

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

·   Grayce stated that she showed the grievance process to staff who stated that additional staffing of one person, who could work on grievances and other projects, would be needed to operate the proposed grievance process 

• Answers to questions directed towards City Attorney from last week

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

1.     Darren states it’s not a legal question – the NC Board/panel would have to make the decision

2.     Need to clarify “calendar” days

3.     Department should be allowed to make the call when initially reviewing the grievance for validity

4.     Suggestions for Statute of Limitation –120 days for financial and 60 days for everything else

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

1.     Not actual legal conflict of interest typically applies, but some state law could apply under political reform act

2.     Can put in specific exclusions, such as can’t be on the Board affected

·   Question on who provides the training for conflict resolution to the panelists

1.     Darren stated be decided by the Department likely with NC input

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

1.     This grievance system is not triggered by due process usually because have to have a liberty interest under the Constitution

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

1.     Darren stated that this is not necessarily a legal question, but what does the work group want to recommend

2.     Grayce stated that to resolve this now is too much detail for the report back, but did acknowledge that this is an issue that needs to be resolved before final implementation of any grievance system

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

1.     Darren will look into, but thinks the answer will be no

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

1.     Grayce again stated that this is too much detail at this point

2.     Important issue because duty of panel to keep records will change depending on ability for judicial review

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

1.     Grayce stated it is too much detail at this point

·   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

1.     Darren stated it could potentially bring legal action on a number of theories – hard to evaluate without types of claims asserted

2.     Grayce stated this is too much detail, but other participants felt it was important to address because it is listed as one of the remedies.  Grayce gave an example of where she thought this limited remedy would take place:  there was a NC where the entire Board just disappeared and wouldn’t return any contact from the Department.  They had $150k that would have been lost had the NC been decertified so the Department chose not to seek recommend decertification because the community would lose the money.  The Department, however, could do nothing else since there was technically an elected Board in place even though they had been gone for over a year.  The Department had to wait another year for the next election cycle, which deprived the community of a functioning NC for that time access to the funds.  If the Department could have vacated the Board, then they could have held an immediate selection for a new Board. 

·        Grayce clarified that the next 4 issues had already been answered by the City Attorney in the last meeting and was accidently left on the agenda.

·   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.

·   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.

·   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

·   Right to bring an attorney to Peer Grievance Panel – Darren will look into it 

• What constitutes valid grievances and what remedies are specific to the types of grievances

·   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. 

·   Board members may not file grievances against the NC or other Board members

·   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

·   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

·   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

·   Darren stated NC does not have authority to review violations of state law; for example, conflict of interest complaint against an individual Board member, the Board runs a risk of slander and defamation of making such a finding of conflict of interest  

1. During the discussion, it became evident that the grievance flow chart was unclear on what exactly the Peer Grievance Panel could recommend once they made a determination.  Some members of the work group thought that the Panel could have an NC funds frozen or could remove someone straight away.  They wanted the Department to have that authority.  Grayce apologized for not making it more clear on the grievance flow chart that the Panel makes recommendations to the NC to address the issue and only if they didn’t could the Panel then make a recommendation that the Department follow up with consequences of ignoring the Panel’s findings.  Here are the steps for the Panel:

•  Panel Determination

·   Panel has to make a finding as to whether the grievance is valid (true) or not

·   The Panel then makes the following recommendation:

1.     Identify what occurred and what rule was involved

2.     Suggestion of the NC needs to make a correction and provide a time frame for NC action

3.     Panel could then also state that if the NC did not make the correction, then the Department would then follow up with a consequence (remedy) that the Panel chose off a list of recommended consequences based on the type of grievance and how often the NC has done this before 

• Who is on the Regional Peer Grievance Panel?  Work group only discussed the Brown Act issue for lack of time

·   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). 

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

1.     Can provide the power to the Department to create the panel and therefore would not have to be a Brown Acted body, which can decrease the necessity for staffing support

2.     The Department, however, can still make it mandatory to notify everyone and be as open and transparent as possible. 

·   Training – All selected Panelists would have to receive training as a group prior to hearing a grievance  

• Should there be a limit on how many times a person can file a grievance each year to address serial grievers?

·   Yes – Participants have had experiences with multiple grievances and would like relief

·   No – Thinks can be handled in bylaws; any number would be arbitrary;

·   City Attorney – not inappropriate to set a number as long as it is fair and reasonable because it is a volunteer system depending on limited resources   

• How are the regions selected for a Regional Peer Grievance Panel?  Not discussed

• Would a Regional Peer Grievance Panel handle election/selection challenges?

·   No – the Election Task Force will deal with this issue 

3. Regional Governance System Not discussed

·        Could a pilot program be created for those regions desiring regional administrative support?

·        Could a regional administrative system support elections and how? 

4. Next Steps
• Grayce will update the grievance flow chart for dissemination

·        Work Group Recap October 22, 2011 Meeting - Hollywood Constituent Center - 6501 Fountain Ave. Los Angeles 90028 – 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

o   Clarified that everything will be up for more comments