Hubbub regarding Northwest Council slate?
Thanks to one of our readers who pointed out this article from The Daily Breeze (the article has a lot of detailss that I won't be repeating here, please read it yourself for all of the nitty gritty), bringing attention to a suspect slate of candidates in today's election (you can vote until 8, candidates speak at 6:30 PM). The gist is, that Joe Gatlin, a former member of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, who stepped down from the Ponte Vista Advisory Board to run for the Northwest Neighborhood Council, has advanced a slate of candidates intended to be sympathetic to the controversial Bisno Development. Joe has also distrbuted unsigned flyers promoting this slate of candidates. The question is - is Joe Gatlin pushing his own agenda or the agenda of Bisno Development or their consulting firm Svorinich Associates?
I last saw Joe at the final EIR scoping meeting, advocating on behalf of a 1400 member church association for the "maximum development alternative". There was something odd about his endorsement and statement, and I could never really put my finger on it. Since that time, I've been somewhat suspect of his positions, as in all of the years I've heard him speak of the community he represents, I've never seen that community mobilise or manifest itself in any way, most notably at the 2002(?) Black History Month Film Festival that the San Pedro Film Society put on, where he was a member of our festival committee, and made numerous statements that he could mobilise said community, which did not materialise at that event, either.
What's really at the root of this problem is the nature of the council system itself. I've been involved with, and around the council system for several years now, and my impression is that any enthusiastic individual with an agenda to push can easily find their way on to one of these councils. Since the beginning, the elections have been marred by interest groups block voting for slates, individuals have been busted (and gotten away with?) casting multiple votes for slates, I even recall some scuttlebutt regarding an organisation paying voters to vote a slate in the first Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council election. The councils have become tools for the same old local operators, people who already have both influence and access, as well as soapboxes for anyone reasonably palateable who puts in the effort to run.
These problems aren't confined to Pedro, either. Whenever I talk with someone from a council in another part of Los Angeles, they echo the same complaints. Due to this, it's hard for me to take the councils seriously, either as public actors or as bodies who's reccomendations are relevant and in some way significant to the public process. I have serious doubts that the councils represent anything other than the elite of their constituancies, which I feel undermines the intention to create bodies that can both take action on and telegraph upwards the needs of their communities.
I last saw Joe at the final EIR scoping meeting, advocating on behalf of a 1400 member church association for the "maximum development alternative". There was something odd about his endorsement and statement, and I could never really put my finger on it. Since that time, I've been somewhat suspect of his positions, as in all of the years I've heard him speak of the community he represents, I've never seen that community mobilise or manifest itself in any way, most notably at the 2002(?) Black History Month Film Festival that the San Pedro Film Society put on, where he was a member of our festival committee, and made numerous statements that he could mobilise said community, which did not materialise at that event, either.
What's really at the root of this problem is the nature of the council system itself. I've been involved with, and around the council system for several years now, and my impression is that any enthusiastic individual with an agenda to push can easily find their way on to one of these councils. Since the beginning, the elections have been marred by interest groups block voting for slates, individuals have been busted (and gotten away with?) casting multiple votes for slates, I even recall some scuttlebutt regarding an organisation paying voters to vote a slate in the first Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council election. The councils have become tools for the same old local operators, people who already have both influence and access, as well as soapboxes for anyone reasonably palateable who puts in the effort to run.
These problems aren't confined to Pedro, either. Whenever I talk with someone from a council in another part of Los Angeles, they echo the same complaints. Due to this, it's hard for me to take the councils seriously, either as public actors or as bodies who's reccomendations are relevant and in some way significant to the public process. I have serious doubts that the councils represent anything other than the elite of their constituancies, which I feel undermines the intention to create bodies that can both take action on and telegraph upwards the needs of their communities.
12 Comments:
Anyone who is against Bisno's monstrosity has my vote. Maintain R-1.
Why are you surprised that special interests will try to control local politics, when you can readily see how they control all other political levels? This should not be news, and neither should it be a reason to dennouce the local political process.
Special interests will always control when the majority of folks decline to take a serious interest in their community, their City, or in their state and national level functions. How many people read the news regularly to keep on top of issues, attend a meeting or two a month, think and talk enough to get educated, and vote once or twice a year? It's just not happening, and I say, "we get what we deserve."
My critisism of the Neighborhood Council system is that it seems set up to fail. I feel in the long run, the Neighborhood Councils will align themselves with the exisiting "conduits of influence and power" in their communities, and simply become another layer of useless flappers between the man on the street and the man upstairs.
Any of the NC's are ripe for manipulation and influence with the barest of effort by any actor/interest willing to make the investment in them.
This does two things.
First, it creates the potential for an escalating "entrance fee" (similar to other local offices) required for the participants. If the NC is seen as relevant by those looking to have it's approval for their projects and agendas, then those actors can overpower the council, essentially at their whim. This is directly analogous to the type of "big money" politics that characterise our republic today. This type of political system tends to be corruption packed, self-maintaining and subject to an escalation in "entrance fees" - if we can't solve these problems at national, state or municipal levels, why would we want to create a breeding ground for them at a local level.
Second, if the council stays local, free from the burden of political campaigning (this would be counter to trend in an ongoing escalation in the level of politics practiced at the NC level, including the electoral politics), then as bodies, they will largely be seen as irrelevant to the "real" political process, and therefore their influence will be so marginalised that they have little purpose other than to provide the "experience of involvement in local government" to their participants.
I've witnessed far too much instability and vulnerability to "assymetrical influence" in the existing system to feel that it really adds a level of government that is necessary. Frankly, in the long term, I see the system functioning as a "release valve" for some of the more politically minded members of the community (they can shout at one another in an open meeting, rather than pestering elected officials and municipal employees with their problems directly), as well as an opportunity for the paid elected officials to create another layer of insulation between themselves and the community.
Red, you have a good point about the nature of special interests in politics and the relationship between the powers of those interests and the apathy of the public towards the political process. I'm not suprised at the level of "special interest" influence at all levels of government, I do feel that the NCs are particularily vulnerable to outside influence due to the ease of getting elected, combined with the desire of public officials to appear to be responsive to the NC's positions. I'd hate to see what was a project likely intended to get more voices into Los Angeles city politics, become simply a series of levers to be used to force the hand of local officials.
has anybody heard of a "Coalition for a more progressive San Pedro"?
mostly fillipinos who have "been here a long time" (since March) and had the DBA to prove it (Dated: May 2006)
Mr. Lopez was their candidate.
First of all, o' many tentacled one, I come very close to agreeing with you - the powers that be expect and want NCs to fail, for many reasons that would be interesting to elaborate on, had I the time right now (however, I do not believe that the originators of the idea were so diabolical). NCs have become a very convenient holding pen for amatuer activists (such as myself)to allow them the space to vent and feel like a part of the political process...much like an unused attic is a great place to keep looney old aunt Sally.
Conversly, I see NCs as a great opportunity for political newbies to practice and to be mentored (thanks to the old hands who are gracious enough to mentor, or to any participant with skills to share), and as an valiant excercise in the primal concept of democracy. This age and culture may be too degraded to allow NC's to accomplish anything significant, but I am child enough to think that the grass roots ideal should be kept alive.
Gotta get back to work...
Anon - I seem to recall hearing the "Coalition For a More Progressive San Pedro" moniker in the past few months, but I have no recollection where or under what circumstances.
Red - You know that I'm an optimist at heart, but my experiences with the NC system may have brought out the cynic in me. I doubt that the intentions of the system were of a diabolical nature, but given the the evolution of the NC system, you couldn't have set it up with more opportunity for manipulation by outside actors. At first I felt that the NC system would bring new players onto the field in the local political scene, and provide a training ground for those players. Now, I'm not so sure that they have fulfilled that role. I belive in grass roots politics, but I now question whether local grass roots effors would be stronger and more effective without the NC system.
Like maybe people should choose their battles based on their particular knowledge and interest, and get active in one or more local organizations focused on particular, specialized issues, as opposed to generalist assembly like a neighborhood council? Most volunteer board members complain about too many emails and too many meetings on too many topics, supporting the argument that the NC approach is not necessarily an effective way to participate in the system. Another problem is that NCs typically operate by reacting in a kneejerk way to whomever shows up and complains about an issue. Rarely is there time to consider situations in depth and principle - that approach is generally the province of professional civil servants, when the system is working.
Anyway, the train is still on the track, and I won't hop off just yet...
One man's special interest is another man's effective leadership . . . just depend on whether you agree with the relativel specialness of the particular interest.
That said, neighborhood councils were created as a bone tossed at a confused electorate by a former mayor (first name rhymes with stick) grabbing back power from the city council. They shouldn't be given any more credit than necessary. And as far as I can see, no credit is necessary.
They certainly don't speak for me and you shouldn't let them speak for you so long as any one person can be elected to or serve on more than one neighborhood council. That's not technically representative government on any level, campers, and shouldn't be tolerated.
Unfortunately, give someone a title and first crack at a soundbite and poof, instant pseudo-credibility.
Neighborhood councils may have the potential for good, but as they currently exist, they seem to be little more than an expensive exercise in frustration, ineffectiveness, and soon, unchecked ethics violations as campaigns for council slots become mini-real-races.
Shame really.
Neighborhood councils may have the potential for good, but as they currently exist, they seem to be little more than an expensive exercise in frustration, ineffectiveness, and soon, unchecked ethics violations as campaigns for council slots become mini-real-races.
You said it, sister.
as usual, calamari is to the point. Why would a community activist like Gatlin align himself with other candidates so willing to sell out the neighborhood to Bisno Development?
Did he know about the other candidates like LUISITO LOPEZ, who openly voiced support for the current ponte vista proposal? WHO paid for the doorknob fliers?
Was it really Svorinich who put 'em up to it? If so, did Bisno know? Who is the puppetmaster here?
and while we're at it, who killed laura palmer? where is hoffa, really? what about the second gunman?
Laura Palmer's dad killed her. Do I have to tell you people EVERYTHING?
Post a Comment
<< Home