Grievance

1. Failure of Board of Directors to require submittal documentation of Jay Handal’s current authorized Organizational representative prior to vote for appointment; and failure of Board of Directors to provide the documentation to the public in advance of the Agenda
or in advance of the Item consideration and vote, as required by WLASNC by‐laws.
(Stakeholder Jay Ross and Boardmember Rosie Kato requested at the meeting for a paper copy of documentation prior to the Jan. 5 vote, but the Board denied the request.) Bylaw V‐501 requires that formal documentation by the Organization director
be submitted that authorizes the candidate to run for the NC and represent the Organization. Mr. Handal refused to submit this documentation when stakeholders
requested it, and the Board did not provide it to the public for review as part of his candidacy packet / documentation.
2. Failure of the Board to properly notice the Special Meeting of Board of Directors of Jan. 5, 2016, 24 hours in advance of the Special Meeting, as required by the Brown Act. City clerk’s email notification was received on Tues. morning, Jan. 5, which is only 8 hours in advance of the Jan. 5 meeting that started at 7:30 pm. This is many hours less than the 24 hours required. In addition, this Special Meeting was held at a date and time that was different from the regular date and time, and Stakeholders had no idea that they should monitor the website every day for Special Meeting agendas.
3. Improper appointment by the Board of Mr. Jay Handal to the Organizational Member seat (term expiration of 2018) because he did not provide required DONE and WLASNC
Stakeholder Verification and Organizational Stakeholder Documentation documents, per WLASNC Bylaw V‐501.
a. The documents on which the WLASNC may have improperly relied were Mr. Handal’s identification card from the LAPD’s Community‐Police Advisory Board
that expired in Dec. 2014 (14 months ago), but not even that document was submitted for public review at the meeting on Jan. 5.

I, a Stakeholder, have been disenfranchised by the WLASNC by its appointment on Jan. 5 of a person who provided no evidence that he is authorized by his Organization to serve on the WLASNC Board of Directors.
At the Board of Directors Special Meeting on Jan. 5, 2016, the Board possibly violated the DONE
regulations, and WLANC By‐Law V‐501 that requires that all Boardmembers be a current Stakeholder at time of appointment or election to the Board of Directors.
At the Jan. 5 meeting, the Board voted to appoint Jay Handal to the vacant Organizational Member (term expiration in 2018) seat. None of the List A and List B documentation that DONE requires (in its Election Handbook 2014 and 2016) was presented into the public record by the Board, and no authorization from the Organization for him to represent it that WLASNC
requires was presented. Mr. Handal did not formally submit any documentation to provide evidence of being an Organizational Stakeholder as of the Jan. 5, 2016 date of candidacy, and he stated that he did not have to submit such documentation. In addition, the Board did not
formally request, present evidence nor submit into the public record that Mr. Handal was an Organizational Stakeholder at that time of candidacy.
Bylaw V‐501 requires that a formal authorization by the Organization’s director be submitted that documents and authorizes the candidate to run for the NC seat and represent the Organization. This authorization likely should be an original, signed letter with a date of no
more than 1 month prior to the appointment (Dec. 5, 2015). Mr. Handal did not provide any evidence that this type of letter documentation was ever submitted to the Board. In fact, Mr. Handal said that he did not have to provide it. If such a letter was drafted, the Board did not
provide it to the public for review as part of his candidacy packet / documentation in advance of consideration of the Agenda item, either in paper copy at the Board meeting, by email to stakeholders (agenda, other correspondence), or by posting on the WLASNC website. In addition, this letter must be current and may not be provided at a later date (i.e. “back dated”).
It must be submitted in advance of the appointment. Also, the designation may not be retroactive, i.e. dated after Jan. 5 and stating that the person had been authorized in the past to represent the Organization in the past.
I, as a Resident Stakeholder, formally requested that documentation/ evidence during public comment while the Item was being considered at the Jan. 5 meeting, and Boardmember Rosie Kato also formally requested that documentation evidence (an application, all required List A
and List B documentation, and the WLASNC required Stakeholder authorization to run and represent from Organization director) during Board discussion. Both requests were rejected by the Board, and as a result of this decision, the Board possibly violated DONE and the WLASNC by‐laws and disenfranchised me, a Resident Stakeholder, during its processes:
 No paper copies of Mr. Handal’s documentation were provided to the public at the meeting (either in paper or electronic copy)
 No paper copies of Mr. Handal’s documentation were included in the Jan. 5 Board of Directors Special Meeting Agenda that was printed and available at the meeting, no
electronic copies of Mr. Handal’s documentation were included with the Jan. 5 Board of Directors Special Meeting Agenda that was posted on the WLASNC website.
 No electronic notification of the Jan. 5 Board of Directors Special Meeting Agenda was emailed in advance to stakeholders within the 72‐hour Brown Act time requirement.
o This was the first time in many months that the Board failed to send an email notification of a Board Meeting directly to Stakeholders. That failure is atypical
because this was a Special Board of Directors meeting on a date (1st Tue. of the month) that is different from the normal meeting date (4th Wed. of the month).
Stakeholders had no reason to go to the website on a daily basis to check if a Special Board meeting had been scheduled.
 No documentation/evidence of Mr. Handal’s status as Organizational Stakeholder as of Jan. 5, 2016, were submitted/posted into the public notification realm 72 hours in advance of the meeting, which may violate the Brown Act.
o No proof was provided that Mr. Handal reported a change in status after the Dec. 2014 expiration.
Mr. Handal and the Board insisted that his documentation as an Organizational Stakeholder form the 2014 NC Election is still valid, even though this is a new appointment to a newly vacant seat. The Agenda clearly stated that a new appointment was open for the seat. To do this, new and current documentation / evidence of Organizational Stakeholder is required, per DONE and WLASNC by‐laws. The Board refused my request and Boardmember Rosie Kato’s request to delay the vote for one month while this would be reviewed and properly
adjudicated.
The Board refused to make that 2014 documentation of Mr. Handal’s Organizational Member stakeholder status available to the public upon request. The Board said the public should “go to the website” instead of providing it the public. (The Board is required to provide this information, not vice‐versa. The Board cannot require public to do the groundwork that it is mandated to do by its and the City’s and State’s ordinances, by‐laws and policies).
In addition, that 2014 documentation is not posted on the WLASNC website, and it is not posted on the DONE website as of Jan. 5, 2016, the date of that directive from the Board.
I made California Public Records Act request to WLASNC board members and to DONE on Jan. 7, 2016.
On Jan. 19, Greg Ericksen, the WLASNC Outreach Chair, stated that Mr. Handal’s Stakeholder Verification had never been provided for posting in the months prior to Jan. 5 (see his email), and therefore, no information was posted on the website in advance of the Jan. 5 appointment
meeting.
On Feb. 4, Mr. Jeffrey Brill of DONE replied that no documents had been submitted nor were available during the dates prior to the Jan. 5 WLASNC hearing (see his email), and therefore, no information was posted on the website in advance of the Jan. 5 appointment meeting.
Therefore, the NC’s directive to me and a Boardmember to “go to the website” was false; the directive on which the Board relied to deny my public information request was false; and by providing false information to a reasonable request, the NC disenfranchised me.
In addition, Mr. Handal shouted at a Boardmember to “go get it yourself” and stated that it is not the Board’s responsibility to provide these public documents when the public requests. This also may violate the Brown Act, DONE and WLASNC by‐laws that state that all public documents are available upon request. A public request by me and the Boardmember in advance of the vote was refused, and that may be a violation of the Brown Act, DONE and WLASNC by‐laws.
In addition, the Mr. Handal’s Organizational Member stakeholder documentation from the 2014 Election is no longer valid. He submitted a copy of a membership card for the Los Angeles Police Dept.’s Citizens Police Advisory Board that expired in Dec. 2014 (see exhibit). He has
submitted no letter of authorization from the Organization director to run for the NC seat and represent an organization during a Board meeting.
If new documentation of Mr. Handel’s Organization Member stakeholder status is submitted, it
should be dated after Jan. 5, 2016. Mr. Handal stated at the Jan. 5 meeting that he did not have any new, current or subsequent documentation because he believed that he was not required to do so, which is an incorrect interpretation of DONE and WLASNC by‐laws and policies.
That is the gist of this grievance/challenge. Mr. Handal provided no documentation of current Organizational Member stakeholder status that was current as of Jan. 5, 2016, the date that he submitted his candidacy and the date which the Board of Directors voted to appoint him, and the Board refused to request any nor provide any to the public.