RANDOM LENGTHS NEWS
Who's Neighborhood?
Deeper Issues of Representation Lost in Elected Charter Commission's Tango with Secessionist.
by Robert Johnson
On May 4, about two thirds of the elected Charter Reform Commission arrived at San Pedro's Peck Park auditorium peddling an enormous volume (100-plus pages) of information on neighborhood councils. While much of it was relevant to the proceedings, letters from FedEx to the Commission about packages and the itinerary for their upcoming field trip to a Portland conference could be found lurking within to add bulk. The order of business for the evening was to open the discussion up to local residents--about 150 were in attendance--in an attempt to refine what has already been unearthed about this proposed sub-level of municipal government and to get a better sense of how Angelenos in this distant corner of the city feel about some of the specifics. Large blocks of public speaking time were allotted and subsequently filled by eager residents, almost unanimous in their support of real power for neighborhood councils. Progress on the issue was limited, however, as the narrow cross-section of San Pedrans in attendance wandered often from the topic in an attempt to voice their most pressing concerns in this rare opportunity to address public officials on their home turf.
The Commission then got stuck on the obscure concern of recusement and debated internal questions concerning the wording of subcommittee findings (that apparently seemed to imply a definitive stance by the full commission).
Throughout, the angry spectre of the secession movement loomed large, and was treated with care and reverence by the Commission and its speakers.
The event was dominated by indications of the economic tensions in the process of Charter reform, although the streamlined business atmosphere of the appointed Commission meetings was notably absent. In a poignant exchange late in the evening, fourteenth district representative Nick Pacheco articulated the foremost concern of activists eyeing neighborhood councils in Charter reform: "How do we ensure broader representation of economically and ethnically diverse populations?" This inspired a tirade from the far side of the panel by secession-friendly Paula Boland of the 12th district. Among her arguments, she condemned the "lazy people sitting in bed all day watching TV and living off the system" and derided their "comfort zone" lifestyles en route to a rousing endorsement of the status quo in representative democracy. The episode reflected the complex class based tensions that hover around secession ideas and efforts to expand of democratic process here in Los Angeles. Objections like Pacheco's have been shots in the dark in Charter Reform, swallowed instantly by the dominant atmosphere in these types of forums, in which "local control" is an objective only insofar as it serves the interests of the privileged.
The elected Commission has been doing its homework and is currently pondering a much more involved picture of neighborhood councils than its appointed counterparts did prior to their decisions on April 22 [see "To Spark A Fire," R.L., Vol XIX, No. 9, 5/1-14/98]. The electeds presented a very specific outline of the potential costs involved and seemed more concerned with what the actual financial impact of neighborhood councils would be as opposed to how it would appear to the public (the hallmark of the appointed Commission's "sell to the public" approach).
The elected Commission also presented extensive historical research and analysis of the wealth of contemporary examples in support of their case that they are serious about neighborhood councils. And although the voice of one local newspaper publisher was overlooked in the pile of cards petitioning for speaking time, the commission aptly demonstrated its commitment to listen patiently to the public on the matter.The elected Commission is approaching things differently than the appointeds. Whether this will give rise to a divergence in Charter reform recommendations between the two bodies remains to be seen.
At present, the electeds are playing it safe (in response to the observation that the Appointed
Commission had been very conservative in its deliberations on neighborhood councils, elected
Commission Policy Analyst Steven Presberg retorted sarcastically "Oh yeah, compared to the
groundbreaking progressive approach of this commission..."). Elected commission Administrative
Director Geoffrey Garfield is quick to point out that there is no precedent nationwide for a neighborhood
council system invested with binding decision-making power. Garfield, in fact, likens the possibility of
dumping a lot of power into the hands of neighborhood councils right off the bat to "giving that Arkansas
schoolkid a gun at age six". However, the amount of attention and concern that is being paid to
neighborhood councils by the elected body long after the decisions of the appointed Commission may
suggest that something is brewing. Experts have long speculated that if any issue could divide the two
commissions it would be the level of empowerment of the neighborhood council system.