The verdict on the election challenge was finally presented to Coastal residents and it makes clear just what we have been thinking: The challenge itself was bogus, and the so-called investigation was itself almost equally bogus. Henrietta Williams, representing the city's Human Relations Commission, managed to abstract half a dozen allegations out of the mish-mash and incoherence of the challenge letter. She explained how all but one were lacking in merit. For example, in response to an allegation charging that election fliers were vaguely worded, she simply remarked that she was in possession of a flier and that she found it adequate.
It got a litte weird though when she got to the equally bogus claims that members of one union were told that they were not eligible to vote. Let us simply quote her remarks directly:
Concerning the contention that ILWU workers were told that they were not allowed to
vote is a cause for concern. Based on the review of the challenge, it seems that there was no blanket statement that ILWU workers could not vote, but that one such potential voter was provided with a provisional ballot, and he was asked to return it with a “letter from his boss” clarifying where he worked. Although it is left to the discretion of the Independent Election Administrator (IEA), HRC recommends that the governing board of the Neighborhood Council revisits this matter within the next 60 days, and that its revision be clearly defined in the election procedures and bylaws. Requiring a “specific” category of stakeholder status identification may be perceived as arbitrary and it creates ongoing conflict and mistrust in the elections process. Furthermore, upon interviewing someone about this particular claim, that individual noted that it was general knowledge that such information might be required. Therefore, the matter should have been broached and resolved prior to the election and not withheld as a possible justification to later challenge the outcome. Finally, HRC wishes to be informed of the date and time of a meeting where this matter
is to be discussed so we may monitor the discussion. It is our hope that this matter will be resolved so it does not re-appear in future elections. If it does, we will most likely deem that election to be “invalid."To say that this is Kafkaesque is to give it too little credit from the literary standpoint. It is almost a parody of 1950s era dystopian literature. Big Brother of Orwell fame is missing, but in its place we have a government bureaucrat who has prejudged Coastal's next election challenge, based on illogic and untrue assertions.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Election Results Finally Final
A month and a day after the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council's May 14 election, the results are finally confirmed. A challenge to the election results was filed with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) by Cathy Beauregard-Covit and several others. It has now been denied.
The challenge alleged numerous problems with the election, demanded that the election results be overturned, and further demanded that those at fault be banned from participation for a year. The latter demand, lacking any foundation in law, Constitution, or city statute, was included in the challenge in spite of the fact that one of its signers is a licensed attorney.
Beauregard offered nothing by way of proof in the complaint letter and apparently was unconvincing in her dealings with what DONE now refers to as the "Final Decision Maker." In this case, the FDM was the Human Relations Commission, a city department that claims to have judged about 50 neighborhood council election challenges.
Today, HRC staffer Henrietta Williams informed CSPNC that the election results are upheld. She also said that she would be offering her recommendations.
It is of interest that prior to reaching a decision, Williams and the HRC never officially notified the group of people most at risk from the challenge, namely the winning candidates, nor did she hold any sort of public meeting or hearing, nor did she provide the opposing parties with copies of documents sent to her.
Instead, she apparently called people as she felt necessary and returned calls from people who made the effort to call her. Since information about the challenge was only available "through the grape vine," this must have resulted in a skewed collection of information for her to work from.
It all seems a bit medieval. There was no due process in the traditional sense of American justice. No right to confront one's accusers or even to see the evidence was afforded the challenged parties. And then it got even worse. Those who received calls from Williams confirmed pretty much uniformly that her questions were slanted; they appeared to be based on misinformation about facts and procedures. For those being questioned, it became a chore to explain to Williams that her working assumptions were incorrect and that there is ample evidence to contradict her slanted questions. Williams misinterpreted the election rules that she was supposed to be working from.
In the end it didn't matter, but this was only because there were a mere 10 ballots out of the more than 350 cast that could in any way be considered to be in question, and the difference between the 17th place (a winner) and the 18th place (not a winner) was close to ten times that amount.
Sadly, this lack of due process is the norm rather than the exception. Staff members at the HRC as well as the General Manager of DONE confirmed that in all the election challenges that have been heard and dealt with by DONE and the HRC, there has never been a public meeting or hearing held to allow the opposing parties to confront their accusers or even to state their cases.
What is more peculiar is that the officials involved seem to have no concept that there is anything wrong with what they are doing.
Instead, DONE officials excuse their policies by suggesting that most challenges are frivolous. They argue that the Final Decision Makers cannot be expected to do full investigations of frivolous complaints. That this logic is completely circular never seems to occur to them. In their attitude -- best characterized as lazy and contemptuous -- they very well may miss meritorious complaints because the desire is, above all, to do as little as possible, particularly when it means dealing with opposing sides in person. The concept that all complaints need to be evaluated carefully at the beginning, so that the meritorious complaints can be pulled out of the pile and dealt with properly, is a concept that apparently does not exist in these realms of city government.
Under the new election rules that are supposed to go into effect soon, challenges will be handled in a slightly different way. There will be a pool of decision makers nominated by the neighborhood councils themselves, and in response to an election challenge DONE will pick three people at random who will make the decision. Of concern is DONE's apparent ignorance of what constitutes a fair procedure.
Under the new rules, DONE is supposed to instruct the members of the pool in what their responsibilities will be. It is therefore important that DONE figure out what actually is important before they turn untrained people loose to function as judge, jury and executioner.
In light of all the shortcomings in the HRC "investigation," we await Ms Williams' recommendations on how our hard-working volunteers were supposed to have done their jobs better.
The challenge alleged numerous problems with the election, demanded that the election results be overturned, and further demanded that those at fault be banned from participation for a year. The latter demand, lacking any foundation in law, Constitution, or city statute, was included in the challenge in spite of the fact that one of its signers is a licensed attorney.
Beauregard offered nothing by way of proof in the complaint letter and apparently was unconvincing in her dealings with what DONE now refers to as the "Final Decision Maker." In this case, the FDM was the Human Relations Commission, a city department that claims to have judged about 50 neighborhood council election challenges.
Today, HRC staffer Henrietta Williams informed CSPNC that the election results are upheld. She also said that she would be offering her recommendations.
It is of interest that prior to reaching a decision, Williams and the HRC never officially notified the group of people most at risk from the challenge, namely the winning candidates, nor did she hold any sort of public meeting or hearing, nor did she provide the opposing parties with copies of documents sent to her.
Instead, she apparently called people as she felt necessary and returned calls from people who made the effort to call her. Since information about the challenge was only available "through the grape vine," this must have resulted in a skewed collection of information for her to work from.
It all seems a bit medieval. There was no due process in the traditional sense of American justice. No right to confront one's accusers or even to see the evidence was afforded the challenged parties. And then it got even worse. Those who received calls from Williams confirmed pretty much uniformly that her questions were slanted; they appeared to be based on misinformation about facts and procedures. For those being questioned, it became a chore to explain to Williams that her working assumptions were incorrect and that there is ample evidence to contradict her slanted questions. Williams misinterpreted the election rules that she was supposed to be working from.
In the end it didn't matter, but this was only because there were a mere 10 ballots out of the more than 350 cast that could in any way be considered to be in question, and the difference between the 17th place (a winner) and the 18th place (not a winner) was close to ten times that amount.
Sadly, this lack of due process is the norm rather than the exception. Staff members at the HRC as well as the General Manager of DONE confirmed that in all the election challenges that have been heard and dealt with by DONE and the HRC, there has never been a public meeting or hearing held to allow the opposing parties to confront their accusers or even to state their cases.
What is more peculiar is that the officials involved seem to have no concept that there is anything wrong with what they are doing.
Instead, DONE officials excuse their policies by suggesting that most challenges are frivolous. They argue that the Final Decision Makers cannot be expected to do full investigations of frivolous complaints. That this logic is completely circular never seems to occur to them. In their attitude -- best characterized as lazy and contemptuous -- they very well may miss meritorious complaints because the desire is, above all, to do as little as possible, particularly when it means dealing with opposing sides in person. The concept that all complaints need to be evaluated carefully at the beginning, so that the meritorious complaints can be pulled out of the pile and dealt with properly, is a concept that apparently does not exist in these realms of city government.
Under the new election rules that are supposed to go into effect soon, challenges will be handled in a slightly different way. There will be a pool of decision makers nominated by the neighborhood councils themselves, and in response to an election challenge DONE will pick three people at random who will make the decision. Of concern is DONE's apparent ignorance of what constitutes a fair procedure.
Under the new rules, DONE is supposed to instruct the members of the pool in what their responsibilities will be. It is therefore important that DONE figure out what actually is important before they turn untrained people loose to function as judge, jury and executioner.
In light of all the shortcomings in the HRC "investigation," we await Ms Williams' recommendations on how our hard-working volunteers were supposed to have done their jobs better.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Bridge to Breakwater, Budget and Finance Meetings
This Saturday, June 4, the San Pedro neighborhood councils will hold a joint public forum about the proposed Bridge to Breakwater development. The councils are concerned about the density of the proposed development and wish to offer a counterproposal for a lower density plan. Everyone is invited to attend and participate. Time: 10 am. Place: the Sheraton Hotel on 6th St.
Monday, June 6, 10 am: The Budget and Finance Committee of the neighborhood council will meet at the Izaak Walton building, 3601 S. Gaffey. The goal is to put together a tentative budget for the fiscal year 2005 - 2006, which commences July 1, 2005. Last year, we didn't have a budget committee in operation until several months after the Governing Board was seated. This caused difficulties. For example, the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment of the City of Los Angeles will not fund our activities until a budget has been passed by the Governing Board. This is the reason it is so desirable to have a budget in place as early as possible. The board can always modify or update the budget at a later time -- this is a routine matter that has been done numerous times over the past several years.
Monday, June 6, 10 am: The Budget and Finance Committee of the neighborhood council will meet at the Izaak Walton building, 3601 S. Gaffey. The goal is to put together a tentative budget for the fiscal year 2005 - 2006, which commences July 1, 2005. Last year, we didn't have a budget committee in operation until several months after the Governing Board was seated. This caused difficulties. For example, the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment of the City of Los Angeles will not fund our activities until a budget has been passed by the Governing Board. This is the reason it is so desirable to have a budget in place as early as possible. The board can always modify or update the budget at a later time -- this is a routine matter that has been done numerous times over the past several years.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
First Thursday
First Thursday is the monthly art-walk in the downtown San Pedro area. Centered on 6th Street just below Pacific Ave, this celebration of the local art and dining scene spills over onto the surrounding blocks. CSPNC will be having a special celebration this First Thursday. At about 5:30 PM, we will be joining a couple of our newly elected board members for a birthday cold one over at the Whale and Ale pub.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)