DLANC: June Executive Committee Meeting

By Eric Richardson
Published: Wednesday, June 08, 2005, at 01:12PM

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Last night saw meetings of both DLANC’s Executive Committee and its Budget & Finance Committee. I was there for the Exec. meeting as an observer (actually I just happened to get there early for Budget & Finance), and then was a new committee member for the second meeting.

I’ll write about Budget & Finance later, but first let’s get into the Executive Committee meeting. There’s fun a-brewing these days, as was sort of portended in the special election results post. More about accusations of Brown Act violations, Robert’s Rules, and conflicts of interest after the jump.

Brady, Susan and Ed were present to begin the meeting. Kai arrived later, and Ken was absent.

The Complaint

The main business of the evening was starting to process to handle a complaint of a Brown Act violation initiated by recently deposed Board member John Sellars. I haven’t seen the actual complaint, so I’m only repeating what was presented at the meeting, but basically the complaint alleges two things:

  • That the May 3rd Executive Committee meeting was noticed as a special meeting, even though it was held at the normal time.
  • and that the agenda for this meeting only noticed that items would be put on the Board agenda, but did not give notice that specific items would be put on that agenda (particularly, I’m sure, referring to the Exec. committee putting the item of his removal on the May 10th Board Meeting agenda).

The Brown Act

The intent of the Brown Act is to ensure that meetings are conducted in an open fashion. It requires that meetings be noticed 72-hours in advance for a regular meeting, and 24-hours in advance for “special” meetings. The definition of what makes a meeting special is not spelled out in the Act, and it seems to have been interpreted loosely.

Special Meetings

I have seen no language to suggest that it is illegal for a body to call a special meeting that occurs at the time and place custom would dictate a normal meeting would have occured. I’ve complained about City Council calling special meetings at the last second before, but not because I think they’ve violated the law.

What Makes an Action?

The second question is interesting, because I think it gets into the definition of what actually constitutes an action. In other words, if the Executive Committee puts something on the Board agenda, but does not vote on it, is that an action? I’ll quote here from a 2003 Brown Act reference published by the California Attorney General’s Office (2-Part PDF: Intro and Body).

The agenda requirement does not apply when certain unnoticed topics are discussed at a noticed meeting. … In addition, any member of the body or the body as a whole, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (§54954.2(a).)

It would seem to me that since neighborhood councils do not have staff, the intent of the wording would extend the right to agendize items to the Board, or in this case to the Executive committee. I’m not a lawyer, though, so final opinion on that would definitely have to come from someone who is.

The Process

Under DLANC’s bylaws, this complaint about procedure would fall into the grievance process (Article 5 (d).). The bylaws say that a grievance can be heard either by the Executive Committee or a three-member committee they name.

The fact that the complaint is about an Executive Committee meeting raises the question of whether they would have a conflict of interest in holding the hearing themselves. This seems a disagreement of facts and not opinion, so I don’t know that to be the case, but the committee voted to hear the complaint themselves if the City Attorney’s Office rules they can do so, or if not, to name a committee. In either case, the grievance hearing (in DLANC’s terms, though this isn’t an official grievance by the criteria of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment) will be held Monday, June 13th, at 6:30pm.

According to the Brown Act, DLANC has thirty days to make a decision on whether either part of the complaint is valid. If it is, the May 3rd meeting could be declared invalid. How that would then impact the May 10th Board meeting is unclear. If DLANC maintains that the meeting was valid there is a civil procedure for getting the matter adjudicated.

Robert’s Rules and the Motion to Reconsider or Rescind

The other question raised was whether it could be put on the agenda to have a reconsideration of the Board’s vote for removal. Like many legislative bodies, DLANC’s meetings are conducted according to the procedure laid out in Robert’s Rules of Order. These rules give specific criteria for when a motion can be made for reconsideration (basically a revote on the original motion) or a motion made to rescind the original action. I offered to do the research on the rules and distribute that information so that an informed decision could be made on whether the item could or could not be placed on next week’s Board agenda. I’ll be making a trip to the library tonight to pick up a copy of the 10th Edition (the bylaws specify “as most recently revised”).

All in all another interesting meeting. I’ll try to get the Budget & Finance report up later tonight.



Comments

1
Don Garza writes:

A vote for reconsideration of the main motion can not be made after the main motion has been enacted

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 03:00 AM
2
Don Garza writes:

By the way I have the book you need.

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 03:03 AM
3
Don Garza writes:

The motion to rescind can not be made in this instance either, due to the fact that John selers awas removed and an election was held.

The only thing we can do is call for accountability of the executive committee and request they resign , if in fact they violated the rights of the person who is challenging the executive committee and the Board of Directors. I would hold the executive commitee responsible and movc that they be removed form thier positions , since they made the recommendation to remove sellers and and vote on a new executive committee.

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 03:19 AM
4
e; writes:

I agree with your interpretations of both the motion to Reconsider and the motion to Rescind.

A decision on whether or not procedure was correctly followed in removal will come in due time. I don’t think it constructive to call for anything at the present time. If things were handled improperly, then sure, there should be accountability. But there should be no rush to sentence before the trial’s even started. -e;

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 07:35 AM
5
Don Garza writes:

The issue of the may 10th meeting is cut and dry. If they voted on an item which was not on teh agenda , then the board is in violation of the brown act. Alll items must be on the agenda and only items on the agenda can be voted on. PEriod. Unless they chose to supsend th eruls , which in that case they must have a good excuse to have done so.

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 11:23 AM
6
Don Garza writes:

Eric Richardson for president of the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council.

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 11:29 AM
7
e; writes:

The complaint wasn’t filed about the May 10th meeting, only the Executive Committee meeting on the 3rd. Where things get interesting is when you begin to ask what actually would happen if the May 3rd meeting was invalidated. There is nothing in the bylaws to say that the Executive Committee must set the agenda for the Board meetings, so the question has to be asked: would invalidation actually affect the May 10th meeting in any way?

Just for posterity, here is the relevant item from the May 10th agenda:

3. Declaring resident citywide seat vacant and setting date for special election.

So the item clearly was on the agenda for the 10th. -e;

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 01:19 PM
8
Don Garza writes:

Ok ., messed up , the 3rd executive committee meeting , if if was not noticed properly , did not occurr and any action taking place there is not valid.

The only way to get DLANC out of this mess is to invalidate the executive committee meeting and the board meeting if they were not noticed in a timely manner. The action was already acted uy acted upon.

Here is the description of the job of the Secretary of the neighborhood council: “Secretary. The Secretary shall keep a record of all proceedings, correspondence, and documents; at the direction of the President, prepare and post agendas of meetings; keep minutes of all Board, Board Committee, and Member meetings; keep a record of all persons wishing copies of agendas and minutes and supply such persons with copies of agendas and minutes.”

This has been a point of contention since the inception of the neighborhood council: Who makes the agenda for the governiong board?

It is the duty of the Preseident to direct the creation of the Agenda , but it has to be debated by the executive committee, that is how it has beeen doen although it is not in the by-laws, thus unofficially it is the executive committee which recommends the minutes to the preseindet , who then instructs the secretary to create the agenda.

As far as I am concerned unless the neighborhood council , they can find the meetings out of order , they can no thorugh any dlanc process , correct what they did , if they indeed do wrong, it will be up to the Department of Neighborhood Empoowerment and the Ciyt Attrorney.

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 02:11 PM
9
e; writes:

I see where you’re going with that, Don, but I think one important question needs to be answered before any of that matters:

  • Is placing an item on the agenda something that needs to be noticed? In other words, is placing an item on a future agenda an action?

As I discussed in the original post, the reading I gave from the California Attorney General’s office would seem to say that it is not. If it is not, you are left with discussion of Brown Act restrictions on when meetings may be “special”. As I again said above, I see the definition in the Brown Act to be very flexible.

But again, I’m not a lawyer and this will run its course. I’m willing to be enlightened. -e;

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 04:17 PM
10
DOn Garza writes:

If it is an emergency and can not wait to be noitced by the brown act sure , but is removal of John Sellars an emergency that prevented any further actions from taking place . In my opinin , no , thus DLANC is going to have a hard time proving that without the expedient removal , DLANC business would suffer. REmoval and election were enacted after the main motion was adopted. What I am referring to , is if the notice wnet out under 24 hours , then you can calim the meetings were not valid.

Besides that. You can not rescind the new election.

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 05:18 PM
11
e; writes:

As far as I am aware, no one is claiming less than 24 hour notice for the May 3rd meeting. My inbox shows that I got the notice at 3pm on May 2nd. For a 6:30pm meeting, that’s 27.5 hours. -e;

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 06:36 PM
12
Don Garza writes:

The executive committte meeting on the 3rd was valid.

So now we are stuck with who put the removal of JOhn Sellars on the MAy 1oth Board meeting agenda and if it was on the agenda for the may 10th board meeting , then in my opinion the main motion is valid and the resulting removal of JOhn Sellars and the election of russel brown is valid.

I also sincerley believe that the executive committee , if they or somoene on the executive committe made the decision to put this on the may 10th board meeting needs to be held accountable for said actions, they are not above the law and ignorance in this case is no excuse. I feel removal from thier post on the executive committee is the best we can do , for the emotional distress caused to Russsel Brown and JOhn Sellars , if in fact the City Attorney Finds DLANC was wrong in removing John Sellers.

Did the executive committee mean that the removal of sellars be put on the may 10th agenda and was this discussed. If in fact it was discussed and was to be a part of “future agenda items” then , yes it is a valid vote made by the executive committee.

In my non lawyer opinion.

# on Jun.09.2005 AT 07:06 PM
13
DOn Garza writes:

From the Department of NEighborhood Website: Date: May 3, 2004 To: Neighborhood Council Leaders From: Greg Nelson, General Manager, Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment Subject: LOBBYISTS CANNOT BE PROHIBITED FROM SERVING ON NC BOARDS. ONLINE DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE BY CITY CLERK. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES. FUNDING PROGRAM REPORT RELEASED. $100,000 STREET SERVICES PROGRAM – CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES. LOBBYISTS CANNOT BE PROHIBITED FROM SERVING ON NC BOARDS

GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES The Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils requires Neighborhood Councils to establish a way through which they will address grievances and resolve disputes. Most Neighborhood Councils use a grievance committee. In some cases, new committees are created each time there are matters to be addressed. The City Attorney advises that the person who filed the complaint, or who is the subject of the complaint, should not appoint the members of the committee. Aside from the possibility that it may raise conflict of interest issues, it’s just decent and fair. Similarly, you should not participate in a grievance committee if it is considering a complaint that you filed, or is one in which you are subject.

# on Jun.11.2005 AT 09:32 PM
14
Eric Richardson writes:

In this case, since DLANC isn’t able to rule on an alleged Brown Act violation, all the Executive Committee will be doing at the grievance hearing is listening and then delivering an opinion from the City Attorney’s office. Since they aren’t making any sort of judgement, there can’t be a conflict of interest.

Were this a complaint on which the grievance committee could act, then yes, it would seem there would be a conflict. -e;

# on Jun.12.2005 AT 09:27 AM
15
Donley F writes:

How can I get an item on the agenda of the Los Angeles City Council for consideration?

# on Mar.10.2007 AT 12:11 PM

Your Comment:

YOUR INFORMATION:

Want blogdowntown to remember you?
Create a user account or log in.

Name:
Email:
URL:
GUIDELINES:
  • Comments should be on the topic of the post or they will be removed.
  • Use the live preview below to see how your comment will look before posting.
  • Keep it civil, everyone. If you're attacking people instead of arguments, or being overly profane, expect your comment to get deleted.

FORMATTING BASICS:

blogdowntown uses Markdown formatting.

_Italics_
__Bold__
<http://url.to.link>
[link text](http://url)

COMMENT:

Preview

Start typing...