L.A. NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS: COUNCIL MEMBERS MUST BE INCLUDED IN POLICY DECISIONS

The following post is another in a series of articles we have posted about the evolution of the Neighborhood Council system in the city of Los Angeles. This experiment in participatory democracy seems typical of many in that at first it is often hard for those involved to shed the habits of past governing models and truly entrust the people with decision making power. This article rightfully calls for more popular involvement in overall policy decisions on the functioning of the councils. - Editor

Time for the Commission to Get Out of the Dark

By Greg Nelson

Source: http://www.citywatchla.com/content/view/1360/

I’ve been making a mistake by stating that our neighborhood council system is based upon a belief by its founders that the goal is to encourage the spread of “participatory democracy.”

I have come to realize that this term leaves open an opportunity for a very broad interpretation by those who resist change in the culture of City Hall. The elitists who can’t bring themselves to accept that better decisions can result from the public’s involvement in government. It saddens me to read the policy that the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners enacted that describes how it will adopt policies.

The commission forms committees of its members that discuss specific issues in private, present them at a commission meeting, and give the public usually a couple of weeks to send in their written comments or trek to its meeting and speak for three minutes, which never occurs at the start of the meeting.

The flaws in this approach are that (1) it is “business as usual”, (2) it is critically important to be part of the drafting process, and (3) the comments, written or verbal, are routinely ignored. There is no exchange of information and ideas. The expertise of the neighborhood council members, which often exceeds that of commissioners, is shunned.

A more recent example occurred last week.

The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, the other agency created to lead the culture change, released a nine-page report on proposed and newly enacted changes to the Neighborhood Council Funding System. The report explained that there would be a 90-day public comment period.

This report and the process are laced with still more flaws.

Neighborhood councils and the public were not part of the drafting of the report. The collective wisdom of the councils could have nixed some bad ideas, noted that some proposed solutions were already in place, and suggested better answers.

But it is extremely difficult for neighborhood council members and the public to provide meaningful comments, regardless of the length of the public comment period, without being provided an explanation of the problem that everyone is trying to solve.

For instance, is it a systemic problem, or one of those far-to-common bureaucratic over-reactions to an isolated problem?

We know that the report was triggered by the fact that at least one neighborhood council president misused some of his council’s funds. We don’t know whether better oversight by those in charge should have caught the problem early on.

We aren’t told how the department will be able to provide the promised greater level of scrutiny when it admittedly doesn’t have enough people to properly monitor the program now, and when half of the program’s staff positions will soon be vacant during a time when the city’s hiring freeze may make it impossible to fill the vacancies.

More correctly, it needs to be said that our neighborhood council system is about promoting “deliberative democracy.”

When City Hall’s community planners hold public meetings with everyone sitting in a circle to discuss the reshaping of a community plan, they are all practicing a form of deliberative democracy. All views are respected, and value is added to the product that will be presented for a final decision.

When BONC and DONE design rules while shut away from the public, they are saying that they find little value in the public’s involvement. They are ignoring the core value that created them. And they are doing nothing to encourage other city agencies to embrace the deliberative democracy concept.

It’s not too late. During the next 90 days, town hall meetings could be held with interested neighborhood council leaders and treasurers. It all needs to begin with the DONE publicly defining the problem.

But it may not happen at all unless neighborhood councils stand up for the reason they were created.

(Greg Nelson participated in the birth and development of the LA Neighborhood Council system and served as the General Manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Nelson now provides news and issues analysis to CityWatch.) You can reach Greg Nelson at gregn213@cox.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it ◘

CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 52
Pub: June 27, 2008

CITIZENS OF INDIANA SAW PRIMARY ELECTION AS OPPORTUNITY FOR PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

The following comments from an Indiana voter just before the recent historic primary election there illustrate how eager most americans are to participate actively in the democratic process provided that they are confident that their vote and their voice wields real power. However, the current power structure of our representative government strives at every opportunity to squelch the voice of the voters, thereby leaving them with the perception that they are impotent within their own (so called) democracy. This in turn generates the apathy among the populus that serves to perpetuate that undemocratic power structure. This 2008 election is inspiring in that it has seemingly broken that cycle more than any election in recent memory. Voters have a sense that their vote does matter this time, and can make a real difference. They are voting in record numbers, most notably on the Democratic side, and thanks in great part to the inspiration that the Obama campaign has generated. This momentum and increased democratic participation must not be squandered and forgotten on election day in November, but must instead be nourished and increased further by the next administration in Washington. The people's voice in government must be amplified, and real power to legislate and decide policy put in the hands of the populus. If we have any hope of achieving true democracy in this country, and of wrestling our future from the corrupt forces that have usurped our democracy for their own financial gain and pursuit of personal power, it will be through direct democracy allowing a government "of, for and by the people" to flourish. - Editor

Making Waves and Ripples

Source: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/OPINION12/805060327/1002/OPINION

Posted: May 6, 2008
By Sandy Sasso

There is a palpable excitement across Indiana on this Election Day. Finally, Hoosiers have been saying with evident pride, "We count! It's not just about New York and California. It is about us!"

While the Democratic Party may have wished for a less contentious contest, for an earlier resolution, Indiana residents are pleased to have been given, for once, a decisive voice. For the first time most of us can remember, our votes matter in a presidential primary. Candidates are listening, paying attention to local concerns from Gary to Evansville, Richmond to Terre Haute. And truth be told, it feels good. Polls indicate that more Hoosiers will be voting in this primary than in any other. As a consequence, state and local contests will benefit as well.

It is a sense of enfranchisement that makes for an involved citizenry. This year's renewed excitement in the democratic process speaks volumes for a revision of the primary system. Allowing for a less protracted and more equitable primary season would cost less money and engage more people. It might even reduce acrimony by requiring candidates to focus primarily on political, social and economic concerns and not on negative personal recriminations. Such an electoral process should allow for all states to feel equally empowered in each party's selection of its presidential nominee. The question on all of our minds is: Will the candidates still be attentive to Indiana's concerns tomorrow?

But perhaps the most important lesson we can learn from this year's political enthusiasm is the belief that our voices do matter, that individual citizens can make a difference, that democracy works best when we take seriously our responsibility to effect change, help to shape and influence the quality of our communities.

In the end, the substance and tone of a campaign are determined by our involvement and our indifference, by what we are willing to tolerate or what we are not, by our questions and our expectations. The quality of a campaign is shaped not only by what the candidates bring to the table, but what the electorate demands. In the end, good government isn't just about the decisions of leaders, but about an involved citizenry that holds officials accountable.

We are told that we are to think globally and to act locally. Even as we advocate for governmental action on global warming, let us be attentive to our own habits of wasteful consumerism and exploitation of natural resources. Even as we lobby for fair and just immigration legislation, let us treat our neighbors and the strangers in our midst with dignity and respect. Even as we call for health-care reform, let us promote healthy behaviors and wellness. Even as we require social and educational policies that are attentive to the most vulnerable among us, let us join in partnership with others who seek to raise the quality of life for all our neighborhoods.

In a participatory democracy government and communities, organizations and individuals work hand in hand. Private interest cannot be indifferent to the public good.

The key expectation for the new administration is for a sea of change, for sweeping waves of new directions. But real renewal is not only about making waves but about creating ripples. Each of us has a contribution to make. When one person throws a single pebble into a serene lake, it makes ripples that extend in all directions, far beyond the point of entry. As we move from May to November, may our new sense of enfranchisement in the democratic process move us to make both waves and ripples.

Sasso is senior rabbi at Congregation Beth-El Zedeck in Indianapolis.

BOOK GIVES VOICE TO CHICAGO'S PARTICIPANTS IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE

Empowered Participation is the compelling chronicle of this unprecedented transformation. It is the first comprehensive empirical analysis of the ways in which participatory democracy can be used to effect social change. Using city-wide data and six neighborhood case studies, the book explores how determined Chicago residents, police officers, teachers, and community groups worked to banish crime and transform a failing city school system into a model for educational reform.

The author's conclusion: Properly designed and implemented institutions of participatory democratic governance can spark citizen involvement that in turn generates innovative problem-solving and public action. Their participation makes organizations more fair and effective.

Though the book focuses on Chicago's municipal agencies, its lessons are applicable to many American cities. Its findings will prove useful not only in the fields of education and law enforcement, but also to sectors as diverse as environmental regulation, social service provision, and workforce development.

Archon Fung is Associate Professor of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is the author, with Erik Olin Wright, of "Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance".

For more on this publication visit the following link:

Source: http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/04/empowered_participation_by_arc.html