Grievance

Los Angeles Charter and Administrative Code Article IX, Section 906 A6 guarantees that all meetings will be open and public, and permit, to the extent feasible, every stakeholder to participate in the conduct of business, deliberation and decision-making.
    
Brown Act Section 54954.3 Every notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.

Sec. 906 (a) specifies that neighborhood council by-laws should:
(6) guarantee that all meetings be open and public, and permit, to the extent feasible, every stakeholder to participate in the conduct of business, deliberation and decision-making.

As such the bylaws of the Mid-Town North Hollywood Neighborhood Council (MTNHNC) specifies, in part, In ARTICLE II Purpose  that 
A. The MISSION of the Council is: 
1. to provide an inclusive and open forum for public discussion of interest to the Council … 4. to facilitate communication between the City and Community Stakeholders on issues of concern to the community and/or the Stakeholders
B. The POLICY of the Council is:
1. to respect the diversity, dignity, and expression of views of all individuals, groups, and organizations within the community and/or involved in the Council;
…
4. to encourage all Community Stakeholders to participate in the activities of the Council;
…
6. To have fair, open, and transparent procedures for the conduct of all Council business.

Article VII Committees and their Duties
Section 3D Committee meetings are subject to and shall be conducted in accordance with the dictates of the Brown Act and Robert’s Rules of Order.

My complaint was not that I was not given a chance to speak as indicated by Committee Chair Paul Storiale, I had a 10 minute presentation my complaints are as follows;

1) PLUHT Committee Chair Paul Storiale did not allow public comment/discussion at our June Presentation, but allowed it for the developer at the 4/26/16 PLUHT meeting.  In the April meeting when the developer presented Paul allowed 10 minutes for public comment.  This meant that only 10 people could speak at a minute each, even though there were more than 10 people present.  Then the speaker cards were stacked so that the Emmanuel Lutheran Church/Laurel Hall School people would be the first 5 speakers, knowing that the developer had brought them to speak on their behalf.  Also knowing that the church/school is getting $1.25 million dollars from the developer for 50 parking spaces within the development to be used for the Schools staff and the developer has offered to pay the school/church  up to $200k in expenses.  Thus only leaving 5 one minute spots for the remaining public to comment.  

Because of how the April PLUHT meeting was handled we had asked to present our concerns regarding the project at the following PLUHT meeting.  We thought we would get the same treatment as the developer which was to speak for 10 minutes, allow discussion and allow public comment.  But Paul did neither, he did not allow the public to speak and did not allow the committee to ask any questions (but they did allow comment and discussion on all the other agenda items that evening).  At the beginning Paul stated that there would be only presentation, no discussion, when I questioned it Paul simply said "NO DISCUSSION'.  At the end of our presentation Paul repeated "There is no discussion we will be moving onto the next item".  At no time did Paul or any other PLUHT Committee member offer or ask anyone from the audience to fill out a speaker card and they also did not ask if anyone would like to provide comment.  But they did so for the other agenda items that evening.  Also, Paul Storiale indicated No Discussion on our agenda item. The bias coming from the PLUHT Committee Chair/Vice President, Paul Storiale and the current President, Mary Garcia is worrisome.         

Not allowing public comment is a violation of the Brown Act as public comment is afforded to all agenda items.  Paul did not allow it for our agenda item.  Thus, denying the public their right to free speech.  Also, we requested that Paul allow us to do a re-schedule our agenda item so that public comment could take place since it was previously denied and so that the committee would be able to ask any questions on what was presented.  Kathleen Quinn with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment advised the PLUHT Committee Chair, Paul Storiale of same, and he denied us same stating that “No further action will be taken”.  The job of the Neighborhood Council Board members is to hear from the community it represents, not cower to a developer from San Diego who does not even know this neighborhood.  This is a large project that will affect our community for decades and it should be afforded as much time and discussion as needed to hear from the entire community.    

2) Paul Storiale put together the agenda and noted that there would be “No Discussion” on our item.  By doing so he did not allow the other committee members (of which all but Paul and Mary Garcia are new members) to ask a question, therefore silencing them.  Not only has this never been done on the MTNHNC before, but basically they took the committee members rights away to ask or comment on an agenda item along with the stakeholders.  In my 15 years on the MTNHNC this has never been done.  By this action they removed the other committee members and stakeholders right to free speech.      

Our issues are not with the commercial portion of the development, but with the need for traffic mitigations and the reduction in height and number of units in the residential component of the project since the residential portion abuts a single family residential homes.  As the President and Vice President of this council they both DO NOT have the right to take away public comment and squelch discussion on any item.

We are again requesting that the MTNHNC PLUHT Committee hold a special meeting, where we can present our concerns and allow discussion from the committee and public comment.  

Warning and mandated training for Paul Storiale and the other committee members seated at the presentation, including Brian Allman, Mary Garcia, John Paul Green, and Ken Dorfman on the Brown act as they allowed no Public Comment either wittingly or unwittingly.  They need to understand that public comment is required on all public meeting agendized items.  If they have already taken the Brown Act training, then we are requesting that they be required to take it again due to their non-compliance with the Brown Act on 6-2-16. 
We are requesting required corrective action of the Neighborhood Council in the form of a special PLUHT meeting where the 6/2/16 agenda item 3” Laurel Grove Neighborhood Association to discuss concerns with NoHo West Project” is agendized again to allow committee and public comment and discussion consistent with the Brown Act requirements.
Requesting mediation with DONE representative present since the grievance includes actions from the current President, Mary Garcia and Vice President, Paul Storiale.
Placement of the Neighborhood Council board under control and supervision of the Department until all board members are abiding and will continue to abide by the requirements of the Brown Act as the purpose of having the Mid Town North Neighborhood Council is to represent the interests of all of its constituents and stakeholders will remain in question if the department does not step in and take control.