Coastal council rebuked by City Attorney
Tom Griego, Deputy City Attorney with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, cited the council for its questionable activities involving the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Committee.
On Monday, during the regular monthly stakeholder meeting for the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council, Mr. Griego admonished the council that: recruiting people for a group; using public money to fund supplying banners, signs, and petitions; or supplying labor for lobbying or petition-gathering, was in contravention of state law.
Mr. Griego very clearly defined that "...a Neighborhood Council could only explain the factors they considered and relate their conclusion and no more..." In keeping with this definition, the inclusion of certain articles in the council newsletter over the last year which attempted to recruit members and solicit money is a clear and ongoing violation.
There were many angry and obtuse questions directed at Mr. Griego who did his best to keep things focused and civil. Further debate had Mr. Griego clarifying that no member of a Neighborhood Council could act in, or allude to, their official capacity while participating in any outside group. There could be no reference to the Neighborhood Council and no use of official letterheads, seals or logos.
Were this to be enforced, then quite a few members of the Coastal council, and some members of other councils, could face potential sanctions for speaking at R-1 meetings, gathering petitions and participating in protests, in their official capacities. Nothing prevents anyone from acting as an individual. But that is the problem. Evidently all these actions were taken while loudly trumpeting their official standings and offices.
Taking it to its logical conclusion, this also includes the use of web-hosting. After all, the City pays for the Neighborhood Council web site. Giving the R-1 gang free advertising and free space on the Coastal site, promoting their position and their petition, is using public money for lobbying. Which is forbidden. Sounds like something Laura Chick should be auditing.
But it doesn't end there! Since late March 2006 when you call the contact number for the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council (310-290-0049) you get an answering machine which says, "Hello and thank you for calling the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council and the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Committee..."
No, it's not a simple oversight. The contact page on the R-1 gang's website lists guess who's phone number? Yep, the Coastal Neighborhood Council. Yes! They are that blatant about it! Is it any wonder they have finally been busted?
The questions would not stop and they ran out of time. It was decided that additional questions would be forwarded to Soledad Garcia. Once she had them compiled and organized she would submit them to Mr. Griego who will return for the next monthly stakeholder meeting on December 17, 2007. I encourage everyone to take a little time and attend. It should be a real extravaganza. Watch for their attempt to take these proceedings private into some sort of closed-door "executive" meeting in order to avoid public scrutiny.
It is rather ironic that at the beginning of the meeting, these very same board members were griping about having to take the Ethics/Conflict of Interest training. Sounds like too little, too late to me. For all the finger-pointing they've done, and given the egregious nature and numerous ways they attempted to circumvent the rules, these people could give any slimy professional politician in Sacramento or Washington a run for their money.
5 comments:
Tom, it's wonderful to see people coming to the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council's meetings. Thanks for taking the time to come and write about what's going on. The description of the meeting with Tom Griego, though, gave me a bit of a "Rashomon"-like feeling -- were we really at the same meeting?
To clarify where I was: I'm a board member of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council (CSPNC), so I was at the table up front. The first thing that needs a bit of clarification: Tom Griego is an LA City Attorney charged with advising Neighborhood Councils and he was at the meeting at our invitation. He wasn't there to rebuke us. He doesn't have that authority. His job is to respond to Neighborhood Councils' questions. We wanted him there because we wanted to clarify just what Neighborhood Councils can and cannot do when they represent stakeholder opinions.
The opinion he was airing (and which took a fair bit of cajoling to get out of him) was that asking for donations for a particular cause is probably not acceptable. Contrary to your report, he explicitly stated that it would be fine (in his opinion) for Neighborhood Council members to cite (and even publicize) their involvement with a Neighborhood Council in just about any context, as long as they weren't using City funds to do so.
We're still seeking more clarification. Primarily, I'm afraid, that's because Mr. Griego was internally contradictory and unclear in several of his answers. Our questions, too, need to be clearer. If we seemed unprepared for speaking with him, we were! Our agenda for the evening was to consider a motion to invite Mr. Griego to attend our next (December) meeting, so we were not prepared for him to be there that night. Out of courtesy to him, for having made the trip, we decided to go ahead and get what clarification we could. We're looking forward to a better-focused conversation next month.
You mention that we were "...griping about having to take the Ethics/Conflict of interest training. Sounds like too little, too late...". Actually, it's the advice of that training that we're pursuing: seek advice from City counsel when in doubt. Having taken the training a year ago, I can report that it doesn't cover this issue at all. If it did, we wouldn't need to get these opinions from City counsel.
But finally, I have to agree completely with you on one thing: we, too, encourage everyone to come to our next monthly stakeholder meeting on 17 December! I can assure you that we won't be doing a "...closed-door 'executive' meeting to avoid public scrutiny." Not only would that be illegal and unethical, but it would miss the whole point of why the Neighborhood Council exists: to publicly discuss issues of public interest. Be there and join the discussion. Even better, come to the Agenda Committee Meeting one or two weeks before the monthly Board meeting and take the opportunity to put topics that interest you onto the agenda for the Board meeting itself.
Thanks for coming and commenting, Tom.
-Dean Pentcheff (CSPNC Board Member)
Dean,
Thank you for taking the time to write a considered and reasoned comment.
I can understand where we might have heard different things from Mr. Griego. He was mumbling and not always using the microphone. Even when he did, he did not use it correctly with the result of it being difficult to hear him. Luckily I was sitting close enough to him that I was able to hear him clearly, even over the rude interrupting shouting of Bob Gelfand and Peter Warren.
Regarding his presence, more accurately the board was discussing a motion to invite him and was surprised by his presence. This is what ignited the debate since some people wanted to get right to it with him.
We heard vastly different things when it came to what was allowed as a board member of the council. I'm certain Mr. Griego will clarify it more next month. Besides, I have a tape I can always refer to.
But I think your reference to the Kurosawa film "Rashomon" is especially pertinent. While you and I each have our own view of what occurred, at least we agree that something happened. That there was discussion and questions, etc. which lasted about an hour. If one were to go by the account of your secretary Bruce Horton, nothing happened at all. At least that is what his minutes of the meeting says. Where was he? Or is this just an attempt at a cover up?
Tom
Tom,
In turn, thanks to you for posting my reply.
We're definitely looking forward to further (and more considered) discussion with Mr. Griego next Board Meeting.
As far as the Secretary, Bruce Horton's, minutes of the meeting are concerned, I'm afraid that there's a lot less intrigue there than you might suspect. Normally, the official minutes of a meeting list the actions (i.e. motions) that were considered and their disposition. Minutes are not a general summary of all discussion. Since the only action of the Board with respect to Mr. Griego concerned inviting him back for next month, that's all I'd expect to see in the minutes.
Our secretary does record every meeting through the PA system, though. I'm sure he'd be happy to let anyone who was sufficiently masochistic listen to the tape.
I'm looking forward to seeing you at our next Board Meeting (or Agenda Meeting, if you'd like to see/influence what goes onto our Board Meeting's agenda). Please feel free to come introduce yourself -- I suspect I know your face, but I admit I don't know you by name.
-Dean
Well, I guess I'm glad to hear that the reason for such sketchy minutes is incompetence and not malfeasance.
But it still begs the question of what are stakeholders and other who were not able to attend supposed to do when they want to know what was discussed? I know people who have requested audio and video tapes from the Coastal council and have been refused. Given that this is supposed to be public record, it needs to be readily available to anyone who requests it.
Dean, you might have a hard time understanding this because you seem like a pretty straight-up guy, but some of your fellow board members have hidden agendas and ulterior motives. They do everything they can to conceal their actions.
Post a Comment