Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Glassell Park NC Conflicts and Minutes "Slipping Away" According To Stakeholders

The emails have been piling up in my "ZAP inbox" regarding Glassell Park NC problems, as I have been tweaking my new website this weekend. So I took a minute to post some new emails, for your info and comments on my new Google group. (A place where I can quickly and easily post some of your informative -- and longer -- emails, without having to post multiple updates throughout the day here on Mayor Sam's blog.)

Stories just posted -- (email fellow stakeholders!):

* Regarding Glassell Park NC Minutes: Stakeholder Feels Like Time (Minutes Actually) Are Slipping Away


* GPNC - Bradley's Conflict of Interest

Click the Google Groups "visit group" link at the bottom of ZumaTimes.com [Now isn't that better than three long posts!]


Anonymous Anonymous said:

MS, ZD took your blog link off his website. What you gonna do???

June 17, 2007 7:19 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:

i see 2 links on zumatimes.com to mayor sam. plus i put, "back to mayor sam" links on the stories.

what kind of crybaby are you, anyway?

June 17, 2007 7:58 PM  

Blogger Mayor Sam said:

First off he didn't and second I'm not going to do anything. ZD's website is great!

June 17, 2007 8:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


June 17, 2007 10:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You get the feeling this is a story nobody muhc cares about but 5-6 outvoted ex Glassel Park NC board members, and a rabid Zuma Dogg.

OH, and every other sour grapes ex-NC board member who ever got voted out, or run off because they were certifiably INSANE -- and now they believe ALL NCs ARE BAD! (Because they can't run one themselves).
Seems pretty clear to me.

June 18, 2007 8:40 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Seems pretty clear that Bradley is on the take with Victory Outreach. One hand is behind his back directing "Radius Maps" and the other appears to be accepting money for doing so.
I don't think the former board members have anything to do with Bradley acting "B(r)ADLY"

June 18, 2007 9:36 AM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:


I didn't see you say this isn't shady as hell...just that only a few people care. so i guess as long as no one sees you robbing the bank, it's cool!

Go, NC, go!

June 18, 2007 4:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

ZD at 4_03,

People get the representation they deserve - based on their level of interest and activity.

The only thing your exaggerated accounts of sleaziness in a couple of rogue NCs do is convince them that everyone's corrupt - so they did the "right" thing by staying away and remaining apathetic and disconnected. And, that only helps the big boys downtown screw them further.

Note your two more recent NC-related postings. Two reactions for each one (that's 1 reaction for every 500 words you wrote about them).

How many responses on AV's sex life in the same time period (100+).

There are 90+ NCs now - some kicking butt in affecting the more equitable delivery of city services (which was the main goal of NCs since 1998) and making sure city hall knows their community isn't asleep. Some ahve also moved out of their civil wars and started on paths to proactive community improvements.

I know - that's "dog bites man" - and so it's not "news" but to look at your reports, you would things "man bites dog" (dysfunctional NCs) is the norm and getting sh*t done using NCs and open meetings isn't happening anywhere out here.

You're looking at the whole system through sleaze-colored glasses, and missing the growing number of bright spots.

June 18, 2007 4:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

4:42 - You're showing your ignorance, sport. This is more than 1 or 2 NCs. As posted on the LANCIssues blog, there are a number of instances, and GPNC and Venice are not even mentioned below.

It's a problem that runs through NCs - because the system in place is SEVERELY flawed.

* * *

"Take-over" voting by special interest groups in election of NC boards has been a problem that threatens the credibility of the NC system. In the Valley there have been "take overs" in the following NC's; Chatsworth, Woodland Hills, and Studio City. The Hollywood United, Playa Vista, Westchester and one of the
Harbor NC's also were "take over" victims. I am sure there are others that I am not aware of.

The problem of "take over" of NC Boards is caused predominately because all stakeholders vote for all NC Board positions independent of their stakeholder status. I recommend that voting should be restricted by the voter's stakeholder qualifications.

There are two broad classifications of stakeholders.
The Community stakeholder is an individual that qualifies as per the L.A. City Charter. The Community stakeholder "lives, works, or owns property within
the boundaries of the NC. This stakeholder clearly has a very strong primary connection with the community.

The second classification, for purposes of this recommendation, is an Affiliated stakeholder. The qualification for this status is an individual affiliated
with the NC as per Article II Paragraph 1. of the L.A. City Council approved "Plan." Their status is "identified by participation in, among other things, educational institutions, religious institutions, community organizations or other non-profit organizations.........etc.etc ." Their connection to the community is typically not as strong as that of the Community Stakeholder except in those instances when the Community Stakeholder is also affiliated with an entity within the NC boundaries. In that case the stakeholder must decide which
one he prefers to choose for voting in elections.

The NC Board positions should include, to reflect all the interests of the community, dedicated seats for both Community and Affiliated stakeholders. Also,
as per Article III of the Plan no single stakeholder group "shall comprise a majority of a Certified Neighborhood councils governing body"

Election procedures in the By Laws should provide for Community stakeholders to be eligible to vote for all the Community Board seats. That should represent approximately half the seats to be elected to the Governing board of the NC. Affiliated stakeholders would vote for Affiliated seats with the very important restriction that each individual would be eligible to vote for only one Affiliated Board seat. The Affiliated stakeholder must choose one Affiliated entity to qualify their voting stakeholder status.

For example: Your child attends a private school located within the NC boundaries. You live outside the boundaries, but you belong to the PTA. You would qualify as an Affiliated stakeholder and would be eligible to vote in the NC
election. However, you would be limited to vote only for the Board seat that was for the "Educational Institutions" representative.

Currently, for many NC's, this Affiliated stakeholder in the above example would be able to vote for all the Board members. Consequently, if a private
school was interested in expanding their facilities, and desired NC Board approval, it could promote a slate of candidates that were supportive of the school's
plans and "take over" the Board. By limiting the Affiliated stakeholders voting rights would help solve this typical "take-over" problem.

One could argue that the community members should organize and fight the "take -over" by the school's candidates. However the school organization is in place and can effectively rally the parents of their students to vote for their
selected slate of candidates. Currently, many NC's have a tough time getting their message out to the community to participate in NC elections. Hopefully, with time, voter turnout will improve as NC's gain greater stature in their
communities. However, the above recommendations will help prevent the "take over" problem today and in the future.

Respectfully submitted,
Joe vitti

June 18, 2007 5:34 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Congress was "taken over" by Democracts this past year.

What's your point?

June 19, 2007 11:28 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

the question that we have is if the city government wanted to impose some kind of penalty for badly behaving NC members- what should it be?
What would be an effective deterrent and past must on both legal and politcal levels? Right now you are in bigger trouble with the city of LA for vending oranges on the sidewalk without a license than taking over an NC and using it to support developers who are willing to pay you.
Is it me or does this seem a little ridiculous?

June 24, 2007 11:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home