New York 3, Los AngelEs 2
Can a third, middle tier of government bridge the cavernous disconnect between lower and top-level government in Los Angeles, whilst costing a fraction of what is being proposed? Ask New York.
A previous CW article discussed the Toronto government structure, utilizing Community Councils to act as a direct-connect between the People and the Government. New York was mentioned in the piece, but only as a reference point when discussing the possible expansion of the Los Angeles City Council from 15 seats to a possible 25+.
There is an undeniable rivalry between New York and Los Angeles, tantamount to neighborhood children one-upping each other as to who owns the better bike, skateboard, footwear, gaming console, so on and so forth, etcetera etcetera. Utilizing the City of Toronto as a device in assisting Angelenos on how a possible shift in municipal structure can be both effective and efficient was an intentional move to soften the obvious follow-up that LA’s East Coast foe owns a more apples-to-apples solution.
NUMBERS ARE JUST NUMB3R5
New York carries 51 City Council seats across five boroughs, a far greater number than the 15 Los Angeles has held firm since the 1920’s. Of course, New York also envelopes approximately 8.47 million citizens — more than double L.A.’s 3.85 million — within an area (300 sq. miles) three-fifths the size of Los Angeles (502 sq. miles). But these numbers, sans the application of efficient and effective governance, are nothing more than comparative figures owning little relevance. They justify very little if the 51 underwhelm projected output, and the 15 greatly outperform their size.
In Los Angeles, government reform has been the hot-button topic of the summer. Debate over redistricting, bureaucracies devised to manage such redistricting, smaller district population sizes, and with it a reimagining of the City Council size to perhaps 25 or more seats have dominated local political discussion. But one thing rarely discussed is civic engagement. Certainly, more manageable district sizes, in theory, may result in better communication betwixt (Thesaurus Goodie of the Day) politicians and the People — but by no means is this postulation a given. One might argue simply doubling staff sizes per District presents an interchangeable supposition. More staffers, more coverage, more accomplished.
A HARVARD POINT (BECAUSE BOSTON)
Any business leader, within a fraction of a second, will tell you that’s simply not always the case, since everything is predicated on the top level understanding the workforce and applying them properly to the issue at hand. In many instances, a syndrome develops leading potentially to the same bureaucratic mess plaguing many City departments. The Harvard Business Review employing cartoons as a means of presentation greatly assisted with the choice of link.
Additionally, swelling the City Council to nearly double in size to enhance civic engagement may lead to similar clashes between districts, homeowner associations, activists groups, and the media as to where the splits occur and to whom such new districts benefit. As the 2022 redistricting was a catastrophe on several fronts, the probability of further strife with this expansion is all but guaranteed.
But there’s that term “civic engagement” again. If the goal is a reformed government for the People. If the end-result truly is trust between the Government and the People — a trust eroded over the years through mismanagement, alleged back-room politicking, and a handful of public scandals — then why not begin with the fulcrum of it all:
The People.
NC V. AC
Let’s place the New York system alongside the Los Angeles system, discussing their obvious similarities and striking differences.
Beginning with local government. In Los Angeles, there are 99 Neighborhood Councils (NC) comprised of elected and appointed public officials in an advisory, volunteer capacity. Their task is to engage with their respective communities, gain an understanding as to the concerns of that community, and convey these concerns to the City Council member(s) representing that community, in addition to City departments and Commissions related to these concerns.
New York, similarly, possesses 59 Community Boards representing the five boroughs of New York City. These Community Boards operate in a similar fashion to the Los Angeles NCs, though the members of these Boards are solely appointed. These Boards represent Community Districts (CD) within the boroughs of Brooklyn, The Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island.
One exception is compensation. District Managers for each CD is the only public official on the Board to receive pay (approx. $97,000), whereas Neighborhood Council Presidents are neither paid nor stipend for the permanent office staff District Managers are allotted.
Yet, the functions of both Neighborhood Councils and Community Boards are similar enough to warrant a wash, aside for certain powers afforded the Community Board Chairperson.
Even though the City Councils of each municipality vary wildly in size, their operations are nearly homogenous in both function and scope.
The difference, in the opinion of this writer, lie in the Borough Boards.
THE BOROUGH BOARDS: THE BRIDGE OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE
As was the case for the aforementioned Toronto Community Councils, Borough Boards operate in a comparable manner. But UNLIKE their Toronto counterpart, these Borough Boards possess a feeding system consisting of current Board members from the Community Councils in addition to the elected City Council members representing that borough.
In place, the massive void between the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils and the Los Angeles City Council arguably does not exist in the New York system, since the membership of these Borough Boards consist of the Borough President, the Chairs of the Community Boards within the borough as well as select Community Board members, and City Council members, all seated at the same figurative table.
Thus, a direct connection exists between lower-tier public officials and top-level legislators — a bridge, if you will, spanning the chasm of which far too many voices plunge. The People may present their grievances directly to their City Council members, who by law must occupy positions on the Borough Board. Will all levels of the City Government in the same room, hearing the same voices, and discussing options amongst themselves before an audience of stakeholders (individuals having interests within the community), enough eyes and ears are showered upon concerns as to mitigate opportunities to sweep such business under the proverbial rug.
A REGIONAL BOARD SYSTEM FOR LOS ANGELES
In the opinion of this writer, Los Angles could harbor up to seven Regional Boards. Considering the membership of such Regional Board would primarily be composed of Neighborhood Councils Board members, the geographical breakdown WOULD NOT have a thing to do with City redistricting, but rather the boundaries of those Neighborhood Councils, independent of population shift. The various colors on the map below indicate the 12 Neighborhood Council regions:
The standout would be the Central Regional Board with a whopping SIX City Council members attached — CD1, CD8, CD9, CD10, CD13 and CD14 (both 13 and 9 barely graze the region, but such is life in the world of questionable redistricting).
The East Region would be the smallest at 9 Neighborhood Councils, but the region’s 3 City Council members would match three other Regional Boards (courtesy of that pesky CD13 digging into yet another cookie jar).
Only Council members from City Council Districts 7, 11, and 15 would see action on only one regional front. Council District 13 would find itself a player in four Regional Boards, with the rest varying from 2 to 3 Regional seats apiece.
When your district map looks like a geographical equivalent of what one’s kitchen floor might look like if their 4-year-old got into the cupboards, great imbalances will occur. But, these imbalance are weighted upon those salaried at $200,000+ annually, rather than the unpaid volunteers of the Neighborhood Council system.
There would be two tiers of Neighborhood Council Board members occupying seats on these Regional Boards: The NC President/Chairs within that region, and anywhere from 4 to 6 At-Large seats to arrive at a sizable, odd number of total Neighborhood Council seats. Regional Directors would only vote on possible drafted motions as a matter of tie-breaker. With the City Council members included, the roster should not exceed 25 seats per Regional Board.
THE TOWN HALL MEETING… L.A. STYLE
Certain citywide matters would be agendized for these sessions, considering some Neighborhood Council motions may be too localized and time-sensitive to arrive as action items. Topics such as future governance reform, the Olympics, water conservation, adjustments to Specific Plans, and City services would materialize these meetings as important clearinghouses for public input — seven individual Town Hall sessions featuring seven distinct geographical regions of the City owning unique talking points.
Neighborhood Council motions would continue to play an important role to opine concerns before the City Council as well as vet incubating issues, and perhaps each NC President/Chair can briefly run through the recently-passed motions of their respective Councils. However, these Regional Boards would primarily act to inform the City Council members in attendance as to the barometer of the masses on a variety of vital matters.
FUNDING BEST SPENT ELSEWHERE
In terms of funding, the costs would be negligible compared to the extraordinary expense of redistricting a major City, not to mention the non-monetary “cost” of re-opening old wounds from the 2022 mapping campaign that have not entirely healed.
Renovating the John Ferraro Council Chamber to fit up to ten additional Council members, as well as annual funding for up to ten additional field offices and full staffs is merely one aspect of a complete overhaul of nearly everything relating to the City Council. In that span, one may argue such funds may be best employed toward the homeless, basic affordable housing or infrastructure, instead of extending a bureaucratic system that, in the eyes of some, has ceased to function properly.
There are quite a number of individuals who proclaim the Neighborhood Councils a failed experiment. Yet, outside of Los Angeles similar systems have out-performed their L.A. parallel. The problem may lie with not the system itself, but rather the mishandling and misguidance of a system that was was never afforded a proper chance to realize the potential inherent within institutions so close to the people they serve.
If the canyon dividing local leaders and City legislators can be traversed by way of a regional fill in the form of simple meetings, then one might argue such a comparatively low-cost experiment is worth a go. Times exist when the simplest move is, in fact, the best available move.
Perhaps politics, as a reflection of our growing socio-economic middle-class crisis, should embrace a return to the middle ground of Regional Boards, where both entry-level and top-flight might work together in an attempt to mitigate, or even reverse, an ever-expanding rift consuming a Los Angeles government structure begging for change.
