Does Discrimination Go Unchecked in the Neighborhood Council System?

VOICES-Over a decade ago, the people of Los Angeles hoped that the Neighborhood Council System (NCs) would become a great institution. The question is: How is that working out? 

Clint Eastwood’s Movie “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” stands true for the NCs. There are some good ones; there are some bad ones; and then there are some that are downright ugly, especially in the way they are treating their fellow community members. 

According to the 2002 “Executive Directive No PE-1”, which was signed by Mayor James Hahn, the City of Los Angeles has a “Non-Discrimination” policy, which states in part that: 

“City policies and personnel practices, including but not limited to, recruitment; selection, advancements, work assignments, compensation, benefits, training, discipline and terminations, … will continue to be established and administered without regard to race, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, creed, marital status, disability, medical condition, … .” (Bold added for emphasis) 

NC board members are officials who serve on a city agency and they are part of the city government and thus, Executive Directive No PE-1 applies to them. And even though there is no salary for serving on a Neighborhood Council Board, the city’s standards and policies apply to them the same as they do to the paid city employees. 

That is why Race, Gender, Ethnicity, Religion and any Political Affiliation with a specific group should never be an issue. It’s against the law. 

The policy also states that: 

“Any City employee or employment candidate who believes the City's policy of equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination has been violated is strongly encouraged, and must not be prohibited from reporting the alleged policy violation. Further, employees and employment candidates can be assured that the necessary steps will be taken promptly to address all reported violations.” 

The City is not necessarily that adept at implementing its anti-bias directives. 

For example, the City is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear on a situation involving the Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council (HSDNC) which has been openly and notoriously discriminating against one community member since April 2015. 

The HSDNC’s Bylaws and Election Committee held its public meeting on April 22, 2015 during which board and committee members of the HSDNC decided that it was okay to bash down on the applicant, who happens to be Venezuelan, and who was applying for one of the open seats on the HSDNC board. 

{module [1177]}

The applicant, Mr. Jimenez, alleges in his 05-09-2015 letter to the City Attorney, that during the meeting members of the committee called him a liar, asked him personal questions about his income and told him that “they [the HSDNC] did not want anyone on the board who has any affiliations with any Latino community groups or any ‘little something’ in the area.” 

Mr. Jimenez was hoping that, based on his letter, someone from the City Attorney’s office would start investigating the situation. 

I was seriously disappointed and disgusted by what I read in the May 9, 2015 letter from Mr. Jimenez and by what he describes in detail that occurred at the HSDNC’s Bylaws and Election Committee meeting. 

The applicant alleged that two of the four committee members, who are also board members, felt it was okay to not only discriminate against Mr. Jimenez due to his affiliation with a group called “Little Venezuela”, but also to interrogate him about his personal information such as his income and his driver’s license. 

When Mr. Jimenez pointed out that he not only lives in the area, but also has his business there, one of the committee members asked him to provide his driver license to prove that he (Jimenez) was not lying. 

We all have to remember that NC’s are supposed to be inclusive and should not discriminate against any individual or group. The HSDNC has it even in its bylaws per ARTICLE II – PURPOSE, B. The POLICY: 5: To prohibit discrimination against any individual or group in the Council’s operations on the basis of race, religion, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, marital status, income, homeowner/renter status, or political affiliation or belief. 

The response from the City Attorney’s office to Mr. Jimenez’ letter was not at all reassuring. 

The e-mail from the City Attorney’s office stated, in part, that “… we [the City Attorney’s Office] don't process "complaints…" It concludes with only the assurance that the City Attorney’s Office will offer to “… provide our client with any and all appropriate advice.” 

In the meantime, it leaves one to wonder if the City Attorney’s office “advised” the HSDNC to address the issue at the next meeting, and if so, to combine both issues: Mr. Jimenez’ application to the board and the now so-called “Grievance”. 

It took the HSDNC one quarter of a year to finally address something. But it only addressed the original application, not the letter/grievance. 

Well, let me correct that: The HSDNC didn’t even place the letter/grievance on the agenda, but that did not stop the board from talking about it during the July 13 Board Meeting, in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act. In order to address the “Grievance”, the HSDNC would have had to take action based on its grievance clause in its Bylaws and place the Grievance on the agenda for one of the subsequent HSDNC Board Meetings, which could have been the July 13, 2015 board meeting. They did not do this. 

Instead, the HSDNC only placed Mr. Jimenez’ application on the agenda for that meeting. There was no mention of the letter/grievance in the item description nor was there any other item alluding to it. 

Despite all this mistreatment, Mr. Jimenez never lost sight of being part of the HSDNC Board and to do his share as a board member in order to serve his community. 

The July 13 Board meeting offered him a new chance and opportunity to address the full decision- making body. 

Here is how Bylaws and Election Committee Chair Orletha Andersen introduced the candidate, who then got a chance to speak. Just listen to Ms. Andersen and then the response from Mr. Jimenez.  

Instead of denying the accusations made in the letter/grievance, one of the alleged discriminators, Mr. Durkee, acknowledged and even agreed with Mr. Jimenez, who had quoted him (Durkee) verbatim. Durkee’s underhanded “thank you” was promptly followed with an accusation that Mr. Jimenez had recorded the committee meeting with a “microphone in his pocket.” 

Another board member then continued the already escalating situation by taking the opportunity to offer the applicant an ultimatum, asking Mr. Jimenez to send another letter to City Hall. “If you were just to write another letter to City Hall saying we talked about [it] everything is fine … If you are willing to do that and just tell me you’re burying this thing at that point I won’t have any problem voting to have you on the board …” 

One can say that, in the end, Mr. Jimenez prevailed since he was appointed to the Board. But at what cost? 

More importantly perhaps, the question should be: why did it even come to this? Where do we find these people? Who trains these people? Moreover…who steps up to make sure that these types of ridiculously close-minded, bigoted remarks won’t happen in the future? 

Imagine yourself in a situation in which you are insulted and discriminated against, resulting in your needing to file a complaint? 

Next, you are being told that, in order to “make things better,” you are to withdraw your complaint and bury the issue just so you can be part of the “gang.” 

I call that not only immoral, unethical and wrong, but also utterly stupid, disgusting, infuriating and insulting to anybody who ever filed a complaint or grievance with a Neighborhood Council. 

On the one hand, the City of LA has a policy that basically promises “… the necessary steps will be taken promptly to address all reported violations.”  On the other hand, the City has a system that does not comply with the promise. 

If Neighborhood Councils can pick and choose, with the guidance of the City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE), when and when not to address a grievance -- or if these groups are allowed to offer up ultimatums to try and make an aggrieved party to withdraw a grievance/complaint -- then when can the stakeholders feel safe to report any violation of any laws? Whether it’s the NC’s bylaws, the City ordinances or even State laws, nobody will ever come back to speak up against something they believe was done wrongly. 

However, if that is the goal of the City of Los Angeles to allow its NC Board Members to be racist, discriminative, demeaning and sexist (just watch this again and pay attention to the “Do you type, too?” remark: https://youtu.be/Pn70260UCpE ) and put potential candidates through the ringer not once but twice, then the NC system is on its way to become the greatest institution of horrendous leaders the city has ever seen.

In closing, let me point out that in the case of the HSDNC, the grievance system, or the understanding of such, has been a long time problem. It did not rise up overnight. In fact, back in 2012, the HSDNC Board had a grievance on its desk for many months. One its then-board members is now the chair of the HSDNC. 

Answer this, if you can: How long will it take the City of Los Angeles to take a real interest in the ongoing “shenanigans” of its Neighborhood Councils?

 

(Ziggy Kruse is an activist and reporter for www.HNN-TV.com.]She can be reached at [email protected]. This story was first published on HNN-TV.  Ms. Kruse’s views are her own and do not reflect opinions of either the staff or management of CityWatch.)

-cw

  

CityWatch

Vol 13 Issue 64

Pub: Aug 7, 2015