Grievance

Neighborhood Council Board Member Oath

There were a number of violations of the Council’s Bylaws at their July 13, 2016 meeting (Agenda Attached):
    Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3, Part A.:  Committee Authority- All     committee recommendations shall be brought back to the full Board for     discussion and action.
Background:  At the June 28, 2016 meeting of the Planning, Land Use, Housing and Transportation Committee, a presentation from representatives of Merlone Geier Partners, proposed developers at 6150 Laurel Canyon Boulevard and 12001 Oxnard Street in North Hollywood (Laurel Plaza), gave a presentation (Agenda Item 5) and video of their redevelopment plans at this site.  A number of stakeholders provided public comment including the president of the Laurel Grove Neighborhood Association, Ms. Diann Corral, who presented the committee with a document containing its concerns as to traffic problems in the area that will be worsened by the proposed project as well as the location, number of proposed apartment units and size of the apartment buildings being proposed.  The decision of the committee at this meeting was to pass on to the full neighborhood council its recommendation to support the project but with the inclusion of the concerns as presented by the LGNA (Committee Minutes Attached).

The Committee’s recommendations in this matter, including the documented concerns of the LGNA, were not brought back to the Board for discussion.  Every Board member in attendance at the July 13 meeting was given an updated document enumerating  these concerns (Document Attached).  In my public testimony, I specifically asked for consideration of that document and the LGNA concerns it contains.  No member of the PLUHT committee nor any other Board member responded to these concerns in any way despite the decision made at the PLUHT meeting.

    Bylaws, Article II, Part B. Item 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.
While the meeting agenda called for a 20 minute presentation by the developers led by their representative, Ira Handelman, this 20 minute time allotment was exceeded.  The timer was not activated during Mr. Handelman’s introductory remarks and then was started a second time shortly after its initial commencement.  Public speakers were allotted one minute each, but this limit was unequally applied.  There was no opportunity or time given for a comprehensive presentation of concerns similar to that allowed by the developer.

    Bylaws, Article VI, Section 2, Items A. and B.: The President shall act as     the chief executive of the Council and shall preside at all Council meetings     … , The Vice President shall serve in place of the President if the     President is unable to serve.
With both President, Ms. Mary Garcia, and Vice President, Mr. Paul Storiale, present at the meeting, and with no explanation as to why they weren’t chairing the meeting, the Secretary, Mr. Brian Allman, led the meeting.  The President in fact did not remain at her chair during all parts of the meeting during my attendance through agenda item 8.
******
There were a number of Council members who failed to behave in accordance with the Neighborhood Council Board Member Oath including:
•    the pledge to represent my neighborhood with dignity, integrity and pride.
•    [to] encourage other points of view, even when [different from their own.]
•    respect, value and consider everyone’s opinion.
•    find the good in [their] neighborhood, and praise and promote it.
•    the pledge to do this to the best of [their] ability.

In Board discussion of the Laurel Plaza redevelopment, the neighborhood in question was described as blighted and North Hollywood was characterized as having the reputation as an undesirable place to reside, a clear violation of the pledge’s call for pride of neighborhood, the need to find the good in it, as well as the obligation to praise and promote it.  Needless to add, is the failure to carry out these duties to the best of one’s ability.  The pledge to encourage other points of view must also be questioned in the case of those Board members who clapped and expressed approval of the developer’s presentation immediately following it and before the presentation of testimony from the public as well as following public testimony.  
******

Behaviors in contradiction to the Neighborhood Council Code of Civility were experienced (as cited in part):

    [B]usiness is conducted in a respectful and courteous manner.

Allowing clapping and cheering or jeering following individual’s public testimony and with no effort by the chair to contain it is inconsistent with respectful and courteous discussion.  As we find in Isaiah 1:18: Come now, and let us reason together.

    Even in the face of disagreement … I will not engage in or threaten to     engage in any verbal or physical attack on any other individual.

In his attempt to explain why he, Mr. Ron Bitzer, MTNHNC Treasurer, had to recuse himself as a Board member from further participation in discussion of this project, using text provided to him by City Attorney Darren Martinez, the Board President Ms. Mary Garcia attempted to physically wrest control of the microphone Mr. Bitzer was using.  In support of Ms. Garcia, an individual identified to me as Mr. Leonard Shaffer, President of the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners, came forward in support of Ms. Garcia’s attempts.  Only on the advice of Mr. Barry Stone, who previously identified himself with Mayor Garcetti’s office, was Mr. Bitzer finally allowed to read his recusal statement.

    At moments when members of the public become disruptive and     violate the rules of civility … board members [will demand] that the     persons conduct themselves in a respectful and orderly manner.

During public testimony an individual suggested that those opposing the project as given should otherwise simply move. As such, this offensive remark should have been noted as inappropriate by the chair, but instead simply became part of the circus atmosphere.  As clearly stated in the California Constitution, Article1, Section 1.: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Remedy 1): Per my description of incidents at the July 13 MTNHNC meeting, Officers of the Board and other Board members need to be advised of their obligations and expected behavior at Board and Committee meetings as described in the Council’s Bylaws, the Neighborhood Council Board Member Oath and the Neighborhood Code of Civility.
Remedy 2): The decision to ignore the PLUHT recommendation regarding the project in question should be rescinded and a fair rehearing of issues involving the Laurel Plaza project, including equitable opportunities for all parties to present their arguments, be conducted.
Remedy 3) Mandated training or retraining is necessary if Board members are not to violate their obligations under their Bylaws and expectations of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.