NC Bylaws Documents

All the Minutes so far, from 4 meetings

2010-03-18T22:51:00.000-07:00

These are the minutes from all four meetings (January 23 through February 27) in one place. They are presented as the most recent minutes first, then the earlier set, and so on until the very first meeting's minutes.

Minutes of the
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL BYLAWS TASK FORCE
Saturday, February 27, 2010
at Barrio Action Youth and Family Center, 4927 Huntington Dr., LA 90032

[Note: Minutes of the last (February 20, 2010) Meeting were available and are also available, as are all the Bylaws Task Force Meeting Minutes and other documents, at www.ncbylawsdocuments.blogspot.com. Also see www.ncbylaws.blogspot.com.]

The Meeting was called to order by Chair Bob Gelfand at 9:31 a.m.

1. Introduction of attendees
The 19 attendees introduced themselves, including Darren Martinez, Deputy L.A. City Attorney, Neighborhood Council Advice Division (213-978-8132; Darren.Martinez@LACity.org; http://atty.lacity.org/COMMUNITY_SERVICES/Neighborhood_Councils/index.htm).

MOTION (by Bob Gelfand, seconded by Stuart Simen): to adjourn this Meeting by 10:55 a.m., so that those who want to can also attend the BudgetLA Meeting in Hollywood.

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

MOTION (by Bob Gelfand and seconded): to accept this Meeting’s Agenda.

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

2. Bylaws Task Force Review
Mr. Gelfand reviewed the Bylaws Task Force mission, noting that the Task Force is “not trying to impose” the Bylaws Wireframe.

The following corrections to the February 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes were requested:

Page two, Item #1, Discussion (near the end): “before become Board Members.” should read “before becoming Board Members.”

Page three, Item #2, Motion: “to adapt the Studio City” should read “to adopt the Studio City”.

Page three, Item #4, Motion: “Robert’s Rules of Order Revised” should read “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised”.

MOTION (by Stuart Simen, seconded by Doug Epperhart): to accept the Minutes of the February 20, 2010 Bylaws Task Force Meeting, as corrected.

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

3. Reconsideration of Motion passed February 6, 2010 re: NC Officers election.

MOTION (by Bob Gelfand, seconded by Doug Epperhart): to limit debate on this Item to ten minutes.

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

[Note: the following relates to Bylaws Wireframe Article VI, Elections.]

The February 6, 2010 Motion to be reconsidered was read, as follows:

“MOTION (by Doug Epperhart, seconded by BongHwan Kim): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board.”

[Note: The above MOTION PASSED unanimously by a hand vote on February 6th.]

The February 6, 2010 Motion requesting the reconsideration was read, as follows:

“MOTION (by Mary Garcia, seconded by Doug Epperhart): to RECONSIDER the Motion Passed at the February 6th Meeting, in Item #4, the second Motion, as follows: “the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board.””

[Note: The above MOTION to RECONSIDER PASSED on February 6th.]

MOTION to AMEND (by Ed Novy, seconded by Mary Garcia): to amend the Motion passed February 6, 2010 to add “or are directly elected by Stakeholders,” so that the Main Motion would now read, “the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board or be directly elected by Stakeholders.”

DISCUSSION: Mr. Epperhart was concerned that the Motion may not be clear enough since Board Members are already elected by Stakeholders. Ms. Garcia “doesn’t see any harm in saying `either/or’.” Ana McBride believed that the original Motion could help remove ineffective Presidents.

SUBMOTION (by Bob Gelfand): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board. This is not to be construed as an attempt to force NCs to change; it’s intended to advise NCs that have had a problem with how their Board is governed.

SUBMOTION FAILED for lack of a second.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Epperhart said “it’s about electing” responsible Board Members who have an obligation to Stakeholders to be accountable.

MOTION (by Bob Gelfand and seconded): to extend debate another three minutes.

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

DISCUSSION: It was mentioned that this is “just a recommendation” about electing Officers. Mr. Novy asserted that “the Grievance process is the way to address poorly run [Neighborhood] Councils . . . [We] need to be inclusive of all NCs.” Mr. Gelfand noted that “there’re many poor Chairs . . . it forces the President to understand . . . that they’re not a dictator.”

MOTION to AMEND PASSED with nine in favor and five opposed.

[Note: therefore, the Motion passed February 6th that read, “the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board” was amended at this February 27th Meeting to read “the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board or be directly elected by Stakeholders.”]

[Note: the following items were also discussed at this Meeting.]

Definition of a Stakeholder
[Note: It was requested at the previous February 20th Meeting to consider, at a future Meeting, the definition of a Stakeholder.]

MOTION (by Ivan Spiegel, seconded by Doug Epperhart): the Bylaws Task Force recommends removing the “factual basis” Stakeholder section from the definition of a Stakeholder that has been used by Neighborhood Councils.

[Note: the current City-accepted definition of a Stakeholder is: “those who live, work, or own property in the neighborhood and also to those who declare a stake in the neighborhood and affirm the factual basis for it.”]

DISCUSSION: Mr. Epperhart noted that the definition was in the City Charter and may be legally indefensible. Darren Martinez counseled that “it is a Charter definition . . . The [definition] expansion was allowed because it was interpreted to be [a limitation] . . . [It’s allowable] to expand . . . on the Charter . . . The Charter Commission recommended [the current] definition.”

AMENDMENT to the MOTION (by Bob Gelfand, accepted by Doug Epperhart): to add to the Main Motion the following: “The Bylaws Task Force recommends that the City of Los Angeles enact reasonable and common sense definitions of `live, work and own property’,” so that the Main Motion would read: “the Bylaws Task Force recommends removing the `factual basis’ Stakeholder section from the definition of a Stakeholder that has been used by Neighborhood Councils, and that the City of Los Angeles enact reasonable and common sense definitions of `live, work and own property’.”

DISCUSSION: Mr. Gelfand urged that “we need to know who our voters are.” There were descriptions of voters “bused . . . to the polling place.”

AMENDMENT to the MOTION PASSED with 14 in favor; Darren Martinez recused.

MAIN MOTION PASSED with 14 in favor; Darren Martinez recused.

Mr. Gelfand reminded that this is the next-to-last Bylaws Task Force Meeting. The final report will include the Bylaws Wireframe, recommendations, and supportive language. He will draft the report and distribute it at least a few days before the Meeting.

[Note: the following relates to Bylaws Wireframe Article VII, Grievance Process.]

MOTION (by Ana McBride and seconded): to combine the “Adoption of a [NC] City Wide Grievance and Election Challenges Policies – Draft Discussion Document” that DONE’s Leyla Campos distributed at the February 20th Meeting with the “Proposed [NC] Grievance System” handout that Mr. Epperhart distributed at the same Meeting.

DISCUSSION: Ms. McBride described that her NC’s “Bylaws essentially give the Secretary the full and complete right to . . . pick [their] own jury . . . DONE’s form is not clear who you give the Grievance to.” Mr. Epperhart reviewed the DONE Grievance procedure. There was extensive discussion regarding a potential Grievance process. Mr. Martinez counseled that “if [there were] . . . mandatory sanctions . . . [it] would require a [City] Ordinance.”

MOTION (by Doug Epperhart, seconded by Ivan Spiegel): to REFER to COMMITTEE the matter of revised Neighborhood Council Grievance proposal language.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

Darren Martinez counseled that “the jurisdiction of the Neighborhood Council is to determine violations of its own procedures.” Mr. Gelfand added that BONC will create a Citywide NCs Grievance system.

MOTION (by Doug Epperhart, seconded by Bob Gelfand): that March 20, 2010 will be the Bylaws Task Force last Meeting, probably at the same time and place, to be determined.

MOTION PASSED.

Mr. Gelfand declared and it was agreed to adjourn the Meeting at 10:54 p.m.

Minutes written by DL.

Minutes of the
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL BYLAWS TASK FORCE
Saturday, February 20, 2010
at Barrio Action Youth and Family Center, 4927 Huntington Dr., LA 90032

The Meeting was called to order by Chair Bob Gelfand at 9:55 a.m. Minutes of the February 6, 2010 Meeting were available and are also available, as are all the Bylaws Task Force Meeting Minutes and other documents, at www.ncbylawsdocuments.blogspot.com.

Mr. Gelfand reviewed Bylaws Task Force progress and process, including the “Bylaws `Wireframe’ and Questions.” See www.ncbylaws.blogspot.com. A Recommendations Report will be submitted to DONE.

It was requested and agreed to consider, at a future Meeting, the definition of a Stakeholder.

MOTION (by Mr. Gelfand, seconded by Stuart Simen): to accept this Meeting’s Agenda.

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

MOTION (by Mr. Simen, seconded by Terrence Gomes): to accept the Minutes of the February 6, 2010 Bylaws Task Force Meeting, as written.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

The 19 attendees introduced themselves, including Darren Martinez, Deputy L.A. City Attorney, Neighborhood Council Advice Division (213-978-8132; Darren.Martinez@LACity.org; http://atty.lacity.org/COMMUNITY_SERVICES/Neighborhood_Councils/index.htm); Daniel Gattica, L.A. Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC) Commissioner (213-485-1360; Daniel.Gatica@LACity.org); and Leyla Campos, Field Director of Operations, L.A. Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) (213-485-1360; Leyla.Campos@LACity.org; www.EmpowerLA.org).

1. Finance
Doug Epperhart distributed an “NC Bylaws Group Finance Article Subcommittee” handout “for your consideration.”

MOTION (by Ana McBride, seconded by Mr. Epperhart): to adopt the following language for the Bylaws Wireframe Article Five “Finances” Section:
1.    Neighborhood Councils shall review their current fiscal budget and make adjustments as needed to comply with City laws and City administrative rules on the use of public funds, and to keep in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and DONE’s mandate for the use of standardized budget and minimum funding allocation requirements.
2.    The Council shall adhere to all rules and regulations promulgated by appropriate City officials regarding the Council’s finances.
3.    All financial accounts and records shall be available for public inspection and posted on the NC website, if available.
4.    At least once each quarter, the Treasurer shall provide detailed reports of the Council’s accounts.
5.    At least once each quarter, the President and at least one other individual designated by the Governing Board shall examine the council’s accounts and attest to their accuracy.

DISCUSSION: Concern was expressed regarding Board Member accountability. Language suggested by BongHwan Kim, DONE General Manager, was agreed to be redundant of the above language. DONE’s “minimum funding allocation requirements” were discussed.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION (by Ivan Spiegel, accepted by Mr. Epperhart): to add the wording “, other than the Treasurer,” to #5 above, so that it would read “5. At least once each quarter, the President and at least one other individual, other than the Treasurer, designated by the Governing Board shall examine the council’s accounts and attest to their accuracy.”

DISCUSSION: Section #2’s “appropriate City officials” means City officials who have authority over NCs.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION (by Ed Novy, accepted by Mr. Epperhart): to delete the Section #1 phrase “on the use of public funds.”

DISCUSSION: Darren Martinez noted that “NCs are already required to comply with GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles].” There was discussion regarding the value of and whether to have redundancy in the Subcommittee’s recommendations.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION FAILED with three in favor and the remaining attendees opposed.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION (by Ed Novy, seconded by Marlene Savage): to add the sentence “The Treasurer must have accounting training” to Section #5 above.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding what the training could/would be, who would administer it, who would consider the training sufficient, and more. Mr. Gelfand urged that all Board Members be required to take training before become Board Members.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION (by Mr. Epperhart, seconded by Mr. Simen): a Neighborhood Council’s Governing Board may adopt Standing Rules.

DISCUSSION: This language would be in “Wireframe” Article Two, “Governing Board.”

SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

Note: the Substitute Motion replaces the above unvoted-upon Motion and two Amendments.

2. City Attorney: removal language
Mr. Martinez, in response to a request made at the previous meeting, discussed the legal issues regarding removal of Board Members by the Governing Board. He distributed a handout of Board Member removal language from the Bylaws of the Studio City and Hollywood Hills West NCs. He explained that removal can be a “petition process or at the Board level.” The “property rights” concept does not apply to volunteer Board Members. “Including, but not limited to” is a recommended phrase; “disruptive conduct” and “violations of duties as specified in the Bylaws” can be added. There was discussion regarding different violations. The phrase “egregious violations of Parliamentary Procedure” was suggested. Mr. Martinez explained that differences of opinion and personality are not reasons for removal, and that there are limits of NC responsibilities and abilities to remove a Board Member; certain Board decisions can be considered libel or slander. He distinguished between removal of a Board Member and removal of a Committee Member. Mr. Gelfand reminded that Board Members are elected by the public, while Committee Members are not.

MOTION (by Mr. Epperhart and seconded): to adapt the Studio City Neighborhood Council removal language format, adding the phrase “for cause” and deleting the first paragraph. The recommended language is as follows:

“Removal of a Board Member
A Board Member may be removed from the Board for good cause, including, but not limited to, disruptive conduct; interfering with Neighborhood Council business; violations of the Bylaws, Operating Procedures or Code of Conduct following a Board Member’s or Stakeholder’s submission to the Board of a petition which:

1)    identifies the Board Member to be removed;
2)    states the reason for removal in reasonable detail; and
3)    contains the signatures of at least three (3) Board Members or fifty (50) Stakeholders.

The petition shall be delivered simultaneously to all Board Members and the matter placed on the Agenda in compliance with the Brown Act and scheduled for a vote at the next regular Board Meeting.

A vote of No Confidence by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the attending Board Members shall be necessary to remove the identified Board Member forthwith. The Board Member who is the subject of the removal action shall have the right to deliver to Board Members a written statement about the matter and/or to speak at the Board Meeting prior to the vote, but shall not be counted as part of the quorum, nor allowed to vote on the matter. If a quorum of the Board is not present, the matter shall be placed on the Agenda of the next regular Board Meeting, and every Meeting thereafter, until such time as a vote is taken. The Board will consult with its legal advisor, the Office of the City Attorney, throughout the removal process.”

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

MOTION (by Mr. Gelfand, seconded by many): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that every NC Bylaws include, under Article Two, “Governing Board,” a section titled, “Removal of Governing Board Members.”

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

There was discussion regarding Brown Act violations and possible enforcement.

Recess – There was a short recess.

3. Parliamentary Procedure

MOTION (by Mr. Gelfand, seconded by Mr. Simen): Neighborhood Council Bylaws shall include, under Article Four, “Meetings,” that “Robert’s Rules of Order, Revised” shall be the prevailing Parliamentary Authority; “Rosenberg’s Rules of Order” may be used; when “Rosenberg’s” doesn’t apply, “Robert’s Rules” will be the Parliamentary Authority.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding the usability and advisability of designating a particular Parliamentary Authority. Leyla Campos reminded that an NC’s Bylaws supersede Parliamentary Authority. Mr. Epperhart suggested and it was agreed to provide a hierarchy of precedence of governing. It was agreed that the essence of Parliamentary Authority is to 1) protect the rights of attendees and unheard voices; and 2) assist in having orderly meetings.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION (by Mr. Simen, seconded by Mary Garcia): Neighborhood Council Bylaws must state a Parliamentary Authority.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION AMENDMENT (by Mr. Epperhart, seconded by Beatrice Jett): to add the phrase, “such as Robert’s Rules of Order or Rosenberg’s Rules of Order,” so that the Substitute Motion would read as follows: “Neighborhood Council Bylaws must state a Parliamentary Authority such as Robert’s Rules of Order or Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.”

AMENDMENT PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

4. Grievances
Mr. Epperhart distributed a “Proposed [NC] Grievance System” handout and read the Coastal San Pedro NC Bylaws Section regarding the Grievance process, as follows: “Disagreement with legitimately determined policies or positions of CSPNC shall not be considered a grievance for the purposes of this section. An allegation that a person’s or group’s rights under the By-laws or under the ordinances of the City of Los Angeles have been violated shall be the legitimate subject of the grievance procedure system.” Mr. Martinez noted that “it’s been very difficult to get volunteers . . . to do this.” There was discussion regarding acceptance and enforcement of a Grievance system. Ms. Campos distributed an “Adoption of a [NC] City Wide Grievance and Election Challenges Policies – Draft Discussion Document.”

MOTION (by Ana McBride, seconded by Mr. Spiegel): to POSTPONE this Item until the next Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

5. February 19th Meeting with the Deputy Mayor
[This Agenda Item was addressed before Item #1.] Mr. Gelfand reviewed the February 19th meeting of some NC Board Members and supporters with L.A. Deputy Mayor Larry Frank. DONE may become a section of the Community Development Department. The NC annual funding level is to be determined. NC rollover funds will be swept back into the City General Fund in thirds, with the last third being swept on April 20th; NC allocations must be documented by then. Prior expenditure records will be considered; the Mayor’s Office is “very supportive” of the BudgetLA funding program proposal.

6. Request to Reconsider Motion
[This Agenda Item was addressed after Item #4.]

MOTION (by Ms. Garcia, seconded by Mr. Epperhart): to RECONSIDER the Motion Passed at the February 6th Meeting, in Item #4, the second Motion, as follows:

“the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board.”

MOTION to RECONSIDER PASSED with one opposed.

7. Filling Board vacancies
This Item was not addressed at this Meeting.

Mr. Gelfand declared and it was agreed to adjourn the Meeting at 1:05 p.m.

Minutes written by DL.

Minutes of the
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL BYLAWS TASK FORCE
Saturday, February 6, 2010
at Barrio Action Youth and Family Center, 4927 Huntington Dr., LA 90032

The Meeting was called to order by Chair Bob Gelfand at 9:55 a.m. A revised “Bylaws `Wireframe’ and Questions” was available. See websites www.ncbylaws.blogspot.com and www.ncbylawsdocuments.blogspot.com

1. Self-introductions
The 17 attendees introduced themselves, including Darren Martinez, Deputy L.A. City Attorney, Neighborhood Council Advice Division (213-978-8132; Darren.Martinez@lacity.org; http://atty.lacity.org/COMMUNITY_SERVICES/Neighborhood_Councils/index.htm); BongHwan Kim, General Manager, L.A. Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) (213-485-1360; BongHwan.Kim@lacity.org; www.EmpowerLA.org); BONC (the L.A. Board of Neighborhood Commissioners) Commissioners John Kim (213.485.1360; John.K.Kim@lacity.org) and Daniel Gattica (213.485.1360; Daniel.Gatica@lacity.org); and Grayce Liu, Sr. Project Coordinator, DONE, (213-847-5026; Grayce.Liu@lacity.org; www.EmpowerLA.org).

MOTION (moved and seconded): to elect David Levin as the Secretary.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

Minutes of the January 23, 2010 Meeting were distributed [and are available at www.ncbylawsdocuments.blogspot.com].

2. Bylaws Wireframe review, including of the previously distributed “Before We Begin . . .” sections “Principles for Creating Good Bylaws” and “Some Additional Tools for Governance.” Doug Gelfand reviewed the last (January 23, 2010) Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

MOTION (by Mr. Gelfand and seconded): to accept this Meeting’s Agenda.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

3. Discussion of Bylaws principles
There was discussion regarding the purpose of Bylaws, including which principles to recommend and in what document(s) to place them. The principles include transparent, inclusive, collaborative, accountable, and viable.

MOTION (by BongHwan Kim, and seconded): the Bylaws Task Force recommends requiring a collection of principles (transparent, inclusive, collaborative, accountable, and viable) to be included as an essential element in every Neighborhood Council Bylaws as a Mission/Vision statement.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION (by Stuart Simen and seconded): To remove the word “Vision” from the Main Motion.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding the above proposed Amendment.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION PASSED.

AMENDED MOTION PASSED with 15 in favor and one opposed. The Passed Motion reads, “the Bylaws Task Force recommends requiring a collection of principles (transparent, inclusive, collaborative, accountable, and viable) to be included as an essential element in every Neighborhood Council Bylaws as a Mission statement.

MOTION (by BongHwan Kim, seconded by Doug Epperhart): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that a Neighborhood Council Bylaws section of principles (transparent, inclusive, collaborative, accountable, and viable) be titled “Principles of Governance.”

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

4. Discussion of Bylaws Wireframe

MOTION (by BongHwan Kim, seconded by Ivan Spiegel): the Bylaws Task Force recommends placing a section titled “Principles of Governance” in Article One of every Neighborhood Council Bylaws.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding the above proposed Motion.

MOTION PASSED unanimously by a hand vote.

There was extensive discussion regarding the proposed Neighborhood Council Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Two, “Governing Board.”

MOTION (by Doug Epperhart, seconded by BongHwan Kim): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board.

DISCUSSION: There was extensive discussion. Darren Martinez counseled that Bylaws changes can be accomplished in various ways. It was discussed whether and how much to specify Governing Board preferences or requirements in Bylaws. Bob Gelfand reminded that the purpose of the Bylaws Task Force is to make recommendations to BONC. Mr. Epperhart clarified that the point of the Motion is to prevent, not punish, problems. Various Neighborhood Council Board Officer situations and experiences were related and discussed. There was extensive discussion regarding how Neighborhood Councils could implement this recommendation.

MOTION to TABLE this Item (by Ed Novy and seconded).

MOTION to TABLE FAILED by a hand vote with four in favor and more than four opposed.

MAIN MOTION PASSED unanimously by a hand vote.

Break – There was a brief recess.

Continued 4. Discussion of Bylaws Wireframe
There was discussion regarding proposed Neighborhood Council Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Three, “Officers,” especially regarding removal of Officers. It was agreed that the main reasons for removal are non-attendance, bad behavior and incompetence. Darren Martinez cautioned that Bylaws need to have “objective, measurable criteria” regarding Officer removal, especially a responsibilities list; he recommended contacting the City Attorney’s Office so that a Neighborhood Council “will be protected if there’s a lawsuit,” noting that there’re court cases regarding “people that are disruptive to the organization.” There was extensive discussion regarding Neighborhood Council Board Meeting management and options regarding obstructive behavior.

MOTION (by Ivan Spiegel, seconded by Doug Epperhart, then Amended by Doug Epperhart and seconded by Ana McBride): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Bylaws specify that any Board Member who misses ___ regularly scheduled consecutive Neighborhood Council Governing Board Meetings or, optionally, ___ total Governing Board Meetings during any 12-month period will be automatically removed from the Board. Also, that each Neighborhood Council Board Member absence be recorded in the Neighborhood Council’s Board Meeting Minutes, and that, upon missing the required number of Board Meetings for removal, the Neighborhood Council Presiding Officer shall notify the Board Member who has failed to comply with this Bylaws provision and provide notice to that Board Member that their seat has been declared vacant.

[Note: the above Motion included the two blank lines.]

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

MOTION (by Bob Gelfand, seconded by Ana McBride): the Bylaws Task Force refers to the City Attorney’s Office to research and report back to the Bylaws Task Force regarding suggested Neighborhood Council Bylaws language regarding removal of Board Members by Board Members and Stakeholders due to failure to perform and bad behavior.

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

BongHwan Kim, John Kim and Daniel Gatica had to leave at this time.

MOTION (by Ana McBride, seconded by Ed Novy): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that all subheadings of the Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Three “Officers” shall be part of each Neighborhood Council Bylaws.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion and examples were given regarding Neighborhood Council Board powers, which are optional, and duties, which are obligations, and which powers and/or duties would be good to include in a Neighborhood Council Bylaws and/or Board Rules.

MOTION PASSED with one opposed.

A question was raised regarding how Officer vacancies can be filled.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding what Neighborhood Council Governing Board Meeting parliamentary authority prevails, and where and how to state that in Neighborhood Council Bylaws. It was agreed that it’s important to include voting procedures and what a quorum is in the Neighborhood Council Bylaws. Bob Gelfand reviewed some basic Robert’s Rules of Order regarding voting requirements. Grayce Liu reminded that DONE recommends that it’s not necessary for a Neighborhood Council to use Robert’s Rules of Order as a parliamentary authority. There was discussion regarding possible quorum sizes. Doug Epperhart counseled that a quorum can be whatever a Neighborhood Council Board decides.

MOTION (by Ivan Spiegel, seconded by Ana McBride): the Bylaws Task Force recommends, per Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Four, “Meetings,” that Neighborhood Council Bylaws state that the Neighborhood Council must include what a quorum is and how voting action is taken by the Governing Board.

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

Grayce Liu recommended considering what makes an official Meeting, especially if a Neighborhood Council has consistent difficulty getting a quorum.

MOTION (by Doug Epperhart, seconded by Ivan Spiegel): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that any Meeting of a Neighborhood Council Governing Board, scheduled and Noticed as per the Brown Act, shall constitute a Meeting for the purpose of determining Board Member attendance.

MOTION PASSED with one opposed.

MOTION (by Bob Gelfand, and seconded): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that the subheadings of Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Four, “Meetings” shall be considered essential elements to include in Neighborhood Council Bylaws.

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

Doug Epperhart reported that he, BongHwan Kim and Ana McBride, of the Bylaws Task Force Finance Committee, have written language for the Task Force to consider at a future Task Force Meeting regarding City Council financial actions, and City Council records accountability and availability to the public.

MOTION (by Stuart Simen, seconded by Beatrice Jett): to postpone discussion regarding Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Five, “Finances,” until the next Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding whether and how much to discuss Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Five, “Finances,” at this time, or to postpone it.

MOTION PASSED by a straw vote indicating that a consensus of the Task Force supported postponement.

MOTION (by Doug Epperhart, and seconded): for Doug Epperhart to write additional language for Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Five, “Finances,” for the next Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

There was discussion regarding how the Task Force could handle discussion and action regarding Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Six, “Elections.”

MOTION (by Ana McBride, seconded by Beatrice Jett): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that the subheadings of Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Six, “Elections” shall be considered essential elements to include in Neighborhood Council Bylaws.

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

It was agreed to address Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Eight, “Amendments,” at a future Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

5. Discussion of Parliamentary Authority
[This Item was not separately discussed at this Meeting.]

6. How to set an Agenda
[This Item was not discussed at this Meeting.]

It was agreed that the next three Neighborhood Council Bylaws Task Force Meetings will be on Saturdays, February 20th, February 27th and March 13, 2010 [9:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.], at places to be determined [see http://ncbylaws.blogspot.com].

Doug Gelfand ADJOURNED the Meeting without any objections at 1:17 p.m.

[Chair Mr. Gelfand notes that, for Bylaws Task Force Meeting coffee and donuts, $41.98 has been spent, while $36.00 has been collected.]

Minutes written by DL.

Minutes of the
NC BYLAWS REFORM GROUP
Saturday, January 23, 2010
at Barrio Action Youth and Family Center, 4927 Huntington Dr., LA 90032

The following handouts were available:
“Before We Begin . . .”
“Plan for a Citywide System of [NCs]”
“Los Angeles City Charter: Article IX, [DONE], Sec. 906. Certification of [NCs].”
“Bylaws `Wireframe’ and Questions”

1. Call to order
The Meeting was called to order by Bob Gelfand at 10:14 a.m.

2. Self introductions
The 19 attendees introduced themselves (several later as they arrived).

3. Election of Meeting Chair

MOTION (moved and seconded): for Bob Gelfand to be the Bylaws Reform Group Meetings Chair.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

4. Discussion and acceptance of the Agenda
Mr. Gelfand requested and it was agreed to accept the Agenda as is.

BONC Commissioner John Kim explained and Mr. Gelfand elaborated the purpose of the Group’s Meetings. BONC Commissioner Al Abrams stated that “Grievance processes are missing from this system . . . [we can] start with the Bylaws.” Various Stakeholders expressed views regarding the need and focus of Bylaws and its components, whether voluntary or mandatory.

5. Discussion of topics for future meetings
[This Agenda Item was addressed after Item #2.] Doug Epperhart explained that the Group’s second Meeting will discuss “best practice Bylaws”; the third Meeting will discuss Grievances; and the fourth Meeting “will set up a Bylaws Resources Team.”

6. Discussion of Bylaw basics: principles and additional governance tools
Mr. Epperhart explained the availability of and differences between Bylaws and Standing Rules. He then reviewed the “Before We Begin . . .” section, “Principles for Creating Good Bylaws.” “The biggest problem” is accountability of Board Members. Mr. Gelfand explained that Standing Rules can be changed at any time; Mr. Epperhart added that Standing Rules can be overridden.

7. Discussion of Bylaws “wireframe” and questions Bylaws must answer
Mr. Epperhart described that the “Bylaws `Wireframe’” handout contains section headings from many NCs’ Bylaws.

There was a brief recess.

There was extensive discussion regarding the feasibility of including and which financial guidelines would be good to include in NC Bylaws. Mr. Epperhart suggested that an audit function can be done by a small Committee within each NC. Mr. Abrams counseled that NCs need to show the City Council that NCs are serious about this.

MOTION (moved and seconded): the Bylaws Reform Group recommends that Neighborhood Council Bylaws shall include a uniform set of Articles that are in the same order.

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

Mr. Gelfand declared and it was agreed that all attendees may vote.

MOTION (moved and seconded): to create a Bylaws Reform Group Finance Committee which will report to the Group within one week of this Meeting.

DISCUSSION: The Committee will accept guidance from DONE.

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

MOTION (moved and seconded): to add a “Finance” Section to the Draft Bylaws Wireframe as Section number five, between “Meetings” and “Elections.”

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

There was discussion regarding including a no-discrimination clause in the Wireframe’s Article number one.

MOTION (moved and seconded): to add a separate Draft Bylaws Wireframe Article titled “Compliance.”

DISCUSSION: There was extensive discussion regarding whether and where subjects such as compliance, ethics, grievances and consequences could or should be included, referenced in or separate from NC Bylaws.

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

There was further discussion regarding useful and potential NC Standing and ad hoc Committees.

MOTION (moved and seconded): the NC Bylaws Reform Group agrees that the
Draft Bylaws Wireframe Section “Governing Board” and its subheadings, except the Subsection "What committees are there and how are the members and chairs chosen," are essential elements of NC Bylaws.

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

It was agreed that “Governing Board” refers to the entire NC Board of Directors, not only the Board’s Executive Officers.

There was discussion regarding that the subjects “terms” and “term limits” are optional Bylaws items.

8. Adjournment
It was agreed that the next NC Bylaws Reform Group Meeting will be in two weeks, on Saturday, February 6, 2010, at a place to be determined [see the http://ncbylaws.blogspot.com and http://ncbylawsdocuments.blogspot.com
websites].

MOTION (moved and seconded): to ADJOURN the Meeting.

Mr. Gelfand ADJOURNED the Meeting without any objections at 12:12 p.m.

The final (probably) meeting will be:

2010-03-04T00:54:00.000-08:00

The next and probably last Meeting of the NC Bylaws Task Force will be Saturday, March 20th, probably starting again at 9:30 a.m., and probably at the same place as the other Meetings, the Barrio Action Youth and Family Center, 4927 Huntington Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032 (in El Sereno, around five miles east of downtown). Time and place confirmation will be confirmed later.

Third Meeting Minutes: February 20, 2010

2010-03-04T00:49:00.001-08:00

Minutes of the
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL BYLAWS TASK FORCE
Saturday, February 20, 2010
at Barrio Action Youth and Family Center, 4927 Huntington Dr., LA 90032

The Meeting was called to order by Chair Bob Gelfand at 9:55 a.m. Minutes of the February 6, 2010 Meeting were available and are also available, as are all the Bylaws Task Force Meeting Minutes and other documents, at www.ncbylawsdocuments.blogspot.com.

Mr. Gelfand reviewed Bylaws Task Force progress and process, including the “Bylaws `Wireframe’ and Questions.” See www.ncbylaws.blogspot.com. A Recommendations Report will be submitted to DONE.

It was requested and agreed to consider, at a future Meeting, the definition of a Stakeholder.

MOTION (by Mr. Gelfand, seconded by Stuart Simen): to accept this Meeting’s Agenda.

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

MOTION (by Mr. Simen, seconded by Terrence Gomes): to accept the Minutes of the February 6, 2010 Bylaws Task Force Meeting, as written.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

The 19 attendees introduced themselves, including Darren Martinez, Deputy L.A. City Attorney, Neighborhood Council Advice Division (213-978-8132; Darren.Martinez@LACity.org; http://atty.lacity.org/COMMUNITY_SERVICES/Neighborhood_Councils/index.htm); Daniel Gattica, L.A. Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC) Commissioner (213-485-1360; Daniel.Gatica@LACity.org); and Leyla Campos, Field Director of Operations, L.A. Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) (213-485-1360; Leyla.Campos@LACity.org; www.EmpowerLA.org).

1. Finance
Doug Epperhart distributed an “NC Bylaws Group Finance Article Subcommittee” handout “for your consideration.”

MOTION (by Ana McBride, seconded by Mr. Epperhart): to adopt the following language for the Bylaws Wireframe Article Five “Finances” Section:
1.    Neighborhood Councils shall review their current fiscal budget and make adjustments as needed to comply with City laws and City administrative rules on the use of public funds, and to keep in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and DONE’s mandate for the use of standardized budget and minimum funding allocation requirements.
2.    The Council shall adhere to all rules and regulations promulgated by appropriate City officials regarding the Council’s finances.
3.    All financial accounts and records shall be available for public inspection and posted on the NC website, if available.
4.    At least once each quarter, the Treasurer shall provide detailed reports of the Council’s accounts.
5.    At least once each quarter, the President and at least one other individual designated by the Governing Board shall examine the council’s accounts and attest to their accuracy.

DISCUSSION: Concern was expressed regarding Board Member accountability. Language suggested by BongHwan Kim, DONE General Manager, was agreed to be redundant of the above language. DONE’s “minimum funding allocation requirements” were discussed.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION (by Ivan Spiegel, accepted by Mr. Epperhart): to add the wording “, other than the Treasurer,” to #5 above, so that it would read “5. At least once each quarter, the President and at least one other individual, other than the Treasurer, designated by the Governing Board shall examine the council’s accounts and attest to their accuracy.”

DISCUSSION: Section #2’s “appropriate City officials” means City officials who have authority over NCs.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION (by Ed Novy, accepted by Mr. Epperhart): to delete the Section #1 phrase “on the use of public funds.”

DISCUSSION: Darren Martinez noted that “NCs are already required to comply with GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles].” There was discussion regarding the value of and whether to have redundancy in the Subcommittee’s recommendations.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION FAILED with three in favor and the remaining attendees opposed.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION (by Ed Novy, seconded by Marlene Savage): to add the sentence “The Treasurer must have accounting training” to Section #5 above.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding what the training could/would be, who would administer it, who would consider the training sufficient, and more. One participant urged that all Board Members be required to take training before becoming Board Members.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION (by Mr. Epperhart, seconded by Mr. Simen): a Neighborhood Council’s Governing Board may adopt Standing Rules.

DISCUSSION: This language would be in “Wireframe” Article Two, “Governing Board.”

SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

Note: the Substitute Motion replaces the above unvoted-upon Motion and two Amendments.

2. City Attorney: removal language
Mr. Martinez, in response to a request made at the previous meeting, discussed the legal issues regarding removal of Board Members by the Governing Board. He distributed a handout of Board Member removal language from the Bylaws of the Studio City and Hollywood Hills West NCs. He explained that removal can be a “petition process or at the Board level.” The “property rights” concept does not apply to volunteer Board Members. “Including, but not limited to” is a recommended phrase; “disruptive conduct” and “violations of duties as specified in the Bylaws” can be added. There was discussion regarding different violations. The phrase “egregious violations of Parliamentary Procedure” was suggested. Mr. Martinez explained that differences of opinion and personality are not reasons for removal, and that there are limits of NC responsibilities and abilities to remove a Board Member; certain Board decisions can be considered libel or slander. He distinguished between removal of a Board Member and removal of a Committee Member. Mr. Gelfand reminded that Board Members are elected by the public, while Committee Members are not.

MOTION (by Mr. Epperhart and seconded): to adapt the Studio City Neighborhood Council removal language format, adding the phrase “for cause” and deleting the first paragraph. The recommended language is as follows:

“Removal of a Board Member
A Board Member may be removed from the Board for good cause, including, but not limited to, disruptive conduct; interfering with Neighborhood Council business; violations of the Bylaws, Operating Procedures or Code of Conduct following a Board Member’s or Stakeholder’s submission to the Board of a petition which:

1)    identifies the Board Member to be removed;
2)    states the reason for removal in reasonable detail; and
3)    contains the signatures of at least three (3) Board Members or fifty (50) Stakeholders.

The petition shall be delivered simultaneously to all Board Members and the matter placed on the Agenda in compliance with the Brown Act and scheduled for a vote at the next regular Board Meeting.

A vote of No Confidence by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the attending Board Members shall be necessary to remove the identified Board Member forthwith. The Board Member who is the subject of the removal action shall have the right to deliver to Board Members a written statement about the matter and/or to speak at the Board Meeting prior to the vote, but shall not be counted as part of the quorum, nor allowed to vote on the matter. If a quorum of the Board is not present, the matter shall be placed on the Agenda of the next regular Board Meeting, and every Meeting thereafter, until such time as a vote is taken. The Board will consult with its legal advisor, the Office of the City Attorney, throughout the removal process.”

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

MOTION (by Mr. Gelfand, seconded by many): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that every NC Bylaws include, under Article Two, “Governing Board,” a section titled, “Removal of Governing Board Members.”

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

There was discussion regarding Brown Act violations and possible enforcement.

Recess – There was a short recess.

3. Parliamentary Procedure

MOTION (by Mr. Gelfand, seconded by Mr. Simen): Neighborhood Council Bylaws shall include, under Article Four, “Meetings,” that “Robert’s Rules of Order, Revised” shall be the prevailing Parliamentary Authority; “Rosenberg’s Rules of Order” may be used; when “Rosenberg’s” doesn’t apply, “Robert’s Rules” will be the Parliamentary Authority.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding the usability and advisability of designating a particular Parliamentary Authority. Leyla Campos reminded that an NC’s Bylaws supersede Parliamentary Authority. Mr. Epperhart suggested and it was agreed to provide a hierarchy of precedence of governing. It was agreed that the essence of Parliamentary Authority is to 1) protect the rights of attendees and unheard voices; and 2) assist in having orderly meetings.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION (by Mr. Simen, seconded by Mary Garcia): Neighborhood Council Bylaws must state a Parliamentary Authority.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION AMENDMENT (by Mr. Epperhart, seconded by Beatrice Jett): to add the phrase, “such as Robert’s Rules of Order or Rosenberg’s Rules of Order,” so that the Substitute Motion would read as follows: “Neighborhood Council Bylaws must state a Parliamentary Authority such as Robert’s Rules of Order or Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.”

AMENDMENT PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

4. Grievances
Mr. Epperhart distributed a “Proposed [NC] Grievance System” handout and read the Coastal San Pedro NC Bylaws Section regarding the Grievance process, as follows: “Disagreement with legitimately determined policies or positions of CSPNC shall not be considered a grievance for the purposes of this section. An allegation that a person’s or group’s rights under the By-laws or under the ordinances of the City of Los Angeles have been violated shall be the legitimate subject of the grievance procedure system.” Mr. Martinez noted that “it’s been very difficult to get volunteers . . . to do this.” There was discussion regarding acceptance and enforcement of a Grievance system. Ms. Campos distributed an “Adoption of a [NC] City Wide Grievance and Election Challenges Policies – Draft Discussion Document.”

MOTION (by Ana McBride, seconded by Mr. Spiegel): to POSTPONE this Item until the next Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

MOTION PASSED by a unanimous hand vote.

5. February 19th Meeting with the Deputy Mayor
[This Agenda Item was addressed before Item #1.] Mr. Gelfand reviewed the February 19th meeting of some NC Board Members and supporters with L.A. Deputy Mayor Larry Frank. DONE may become a section of the Community Development Department. The NC annual funding level is to be determined. NC rollover funds will be swept back into the City General Fund in thirds, with the last third being swept on April 20th; NC allocations must be documented by then. Prior expenditure records will be considered; the Mayor’s Office is “very supportive” of the BudgetLA funding program proposal.

6. Request to Reconsider Motion
[This Agenda Item was addressed after Item #4.]

MOTION (by Ms. Garcia, seconded by Mr. Epperhart): to RECONSIDER the Motion Passed at the February 6th Meeting, in Item #4, the second Motion, as follows:

“the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board.”

MOTION to RECONSIDER PASSED with one opposed.

7. Filling Board vacancies
This Item was not addressed at this Meeting.

Mr. Gelfand declared and it was agreed to adjourn the Meeting at 1:05 p.m.

Minutes written by DL.

Minutes of the Second Meeting

2010-02-09T22:52:00.000-08:00

Minutes of the
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL BYLAWS TASK FORCE
Saturday, February 6, 2010
at Barrio Action Youth and Family Center, 4927 Huntington Dr., LA 90032

The Meeting was called to order by Chair Bob Gelfand at 9:55 a.m. A revised “Bylaws `Wireframe’ and Questions” was available. See websites www.ncbylaws.blogspot.com and www.ncbylawsdocuments.blogspot.com

1. Self-introductions
The 17 attendees introduced themselves, including Darren Martinez, Deputy L.A. City Attorney, Neighborhood Council Advice Division (213-978-8132; Darren.Martinez@lacity.org; http://atty.lacity.org/COMMUNITY_SERVICES/Neighborhood_Councils/index.htm); BongHwan Kim, General Manager, L.A. Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) (213-485-1360; BongHwan.Kim@lacity.org; www.EmpowerLA.org); BONC (the L.A. Board of Neighborhood Commissioners) Commissioners John Kim (213.485.1360; John.K.Kim@lacity.org) and Daniel Gattica (213.485.1360; Daniel.Gatica@lacity.org); and Grayce Liu, Sr. Project Coordinator, DONE, (213-847-5026; Grayce.Liu@lacity.org; www.EmpowerLA.org).

MOTION (moved and seconded): to elect David Levin as the Secretary.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

Minutes of the January 23, 2010 Meeting were distributed [and are available at www.ncbylawsdocuments.blogspot.com].

2. Bylaws Wireframe review, including of the previously distributed “Before We Begin . . .” sections “Principles for Creating Good Bylaws” and “Some Additional Tools for Governance.” Bob Gelfand reviewed the last (January 23, 2010) Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

MOTION (by Mr. Gelfand and seconded): to accept this Meeting’s Agenda.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

3. Discussion of Bylaws principles
There was discussion regarding the purpose of Bylaws, including which principles to recommend and in what document(s) to place them. The principles include transparent, inclusive, collaborative, accountable, and viable.

MOTION (by BongHwan Kim, and seconded): the Bylaws Task Force recommends requiring a collection of principles (transparent, inclusive, collaborative, accountable, and viable) to be included as an essential element in every Neighborhood Council Bylaws as a Mission/Vision statement.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION (by Stuart Simen and seconded): To remove the word “Vision” from the Main Motion.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding the above proposed Amendment.

AMENDMENT to the MOTION PASSED.

AMENDED MOTION PASSED with 15 in favor and one opposed. The Passed Motion reads, “the Bylaws Task Force recommends requiring a collection of principles (transparent, inclusive, collaborative, accountable, and viable) to be included as an essential element in every Neighborhood Council Bylaws as a Mission statement.

MOTION (by BongHwan Kim, seconded by Doug Epperhart): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that a Neighborhood Council Bylaws section of principles (transparent, inclusive, collaborative, accountable, and viable) be titled “Principles of Governance.”

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

4. Discussion of Bylaws Wireframe

MOTION (by BongHwan Kim, seconded by Ivan Spiegel): the Bylaws Task Force recommends placing a section titled “Principles of Governance” in Article One of every Neighborhood Council Bylaws.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding the above proposed Motion.

MOTION PASSED unanimously by a hand vote.

There was extensive discussion regarding the proposed Neighborhood Council Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Two, “Governing Board.”

MOTION (by Doug Epperhart, seconded by BongHwan Kim): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Officers be elected by their Governing Board.

DISCUSSION: There was extensive discussion. Darren Martinez counseled that Bylaws changes can be accomplished in various ways. It was discussed whether and how much to specify Governing Board preferences or requirements in Bylaws. Bob Gelfand reminded that the purpose of the Bylaws Task Force is to make recommendations to BONC. Mr. Epperhart clarified that the point of the Motion is to prevent, not punish, problems. Various Neighborhood Council Board Officer situations and experiences were related and discussed. There was extensive discussion regarding how Neighborhood Councils could implement this recommendation.

MOTION to TABLE this Item (by Ed Novy and seconded).

MOTION to TABLE FAILED by a hand vote with four in favor and more than four opposed.

MAIN MOTION PASSED unanimously by a hand vote.

Break – There was a brief recess.

Continued 4. Discussion of Bylaws Wireframe
There was discussion regarding proposed Neighborhood Council Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Three, “Officers,” especially regarding removal of Officers. It was agreed that the main reasons for removal are non-attendance, bad behavior and incompetence. Darren Martinez cautioned that Bylaws need to have “objective, measurable criteria” regarding Officer removal, especially a responsibilities list; he recommended contacting the City Attorney’s Office so that a Neighborhood Council “will be protected if there’s a lawsuit,” noting that there’re court cases regarding “people that are disruptive to the organization.” There was extensive discussion regarding Neighborhood Council Board Meeting management and options regarding obstructive behavior.

MOTION (by Ivan Spiegel, seconded by Doug Epperhart, then Amended by Doug Epperhart and seconded by Ana McBride): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that Neighborhood Council Bylaws specify that any Board Member who misses ___ regularly scheduled consecutive Neighborhood Council Governing Board Meetings or, optionally, ___ total Governing Board Meetings during any 12-month period will be automatically removed from the Board. Also, that each Neighborhood Council Board Member absence be recorded in the Neighborhood Council’s Board Meeting Minutes, and that, upon missing the required number of Board Meetings for removal, the Neighborhood Council Presiding Officer shall notify the Board Member who has failed to comply with this Bylaws provision and provide notice to that Board Member that their seat has been declared vacant.

[Note: the above Motion included the two blank lines.]

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

MOTION (by Bob Gelfand, seconded by Ana McBride): the Bylaws Task Force refers to the City Attorney’s Office to research and report back to the Bylaws Task Force regarding suggested Neighborhood Council Bylaws language regarding removal of Board Members by Board Members and Stakeholders due to failure to perform and bad behavior.

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

BongHwan Kim, John Kim and Daniel Gatica had to leave at this time.

MOTION (by Ana McBride, seconded by Ed Novy): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that all subheadings of the Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Three “Officers” shall be part of each Neighborhood Council Bylaws.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion and examples were given regarding Neighborhood Council Board powers, which are optional, and duties, which are obligations, and which powers and/or duties would be good to include in a Neighborhood Council Bylaws and/or Board Rules.

MOTION PASSED with one opposed.

A question was raised regarding how Officer vacancies can be filled.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding what Neighborhood Council Governing Board Meeting parliamentary authority prevails, and where and how to state that in Neighborhood Council Bylaws. It was agreed that it’s important to include voting procedures and what a quorum is in the Neighborhood Council Bylaws. Bob Gelfand reviewed some basic Robert’s Rules of Order regarding voting requirements. Grayce Liu reminded that DONE recommends that it’s not necessary for a Neighborhood Council to use Robert’s Rules of Order as a parliamentary authority. There was discussion regarding possible quorum sizes. Doug Epperhart counseled that a quorum can be whatever a Neighborhood Council Board decides.

MOTION (by Ivan Spiegel, seconded by Ana McBride): the Bylaws Task Force recommends, per Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Four, “Meetings,” that Neighborhood
Council Bylaws must state what a quorum is and how voting action is to be taken by the Governing Board.

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

Grayce Liu recommended considering what makes an official Meeting, especially if a Neighborhood Council has consistent difficulty getting a quorum.

MOTION (by Doug Epperhart, seconded by Ivan Spiegel): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that any Meeting of a Neighborhood Council Governing Board, scheduled and Noticed as per the Brown Act, shall constitute a Meeting for the purpose of determining Board Member attendance.

DISCUSSION: Some Board Members have boycotted Meetings in order to prevent a quorum being reached, then claimed that their failure to attend is not an absence, due to the lack of a lawfully conducted Meeting. The Motion is intended to apply not only to Meetings which are lawfully held, but also to scheduled Meetings which fail to reach a quorum, to correct this "gaming" of the system.

MOTION PASSED with one opposed.

MOTION (by Bob Gelfand, and seconded): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that the subheadings of Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Four, “Meetings” shall be considered essential elements to include in Neighborhood Council Bylaws.

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

Doug Epperhart reported that he, BongHwan Kim and Ana McBride, of the Bylaws Task Force Finance Committee, have written language for the Task Force to consider at a future Task Force Meeting regarding Neighborhood Council financial actions, and Neighborhood Council records accountability and availability to the public.

MOTION (by Stuart Simen, seconded by Beatrice Jett): to postpone discussion regarding Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Five, “Finances,” until the next Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding whether and how much to discuss Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Five, “Finances,” at this time, or to postpone it.

MOTION PASSED by a straw vote indicating that a consensus of the Task Force supported postponement.

MOTION (by Doug Epperhart, and seconded): for Doug Epperhart to write additional language for Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Five, “Finances,” for the next Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

There was discussion regarding how the Task Force could handle discussion and action regarding Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Six, “Elections.”

MOTION (by Ana McBride, seconded by Beatrice Jett): the Bylaws Task Force recommends that the subheadings of Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Six, “Elections” shall be considered essential elements to include in Neighborhood Council Bylaws.

MOTION PASSED unanimously.

It was agreed to address Bylaws “Wireframe” Article Eight, “Amendments,” at a future Bylaws Task Force Meeting.

5. Discussion of Parliamentary Authority
[This Item was not separately discussed at this Meeting.]

6. How to set an Agenda
[This Item was not discussed at this Meeting.]

It was agreed that the next three Neighborhood Council Bylaws Task Force Meetings will be on Saturdays, February 20th, February 27th and March 13, 2010 [9:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.], at places to be determined [see http://ncbylaws.blogspot.com].

Bob Gelfand ADJOURNED the Meeting without any objections at 1:17 p.m.

[Chair Mr. Gelfand notes that, for Bylaws Task Force Meeting coffee and donuts, $41.98 has been spent, while $36.00 has been collected.]

Minutes written by DL.

Minutes of January 23, 2010 Meeting

2010-01-26T22:36:00.000-08:00

(Note: These minutes were provided by David Levin)

Minutes of the
NC BYLAWS REFORM GROUP
Saturday, January 23, 2010
at Barrio Action Youth and Family Center, 4927 Huntington Dr., LA 90032

The following handouts were available:
“Before We Begin . . .”
“Plan for a Citywide System of [NCs]”
“Los Angeles City Charter: Article IX, [DONE], Sec. 906. Certification of [NCs].”
“Bylaws `Wireframe’ and Questions”

1. Call to order
The Meeting was called to order by Bob Gelfand at 10:14 a.m.

2. Self introductions
The 19 attendees introduced themselves (several later as they arrived).

3. Election of Meeting Chair

MOTION (moved and seconded): for Bob Gelfand to be the Bylaws Reform Group Meetings Chair.

MOTION PASSED without any objections.

4. Discussion and acceptance of the Agenda
Mr. Gelfand requested and it was agreed to accept the Agenda as is.

BONC Commissioner John Kim explained and Mr. Gelfand elaborated the purpose of the Group’s Meetings. BONC Commissioner Al Abrams stated that “Grievance processes are missing from this system . . . [we can] start with the Bylaws.” Various Stakeholders expressed views regarding the need and focus of Bylaws and its components, whether voluntary or mandatory.

5. Discussion of topics for future meetings
[This Agenda Item was addressed after Item #2.] Doug Epperhart explained that the Group’s second Meeting will discuss “best practice Bylaws”; the third Meeting will discuss Grievances; and the fourth Meeting “will set up a Bylaws Resources Team.”

6. Discussion of Bylaw basics: principles and additional governance tools
Mr. Epperhart explained the availability of and differences between Bylaws and Standing Rules. He then reviewed the “Before We Begin . . .” section, “Principles for Creating Good Bylaws.” “The biggest problem” is accountability of Board Members. Mr. Gelfand explained that Standing Rules can be changed at any time; Mr. Epperhart added that Standing Rules can be overridden.

7. Discussion of Bylaws “wireframe” and questions Bylaws must answer
Mr. Epperhart described that the “Bylaws `Wireframe’” handout contains section headings from many NCs’ Bylaws.

There was a brief recess.

There was extensive discussion regarding the feasibility of including and which financial guidelines would be good to include in NC Bylaws. Mr. Epperhart suggested that an audit function can be done by a small Committee within each NC. Mr. Abrams counseled that NCs need to show the City Council that NCs are serious about this.

MOTION (moved and seconded): the Bylaws Reform Group recommends that Neighborhood Council Bylaws shall include a uniform set of Articles that are in the same order.

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

Mr. Gelfand declared and it was agreed that all attendees may vote.

MOTION (moved and seconded): to create a Bylaws Reform Group Finance Committee which will report to the Group within one week of this Meeting.

DISCUSSION: The Committee will accept guidance from DONE.

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

MOTION (moved and seconded): to add a “Finance” Section to the Draft Bylaws Wireframe as Section number five, between “Meetings” and “Elections.”

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

There was discussion regarding including a no-discrimination clause in the Wireframe’s Article number one.

MOTION (moved and seconded): to add a separate Draft Bylaws Wireframe Article titled “Compliance.”

DISCUSSION: There was extensive discussion regarding whether and where subjects such as compliance, ethics, grievances and consequences could or should be included, referenced in or separate from NC Bylaws.

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

There was further discussion regarding useful and potential NC Standing and ad hoc Committees.

MOTION (moved and seconded): the NC Bylaws Reform Group agrees that the
Draft Bylaws Wireframe Section “Governing Board” and its subheadings, except the Subsection "What committees are there and how are the members and chairs chosen," are essential elements of NC Bylaws.

MOTION PASSED by a hand vote.

It was agreed that “Governing Board” refers to the entire NC Board of Directors, not only the Board’s Executive Officers.

There was discussion regarding that the subjects “terms” and “term limits” are optional Bylaws items.

8. Adjournment
It was agreed that the next NC Bylaws Reform Group Meeting will be in two weeks, on Saturday, February 6, 2010, at a place to be determined [see the http://ncbylaws.blogspot.com and http://ncbylawsdocuments.blogspot.com
websites].

MOTION (moved and seconded): to ADJOURN the Meeting.

Mr. Gelfand ADJOURNED the Meeting without any objections at 12:12 p.m.

BONC Commissioner Al Abrams discusses standardization

2010-01-22T00:31:00.000-08:00

Bonc commissioner Abrams published an article in Citywatch that discusses the need for standardization:

Click on this link.

Preliminary thoughts on the grievance process

2009-12-31T00:01:00.000-08:00

The Grievance Conundrum

by Bob Gelfand

    Back in 2001, when we were creating our original neighborhood council bylaws, DONE told us to include a section on grievances. The instruction was pretty vague, so we were forced to ask ourselves several questions. The questions haven't changed over the years, but to our irritation, they have remained unanswered by DONE or the city:

1.    What is a grievance, anyway? Is it any complaint, or a specific kind of complaint? Is it only a violation of the law, or could the definition be wider, such as a violation of Roberts Rules by the chair?

2.    Are grievances limited to complaints against the governing board, or can they be lodged against specific members of a governing board, or could a grievance be filed by one member of a governing board against a fellow member of the same governing board?

3.    How is a grievance complaint made -- by whom, to whom, under what format, and under what conditions of time, place, and manner?

4.    How shall a grievance be decided? May a governing board dispose of a grievance against itself, or must some other person or persons be designated? And if so, by whom? What are the principles in terms of due process, evidence, and the right to confront opposing witnesses?

5.    How must those entrusted with deciding the validity of a grievance report their findings?

6.    In the case of a negative finding (ie: that nothing was wrongly done), does the complaining party have any right of appeal?

7.    In the case of a positive finding (ie: that someone did something wrong), what remedies are appropriate, and how can they be applied? Is there any right of appeal, and to whom?

8.    In those cases which involve differences of opinion over how a neighborhood council is managed, is there any such thing as a grievance, or should all of these be rejected as merely political differences?

The History of debates and discussions on grievances by DONE and others

    Each neighborhood council was required to include bylaws language with regard to grievances as a condition of its certification. It is not clear that any two bylaws sections on grievances are substantially alike, or that any one of them is particularly well constructed.
    Many neighborhood councils appear to have functioned with few or no official grievance filings; for example, my own neighborhood council has had only one written complaint in its 8 years of existence, and that was handled informally.
    Then there is the extreme opposite case, the Venice Neighborhood Council. One person continued to file dozens and dozens of grievance complaints over an extended period of time. A brief review of those complaints reveals that they were without merit, highly redundant, and appeared to become, over the course of time, simply a vehicle for harassment.
    In other cases, it is obvious that several neighborhood council governing boards were substantially negligent: Some refused to allow members of the public to speak when it was appropriate to do so; others failed to hold meetings, and some failed to hold elections for years on end.

Official Action: a history of anemia

    The history of DONE and BONC actions suggests an unhealthy pattern: For the majority of its early existence, the BONC attempted to be a mediator or allowed DONE to make the attempt, but would not take effective action against even the worst violators. The most famous example was the Venice Neighborhood Council (at the time operating under a different name), which carried on what can best be described as a political civil war. One side consisted largely of activists from the Peace and Freedom Party, and on the other side were those who wanted a more broadly representative board. The membership of the governing board gradually dwindled to the point that legal quorums were impossible. Even in the face of this catch-22 situation, the BONC failed to take effective action, which might have been to invite DONE to preside over new elections.
    Eventually this process occurred, but it took years, led to widespread public frustration, and called into question the capabilities of DONE and BONC.
    The most striking element in this whole Venice NC controversy was the assertion by DONE and BONC that there were no legal tools available to solve the problem. This may have been technically true at the time (although it isn't entirely clear), but to imply that the condition had to continue was clearly nonsense. NC bylaws are, as a matter of law, subject to the dictates of statute, the Charter, and acts passed by the City Council. It would have been easy to write a modification of the Plan (ie: the enabling statute passed by the City Council) that would allow DONE and BONC to intercede in the case of any nc that demonstrates that it cannot function. In particular, the City Council could have enabled DONE and BONC to intervene directly in the case of any neighborhood council that fails to meet for an extended period of time.

DONE Workshops and Committees

At various times, DONE has created committees with the intent of developing a grievance procedure. This has happened at least twice in DONE's existence. The first committee was directed by DONE staffer Jamiko Bell. The second, several years later, was run under the tutelage of the current General Manager.
I participated fully in the first such committee and partially during the second. Neither effort resulted in anything useful. In particular, no grievance system under DONE was ever enacted at any time in the entire history of neighborhood councils, and the question as to how to proceed remains open to this day.

Wide philosophical gulfs among the participants

    As a participant in the first such committee, I discovered that there were two disparate schools of thought among the participants. The following is my own view of what happened:
    For lack of better terminology, I will categorize the competing views as the Authoritarian vs the Libertarian. I have chosen these terms because (a) they fit the dueling philosophies reasonably well, and (b) they are both, to a certain extent, negative terms and therefore do not necessarily represent an attempt to be unfair. I will be the first to describe my own position as being among the libertarian views.

    In essence, the authoritarian view can be summarized as follows: Neighborhood council governing board members have duties they must undertake and certain rules they must follow. If they fail, then the system (ie: DONE or some other body that DONE would create) has a duty to take action to set things right.
    Advocates of this point of view took the authoritarian principle pretty far. In fact, they repeatedly spoke of sentencing governing board members to "mandatory training" or used other terms of a similar nature. What I found truly curious about these remarks was that the discussion of how to define grievances jumped right to plans for punishing people, with no intervening discussion about how the question of guilt or innocence might be approached. There was little or no intervening discussion about due process or the rights of the accused. In essence, the people who held such views seemed to be willing to trust DONE or some other ad hoc agency to carry out investigations, make determinations as to guilt, and to pass sentence.

    The above may sound like a harsh indictment of what went on at the committee, but it is an honest account, taking into consideration my own opposing philosophy.

    What was the libertarian point of view then?
    In brief, it was the view that we are all volunteers and that DONE has no police powers over us; that is, DONE has no authority to order any of us to do anything. At the most, DONE has the right to deny the right to be treasurer to those who won't undergo specific treasurer training.

    In addition, DONE and BONC have the right to abolish a neighborhood council under carefully specified circumstances, but they have no rights of compulsion whatsoever over any individual person.

Did anything get resolved?

What became curiouser and curiouser over the course of these discussions was our inability as a group to reach any consensus about what a grievance actually is. Here I use the term "grievance" to refer to some act that would justify (a) a complaint being filed (b) a review or hearing of that act and (c) some remedy to be assessed against the wrongdoers if the fact-finding body determined that guilt existed.

In practice, some of us fantasized over how to punish wrongdoers, while others of us protested that the whole approach was fundamentally flawed because DONE is not and should not be a police agency.

Intervening Variables

When we consider the history of the system of neighborhood councils in Los Angeles, two issues seem to be the most contentious.

The first is the fairness of our elections.

The second is the behavior and performance of governing board chairs.

Whether you call them grievances or some other term, the majority of complaints heard by frustrated City Council members have involved these questions. People who sided with the losing side in an election sometimes complained that the election was unfair, or rigged, or at least tilted. For example, the outreach efforts by the governing board prior to an election were often called into question as to their completeness or bias. The locations and hours of elections were questioned,

Even more common were (and continue to be) complaints about the behavior of those who chair our meetings. These complaints are, in my view, often justified. I have seen governing board chairs violate the rules with impunity. In one recent experience, I witnessed the elected chair of a neighborhood council repeatedly interrupt members of the governing board, using language such as, "You are only one vote." The interruption and the denigrating tone combined to present a highly prejudiced atmosphere, intended to move the outcome of the discussion in a particular direction.

Remedies for these problems

    My view is and has always been that if DONE were to have only one duty, it would be to guarantee to all stakeholders the right to free and fair elections. I made this comment to GM Nelson before any nc was in existence, and I feel that this is the crux of much of our debate. Whether the party carrying out oversight should be DONE, the City Clerk, or something else is a different question, but without fair elections, the legitimacy of the system fails, and no grievance procedure can be a remedy for the bad results.

    Under the new rules established by the City Council, the City Clerk is responsible for neighborhood council elections. This is a questionable experiment at best, but it has the advantage that no stakeholder can make an effective claim against an elected governing board for mishandling an election. The City Clerk's office is an agency of city government and has the virtue of being sufficiently distanced from the life of the neighborhood council to be believable as a neutral party.

Fixing the Chair Problem

    The issue of chair misconduct is actually less difficult. There are two or three remedies available, and combined, they solve the problem:

    First, the officers of any governing board should be elected by the members of the board, and be subject to being replaced by the board. This is the first element in dealing with a chair who is rude to members of the governing board or to the public. It is an imperfect remedy, in that it denies to the public the right to elect the chair directly, but its virtues outweigh its faults. In the one case, there is no way to remove the chair, and even the disappointed public have no say. In the latter case, the public can speak out and petition the members of the governing board, which may result in the chair becoming more accomodating, or might result in the chair being replaced with somebody who promises to run meetings in a fair and polite way. In any case, the chair understands that she serves at the pleasure of her fellow board members, and will be retained as chair only so long as she has the support of the majority.

    The next remedy is to train governing board members in Roberts Rules of Order.
    In one neighborhood council that was having difficulties due to an imperious chair, we discovered that the rest of the governing board members failed to defend their own rights simply because they had no idea of what their rights were. In addition, they lacked even basic knowledge of how to make a motion, how to offer an amendment, the technicalities of debate, or how to use any of the alternative methods (such as the motion to "lay on the table") for dealing with troublesome motions. They were ignorant of the use of the "point of order" and they failed repeatedly to defend themselves or the public interest as a direct result of all these failures.
    We therefore met with a few governing board members and taught them the minimum Parliamentary procedure necessary to begin their own internal reform movement. This resulted in improved functioning of the council, although it could not, in and of itself, turn a bad chair into a good chair. As an aside, this nc ultimately prevailed in amending its own bylaws so as to allow the governing board to elect the chair, which has, if nothing else, resulted in a lot less tension on the board.

    The final remedy is critically important, but has been all but ignored by DONE. It is to train governing board chairs in the proper use of Roberts Rules. At the core, it is to point out to every chair the following: "Your first and last duty is to protect the rights of all participants. You have no right to attempt to force your views over any other participant, you are required to uphold the rules of procedure -- in particular with regard to time management -- and you are required to remain civil to those who merely offer opinions contrary to your own. You have to make yourself not only familiar with Roberts Rules, but proficient in their execution."

    The problem, as I see it, is that DONE is entirely ignorant of the underlying philosophy in Roberts Rules, namely the duty of the chair to protect the rights of all people.

    Notice that failures by the chair include not only commission, but omission. The most common act of omission is for the chair to fail to do time management. We are all familiar with this problem: We may set time limits on an agenda item, but for some reason the chair fails to enforce those limits. People are allowed to talk on and on.
    Paradoxically, the usual result of such run-on discussions is that the board takes no action, because it has lost focus and wants only to get finished. A more effective chair will point out the time situation, invite the board to either extend discussion or to take action on the motion, and may thereby facilitate effective action. Note that under the Brown Act and commonly accepted nc practice, members of the public are allowed to continue making comments even after time has run out, as we like to embrace public opinion as a core element of our existence as neighborhood councils.

    As a remedy for incompetent management of meetings by chairs, let me propose the following remedy: We should offer to do informal workshops to train chairs (and would-be chairs) in the skills, duties, and principles involved in running a meeting. We feel that such workshops are better done by us amateur volunteers, rather than DONE staff, because we have seen no evidence that DONE staff know anything much about the question.

The City's Enabling Ordinance ("The Plan")

2009-12-29T10:35:00.001-08:00

PLAN FOR A CITYWIDE SYSTEM OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS

Bylaws

(c)    Bylaws shall be established, including the following information.

    (i)    Neighborhood Council name

    (ii)    Community Stakeholder Membership and the Governing Body

        (1)    The bylaws shall state that the Neighborhood Council membership is open to all Community
            Stakeholders.

        (2)    The bylaws shall include a list of offices of the Governing Body and a method for regularly electing or selecting officers who shall serve as the Governing Body. For the purpose of this Plan, the term Governing Body refers to Community Stakeholders of a Certified Neighborhood Council who are empowered to make decisions on behalf of that Certified Neighborhood Council.

            (a)    A Certified Neighborhood Council’s Governing Body must, to the extent possible, reflect the diversity of the Neighborhood Council’s Community Stakeholders. Accordingly, no single Community Stakeholder group shall comprise a majority of a Certified Neighborhood Council’s governing body, unless extenuating circumstances are warranted and approved by DONE.

            (b)    Terms of members of the Governing Body shall be for two or four years, to be decided upon by individual Neighborhood Councils.

    (iii)    Meeting procedures. Each Certified Neighborhood Council shall:

        (1)    Meet at least once per calendar quarter.

        (2)    Obey any or all sections of the State of California’s open meeting procedures that apply to Neighborhood Councils (Ralph M. Brown Act), which includes posting meeting notices in generally accepted public places or through electronic media, such as e-mail or posting notice on DONE’s Web page.

        (3)    Establish procedures for communicating with all Neighborhood Council Community Stakeholders on a regular basis in a manner ensuring that information is disseminated evenly and in a timely manner.

        (4)    A process for running meetings, including:

            (a)    The number of Governing Body members that constitute a majority and a quorum;

            (b)    The number of votes by a Governing Body for a Certified Neighborhood Council to take an official action, such as adoption of an item or position; and

            (c)    The way in which a vote by the Governing Body or action by a Certified Neighborhood Council can be reconsidered, if applicable.

    (iv)    A grievance procedure shall be established by which an individual Community Stakeholder or group of Community Stakeholders of a Certified Neighborhood Council shall be able to express concerns for their Governing Body about its decisions and actions.

City Charter Title IX

2009-12-29T10:33:00.000-08:00

LOS ANGELES CITY CHARTER

ARTICLE IX

DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT

Sec. 906. Certification of Neighborhood Councils
(a)     By-laws. Each neighborhood council seeking official certification or recognition from the City shall submit an organization plan and by-laws to the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment showing, at a minimum:

    (1) the method by which their officers are chosen;
    (2) neighborhood council membership will be open to everyone who lives, works or owns property in the area (stakeholders);
    (3) assurances that the members of the neighborhood council will reflect the diverse interests within their area;
    (4) a system through which the neighborhood council will communicate with stakeholders on a regular basis;
    (5) a system for financial accountability of its funds; and
    (6) guarantees that all meetings will be open and public, and permit, to the extent feasible, every stakeholder to participate in the conduct of business, deliberation and decision-making.

Documents that will be discussed at workshops

2009-12-26T10:39:00.000-08:00

Doug Epperhart published an invitation in CitywatchLA that sets forth the reasons for doing bylaws reform and introduces the Charter's requirements.

See Doug's article here.

Commissioner John Kim of the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC) wrote an article for CitywatchLA that introduces the topic from BONC's perspective and invites you to participate.

See Commissioner Kim's article here.