TO WHY OR NOT TO WHY, THAT IS THE QUESTION
How proper use of parliamentary procedure and simple foresight might have saved the Studio City Neighborhood Council
Note: With the investigation still ongoing, the article may at times delve into a fog of vagueness to avoid specific details that have yet to be made public via the City of Los Angeles, or major media outlets with a better grasp of legalities. In addition, the previous article had the majority of the resignations occurring on August 23rd. New information places that incident on August 21st.
BOARD MEMBER #1: Mr. President, I move to postpone the motion until next month’s Regular Board Meeting.
PRESIDENT: Is there’s a second?
BOARD MEMBER #2: Second.
And, in that singular moment, if sources close to the matter are accurate, the future of the Studio City Neighborhood Council is secured, or at the very least placed in the hands of individual trained to handle such a predicament.
But, that’s not what happened.
As noted by one former Board member in a phone conversion over the weekend, the President’s response to a concern raised just prior to the Board meeting was they “couldn’t do anything about it due to the Brown Act”. The Brown Act dictates transparency between Government and the People, and apparently the belief was a certain agenda item must proceed as scheduled and unencumbered.
This is inaccurate. An agenda item can be postponed due to new information, or consideration of the item objected to prior to a second and subsequent discussion. Both options are via Robert’s Rules of Order, which is listed in the SCNC By Laws under Article 12, as well as the SCNC Operating Procedures Article 8, as an official parliamentary/governing authority. In fact, Brown is about the listing on the agenda itself, transparent discussion of the information, and the dissemination of this information to the People, which was satisfied prior to the meeting.
Brown does not prevent Board members from asking questions, nor does it reference how a Board can vote.
However, if a certain State law which may be in play here precludes any board member from specific actions, such as types of questions or (possibly in this case) a “no” vote, then delaying the process for a month would have allowed professional authorities to weigh in on the concern and relieve the burden from the amateur-by-nature Neighborhood Council.
A BROKEN RECORD
During discussion of the motion, inconsistencies were discovered, as were blatantly false responses to specific questions. A review of the August 16th meeting on the SCNC YouTube channel, and the cross-checking of statements made through simple Google searches, revealed a number of falsehoods. If the trepidation was that a “no” or “abstain” vote may trigger some form of legal action, then postponing such actions through the parliamentary motion of “Postponing to a Certain Time” merely extends the possible action until the following Board meeting. As the Board member who would have been most likely to make this motion owns a legal mind, then formatting their reasons during discussion (allowed under the rules of this motion) would most likely have been deft and nuanced, avoiding any divulgence of information that may have breached State law.
But that’s not what happened.
When called for a vote, the Board UNANIMOUSLY voted for the motion, even though no less than three members clearly understood the circumstances. Again, there were options, but none were realized.
Despite the vote, there were still possible options available to the Board. According to the SCNC ByLaws, one path would require a two-stage process: An initial step, which is necessary in order to enact the final step. Such a vote wouldn’t required waiting until the next regular Board meeting. Not only could the Board call for a Special meeting, but that meeting would not require public access under the Brown Act section 54957. The first stage of the process would demand at least three Board members to officially call for the action, which would be all but assured considering what ones eyes and ears witnessed at the August 16th Board meeting.
This is well within the scope of legal acceptance, since the SCNC By Laws and Operating Procedures, along with Robert’s Rules of Order and Federal/Sate/Local laws, comprise the SCNC’s Governing Structure. If not in a singular meeting, the process might take place within days of each other if Board sentiments were strong.
The main focus in this process would be the false information afforded the Board. Not the reasoning for supplying the knowingly incorrect information, but the actual answers themselves.
But [sigh]… that’s not what happened.
A TIMELINE THAT MAKES NO SENSE
Within days of the August 16th Board meeting, the majority of the SCNC Board had resigned. They did not wait for the City to intervene. And, amazingly, they had time on their side — the next scheduled meeting would be Public Safety on the 31st — 15 days ahead of them. After that would be Cultural Affairs on the 5th of September, followed by Government Affair and Transportation on the 6th. There was plenty of time to sort out this mess.
[cue broken record]
But that’s not what happened.
Unlike the HSDNC mass exodus in February, this resignation occurred in stages beginning the Monday subsequent to the Board meeting, and culminating (according to email address deletions/deactivations) with the final resignation on Wednesday. In fact, by Tuesday the SCNC website calendar had all future meetings cancelled for the remainder of 2023, which initially suggested some form of Brown Act violation.
When in reality there wasn’t a functioning Board remaining to conduct those meetings.
In addition, the Web Corner, in an email to CW dated August 25th noted that one of the remaining Board members had requested his password. This Board member had been attending committee and Board meetings regularly as of late, illustrating reception of correspondence from the Board and nominal functionality of his email address. A possibility for the request might have been for the City Attorney’s office to access his inbox as part of some type of investigation.
An investigation of what? The subject of the mass resignation, or the “what”, isn’t where the real question lies. “Why” is one of the most powerful words in any language. It forces a deeper dive, beyond the superficial, and exposes the underlying cause of what is presented before you — whether it be cracks in an argument, ulterior motive, or something very personal.
Okay, then…. why?
The timelines suggest a mass defection, rather than a group resignation. It seems, to the eyes and ears of this writer, there’s a distinct prospect of a Board mutiny, though there's currently no empirical evidence available to conclude such a theory short of a CPRA (California Public Records Act) request of emails between August 16th and August 23rd. Currently, several former SCNC Board members are remaining coy as to what actually went down. If this is due to exterior edict or interior threat is currently unclear.
Since the President/Chair is the spokesperson of any legislative body, all communication run through them: e-blasts, website content, social media postings, and so on. If the entire Board, including the President, decided en masse to resign, as was the case with the Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council, a conscientious process would dictate some communication to the populace of Studio City regarding the resignation and the solidarity behind the action. This did not occur. As of this writing, even NextDoor is silent on the matter.
THE MOST IMPORTANT DAY IN RECENT MEMORY
A Board in solidarity would also not resign just days before the August 24th City Planning hearing regarding the Harvard Westlake School River Park development, believed by many to be one of the most important events for Studio City in recent memory. Waiting just five days would allow the Council to present its submitted Community Impact Statement (allowing three minutes of speaking time to directly address the Commission, as opposed to the standard one minute for public comment).
As mentioned previously, no in-person meetings were posted on the SCNC schedule until August 31st. The majority of the resignations occurred on August 21st — TEN DAYS prior to reconvening in any sort of manner. There was time.
Then… Why?
In fact, the former President of the SCNC was in attendance, but only to address the Committee in regards to the July Residences at Sportsmen’s hearing. This comment was made after the Committee had voted unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the River Park development. In consideration of the latter, all but one of the former Board members of the SCNC were no-shows.
After numerous Ad Hoc committee meetings. After hundreds of emails and public comments. After years of big talk about how the SCNC is protecting the neighborhood.
Gone. They couldn’t even wait until the weekend.
But… why?
As the passage of time softens worry and doubt, perhaps a Board member or two may reveal the truth behind what really happened in the days following the August 16th SCNC Regular Board meeting.
The “what”, at this point, is argumentatively inconsequential. The “why”, THAT is the question.
