GRVNC Government Relations Officer Report

Contents:

I. Agenda Item “7.a” Motion to endorse the L.A. City Ethics Commission’s proposal to the L.A. City Council requiring neighborhood councils and donors to disclose gift transactions.

II. Brown Act Requirements

III. Draft Boardwalk Ordinance Text

IV. Councilmember Gruel Motion to Amend City Ordinance No. 174006—Related to Neighborhood Council Town Hall Meetings

I. Agenda Item “7.a” Motion to endorse the L.A. City Ethics Commission’s proposal to the L.A. City Council requiring neighborhood councils and donors to disclose gift transactions.

On January 29, 2004, The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission submitted an ordinance proposal to City Council, which would establish disclosure requirements for individuals and organizations that give gifts / donations to neighborhood councils or other city agencies. On February 3, 2004, the City Council referred the proposal to the Council’s Education and Neighborhoods Committee. To my knowledge, no committee hearing has yet been scheduled.

The Ethics Commission’s proposal would require any person or organization that gives a gift to a neighborhood council, regardless of the gift’s value, to provide the neighborhood council with the following information in writing:

the identity of the donor;
the date the gift or donation is received;
the official or officials receiving or using the gift or donation;
the official neighborhood council use; and
the nature and amount of the gift or donation.

If the gift or donation is worth $1,000 or more, the donor would be required to provide the neighborhood council with the following additional information in writing:

the donor’s name, address and occupation or, for an organization, its organizational purpose;
if the donor is employed, the name and address of the employer;
if the gift or donation is made by an intermediary, the intermediary’s name, address and occupation or, for an organization, its organizational purpose;
if the donor is an organization and the organization received one or more payments earmarked for the purpose of making a gift or donation to the neighborhood council, then organization must provide all of the information in the previous two bullet points for the person making the payment to the organization;
the amount or estimated fair market value of the gift or donation;
a statement of whether the donor is a party to a contract with the City, is seeking to enter into a contract with the City, or has a matter currently pending before the neighborhood council.

The neighborhood council’s governing board would be required to send a written record of the donation or gift to DONE within 30 calendar days of receiving the gift. The information about the donor would need to be made public at the board or committee meeting at which the gift or donation was accepted.

II. Brown Act Requirements

As requested by Dennis Hathaway and several other GRVNC Board members, I’ve summarized the basic Brown Act requirements applicable to the GRVNC Board and committees. Please don’t hesitate to contact me for any further explanation of the Brown Act. I’m happy to answer any questions.

A. Brown Act Applicability

As explained in my previous lengthy memo (I’d be happy to provide a copy to anyone who hasn’t seen it), California’s Brown Act applies to nearly every legislative body / committee created by the formal action of a Brown Acted legislative body / committee. There is one narrow exception to this rule, which is explained in my earlier memo and does not apply to any GRVNC committees.

In other words, the Brown Act applies to any committee created by the formal action of the GRVNC Board or any of its committees—even if the GRVNC characterizes a committee as an “ad hoc” committee or a “subcommittee.” (See Cal. Gov’t Code § 54952.)

The Brown Act would not apply to a working group formed by stakeholders to explore a particular public policy area, so long as such a working group was not formed as the result of a vote by the GRVNC Board or a GRVNC committee. Such a working group could report its findings and recommendations to the GRVNC Board or any of its committees at a Brown Acted public meeting and would likely have as much influence on GRVNC deliberations as if the working group were a Brown Acted GRVNC subcommittee.

B. Composition of Brown Act Committees (i.e., “legislative bodies”)

The Brown Act contains no specific requirements regarding the composition of committees / legislative bodies. Nevertheless, in order for the Brown Act’s many requirements to be met, it is essential that the composition of committees / legislative bodies be determined by formal action of the body that creates the committee. A committee must have a set number of members whose identities are known to the public in order for the Brown Act’s notice and quorum requirements to be met.

In other words, the entire membership of a GRVNC committee should be clearly established by the GRVNC Board at the time the Board creates the committee. The common GRVNC Board practice of appointing only a committee chair makes it impossible for a committee to meet the requirements of the Brown Act at the committee’s initial meeting—because it is impossible to determine whether a quorum of committee members is present at the committee’s initial meeting.

The GRVNC Board practice of appointing only a committee’s chair is in compliance with the GRVNC bylaws and DONE approved the GRVNC bylaws without raising a red flag on this issue. In fact, DONE incorrectly advised the GRVNC that many GRVNC committees were not subject to the Brown Act. Nevertheless, the Brown Act trumps the GRVNC bylaws and the GRVNC Board must reconstitute its committees to include definitive membership in order to be in compliance with state law. Reliance on bad advice from DONE would likely shield the GRVNC Board from legal liability regarding past violations of the Brown Act—but will not shield the Board from liability related to ongoing and future violations of the Act.

C. Meeting Requirements

Under the Brown Act, “meeting” includes any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. (See Cal. Gov’t Code § 54952.2(a).)

The Brown Act also states that “any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body is prohibited.” This is the Brown Act section that prohibits what are often referred to as “serial meetings.” (See Cal. Gov’t Code § 54952.2(b).)

The Brown Act distinguishes between “regular” and “special” meetings. Though the Act does not define “regular” meeting, the Act does state that, “[e]ach legislative body . . . shall provide, by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body, the time and place for holding regular meetings.” (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54954(a).)

In other words, a GRVNC “regular” meeting is any meeting held to meet the requirements of the GRVNC bylaws. The GRVNC bylaws, therefore, are the controlling authority for determining the minimum number of “regular” meetings GRVNC must convene.

Article VIII(C) of the GRVNC bylaws requires that the GRVNC hold general meetings quarterly. In other words, in order to comply with both the Brown Act’s “regular” meeting requirement, it is necessary for the GRVNC to hold four “regular” meetings per year.

The language of the Brown Act may also be reasonably interpreted to characterize any meeting scheduled by a GRVNC Board vote as a “regular” meeting. The GRVNC Board may, however, cancel such announced “regular” meetings without violating the Brown Act, so long as the minimum GRVNC bylaw requirement of one “regular” meeting per quarter is met.

The GRVNC Executive Committee and Board would be well-advised to characterize any meeting it announces and then reschedules as a “special” meeting, rather than a rescheduled “regular” meeting. The Los Angeles City Council adheres to this practice on advice from the City Attorney.

The Brown Act states that "[a] special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the legislative body of a local agency, or by a majority of the members of the legislative body, by deliveringwritten notice to each member of the legislative body and to each local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station requesting notice in writing. The notice shall be delivered personally or by any other means and shall be received at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting . . . ." (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54956.)

D. Notice Requirements

The Brown Act requires that, “[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body . . . shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. . . . A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public.” (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54954.2(a).)

The agenda for a special meeting must be posted 24 hours in advance. (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54956.)

The Brown Act also provides that, “No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights . . . .” (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54954.2(a).)

The Brown Act lists three special circumstances under which a legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda. (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54954.2(b).) Specifically:

Upon a determination by a majority vote of the legislative body that an emergency situation exists. “Emergency situation” is defined as a work stoppage or other activity that severely impairs public health, safety, or both, as determined by a majority of the members of the legislative body. “Emergency” also includes a crippling disaster, mass destruction, terrorist act, or threatened terrorist activity.
Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body present at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency (through no fault of its own) subsequent to the agenda being posted.
The item was posted for a prior meeting of the legislative body occurring not more than five calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item, and at the prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken.

E. Public Participation in Brown Acted Meetings

Under the Brown Act, “[a] member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a legislative body of a local agency, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.” (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54953.3.) The Brown Act has been interpreted to allow a legislative body to request that those wishing to make public comment fill out a speaker card, in order to enable efficient facilitation of the meeting. The name given on the speaker card may be an alias or nickname, should the speaker wish to maintain her/his right to anonymity protected by the Brown Act section quoted above.

Any person attending a Brown Acted meeting has the right to record the meeting with audio tape, video tape or still photography, so long as such recording is not disruptive of the proceedings. (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54953.5.)

The Brown Act provides that the agenda for all meetings “shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item . . . . (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54954.3(a).)

The legislative body may, however, adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of the Act’s public comment provisions is carried out, “including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.” (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54954.3(b).) “The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.” (See Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 54954.3(c).)

III. Draft Boardwalk Ordinance Text

An ordinance amending Section 42.15 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to require that the public expression activities allowed by that section be exercised in designated spaces on the Venice Beach Boardwalk, and that the use of those designated spaces be regulated by a permit process.

WHEREAS, the Boardwalk at Venice Beach is world-famous for its free performances and public expression activities; a tradition that is maintained pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 42.15, which prohibits commercial vending;

WHEREAS, recent improvements completed to the Boardwalk have made the area even more popular with visitors than ever before, and the number of persons wishing to perform, show their paintings, sculptures or photographs, or otherwise exercise their right to public expression also has increased, creating problems in noise, crowd control and competition for space among those wishing to legally perform, exhibit, or otherwise engage in expressive activity on the Boardwalk;

WHEREAS, to alleviate noise, control crowds, provide for emergency ingress and egress for health, safety and law enforcement purposes, allocate available space on the Boardwalk in an equitable manner that balances the uses of visitors, businesses and residents located adjacent to the Boardwalk with those wishing to reserve space for the legal exercise of their public expression activities, and to provide for public access to and enjoyment of the Boardwalk and Venice Beach, the Department of Recreation and Parks has adopted a permit program to organize and regulate the activities allowed on the Boardwalk by LAMC Section 42.15; and

WHEREAS, for purposes of enforcement, and to make certain violations of the permit regulations punishable as misdemeanors, the City desires to codify those violations of the permit program included in this ordinance,

NOW THEREFORE,

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. A new Subsection D is added to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 42.15 to read:

D. No person shall receive any payment or accept any donation in connection with any activities not otherwise prohibited by this Section unless that person holds a valid “Public Expression Participant Permit” issued pursuant to the program adopted by the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners on October 1, 2003, as that program may be amended by the Board from time to time. The permit is not transferrable and the permittee must be present in the permitted space at all times that permitted activity is occurring. No person shall place or allow anything within the permitted space that extends beyond the boundaries of the permitted space (20 feet by eight feet for performers, and ten feet by eight feet for all others), nor shall the permit holder conduct any activities requiring a permit outside the boundaries of the permitted space. No person shall set up, take down or use a permitted space between sunset and 9:00 a.m. No person shall place or allow any item exceeding four feet above ground in the permitted space, nor shall any item placed in the permitted space have more than two sides. No person shall alter or reproduce any permit issued pursuant to the program, nor shall any person possess an altered, reproduced or falsified permit document.

The permit may be revoked in accordance with the program adopted by the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners for violations of the program rules. Revocation shall occur upon a third violation of a program rule or upon any single violation of the conditions set forth in this Subsection. A notice of violation of the program rules may be appealed to the Department of Recreation and Parks District Supervisor. Revocation of a permit may be appealed to a 3-person board consisting of a representative from the Park Advisory Board designated by the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners, a community member appointed by the Councilmember of the District and the General Manager of the Department of Recreation and Parks or the General Manager’s designee. The conclusion of the applicable appeal process shall constitute an exhaustion of administrative remedies pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.

Sec. 2. Subsection C of Section 42.15 shall be redesignated Subsection E and moved to the end of the Section.

Sec. 3. The two unlettered paragraphs of Section 42.15 shall be redesignated Subsection C. The word “applicable” in the first sentence of the first paragraph shall be replaced with the word “construed.”

Sec. 4. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be ,2004.

IV. Councilmember Gruel Motion to Amend City Ordinance No. 174006—Related to Neighborhood Council Town Hall Meetings

In summary, Councilmember Gruel has proposed that City law be amended to allow neighborhood councils to make decisions by stakeholder vote at “town hall” meetings. The councilmember made this proposal in response to a city attorney opinion that neighborhood council decisions must be made by the neighborhood council’s governing board—and could not be made by stakeholder vote at a town hall meeting.

This proposal has been sitting in the Council’s Education and Neighborhoods Committee for more than a year, with BONC being asked several times to comment on and refine the proposal. Some action was taken by the City Council on Feb. 13, 2004, but the nature of the action was unclear from the Council File Index. I’ve included this item in my officer report simply to put the issue on the GRVNC radar. I will do further research to find out where the proposal stands. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Motion Text:

A "town hall" format for governing Neighborhood Councils allows Councils to make decisions on community matters through votes of the general assembly in a traditional "town hall" style gathering. This format provides local residents and stakeholders with a direct voice in the decision-making process for their Neighborhood Council.

The Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils Ordinance (#174006) assumes that all Neighborhood Councils will have a governing board to make the final decisions. The City Attorney has indicated, however, that under the current ordinance any neighborhood council application in which the council proposes to govern through a "town hall" system should be declared incomplete.

The "town hall" format has proven to be extraordinarily successful for the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council in particular. This form of governance fosters a sense of community for all citizens and enables them to express ideas and opinions about their neighborhood and their government. There are other communities in Los Angeles for which the "town hall' format might be the most suitable form of governance as well.

THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council request the City Attorney to prepare and present an amendment to the Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils ordinance (#174006) to permit Neighborhood Councils to make recommendations on community matters through votes of the general assembly in a traditional "town hall" style gathering.