DRAFT: Agenda, GPLAC County Council meeting, August 16, 2020

DRAFT Green Party of Los Angeles County, County Council Meeting Agenda, Sunday, August 16, 2020
Teleconference information shared via County Council email list
Check in/socializing: 1:30pm to 2pm
Business meeting: 2pm to 5pm

Facilitators: Timeka Drew, Ajay Rai
Minutes: Mike Feinstein
Time Keeper:  Linda Piera-Avila
Vibes Watcher: Cordula Ohman

1. Welcome and Introductions - All attendees (ten minutes)
Very brief introductions, including role w/GPLAC County Council or otherwise with Green Party, or as outside observer

2. Reviewing our process (two minutes)

Presenter: Facilitators
• Relevant Bylaw: Section 9.3 Participation
9.3.1 Open Meetings: With the consent of the Council, all members of the Green Party of Los Angeles County may participate in the 'Consensus-seeking Process' but only Council members may hold any 'unresolved concerns' and participate in any vote, should one become necessary.
9.3.2 County Council members shall receive priority in discussions, to ensure that they have time to a) seek clarifications. b) express their concerns and affirmations, and c) take a vote, if necessary. At the discretion of the facilitation

3. Decision: Opportunity to amend agenda and/or add emergency items (five minutes)
Presenter: Facilitators

• Relevant By-Law 7.5.2.3
The agenda may be amended by a 3/5 vote of County Councilmember present. Emergency and/or late items may be added to the agenda by a 2/3 vote of County Councilmembers (in the interest of time, suggested amendments and their rationale should be offered on-line before the meeting)

Proposal (Feinstein): Approve the addition of the items marked with an asterik * below as late items, 2/3 vote required.

4. Discussion: Treasurer's Report (ten minutes)
Sponsor/Presenter: Doug Barnett, GPLAC Treasurer

5. Discussion: Emmanuel Estrada for Baldwin Park Mayor (twenty minutes)*

Background: Emmanuel Estrada is a Green runningfor Mayor of Baldwin Park https://www.gpelections.org/races/emmanuel-estrada-runs-for-mayor-2020/.  This item is for him to address the entire County Council.  Once he submits the GPLAC candidate questionnaire, the GPLAC can vote on his endorsement.

6. Decision: Outreach for Greens to fill vacant Los Angeles Neighborhood Council seats (twenty minutes)*

Sponsor: Danielle Mead
Presenters: Danielle Mead, David Rockello

Background: At its July 19 meeting, the County Council authorized Danielle Mead and David Rockello to prepare a draft email to send to registered Greens in Los Angeles to apply for the 200 vacant Los Angeles Neighborhood Council seats. This item is to hear a progress report on that work and consider any proposals offered by Mead and Rockello.

7. Decision: Endorsement of County Measure J (fifteen minutes)*
Sponsor: Feinstein

Background:  County Measure J was placed upon the November 2020 ballot by a four-to-one vote of the Los Angeles County Supervisors - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-04/l-a-county-will-vote-on-whether-to-reimagine-government-spending - https://www.dailynews.com/2020/08/04/its-official-la-county-voters-will-decide-alternatives-to-incarceration-funding/.

The official title and summary is

COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AND ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION MINIMUM COUNTY BUDGET ALLOCATIONS. Shall the measure, annually allocating in the County’s budget no less than ten percent (10%) of the Country’s locally generated unrestricted revenues in the general fund to address the disproportionate impact of racial injustice through community investment and alternatives to incarceration and prohibiting using those funds for carceral systems and law enforcement agencies as detailed in the ordinance adopting the proposed charter amendment, be adopted?

If approved by the voters, Measure J would shift hundreds of millions of general-fund dollars away from law enforcement, diverting it instead to help people pay for such things as affordable housing and securing substance-abuse treatment — and other social programs. Once it’s fully phased in over three years — Measure J is expected to set aside between $360 million and $490 million for:

• Community-based youth development programs;
• Job training and jobs to low-income residents, especially construction jobs for the expansion of affordable and supportive housing;
• Access to capital for small minority-owned businesses with a focus on Black-owned businesses;
• Rent assistance, housing vouchers and accompanying supportive services to those at-risk of losing their housing, or without stable housing;
• Community-based restorative justice programs;
• Pre-trial non-custody services and treatment; and
• Community-based health services, health promotion, counseling, wellness and prevention programs, and mental health and substance-use disorder services.

Proposal (Feinstein): Endorse County Measure J

8. Decision: Sign-On to Letter, A More Independent Redistricting Process for Los Angeles (fifteeen minutes)*
Sponsor/Presenter: Feinstein

Background:  This letter was sent to the Los Angeles City Council on August 11
https://www.commoncause.org/california/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2020/08/Letter-to-Los-Angeles-City-Council-2021-Redistricting.pdf
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSchTPCwEC0_LnBc3V1nyf5Gcq6FohSHdvF0pb2PdX8KS1AGjKD6xZSjdi45CFHuEOEq_VsO17KfbS6/pub

August 11, 2020
RE:        A More Independent Redistricting Process for LA
Dear Honorable City Councilmembers,

We are writing to encourage the Los Angeles City Council to move towards a more independent, transparent, and accessible redistricting process.  With trust in LA City Hall waning, we cannot afford a repeat of previous redistricting efforts which not only divided communities and resulted in litigation, but further entrenched fierce divisions within City Council.  The decision to consolidate nearly all of Downtown LA into District 14 has come under renewed focus in light of recent corruption investigations.[1]

The City of LA has been left behind as the State of California, Los Angeles County, and nearly every major city in the state has adopted a truly independent redistricting process.  The conflict of interest with politicians essentially choosing their voters is only heightened as the City of LA adjusts to the transformational change of moving our elections into alignment with State/County elections, resulting in three to five times the turnout experienced in the last 20 years.

The City of Los Angeles’s redistricting commission is only advisory, and its members are directly appointed by elected officials.[2]  While moving towards a truly independent redistricting process would require a charter change, there are a number of potential changes that can be made that can make LA City’s redistricting process fairer, more transparent, and inspire greater trust from LA voters.

We encourage City Council to make the following changes:

• The Appointment Process:  The Charter does not provide for a specific appointment process. Past practice has been for elected officials to submit their appointment via a letter. Appointees should be required to include a brief form detailing their qualifications and demographic information and including a disclosure of any conflicts of interest and relationships with sitting Councilmembers.

• Timing: The Charter requires redistricting commission members to be appointed no later than when Census data is released. The current implementation plan requires the Commission to be seated by next month, months before that deadline. More time should be granted for City Councilmembers and Citywide officials to make a thoughtful decision about their appointee. Additionally on the subject of timing, the commission should be granted sufficient time to hold public meetings, solicit community input, draft maps, and deliver their proposed map to City Council. While changes to the elections calendar and the timeline for Census data release are currently pending, the commission should be granted at least 2-3 months after the release of Census data to carry out its work before issuing a report to Council.

• Removal process:  The Charter provides no guidance on removal of redistricting commissioners, and past practice has allowed the appointing authority to remove them at will, which significantly undermines the independence of commissioners. Removal should require a majority vote of the redistricting commission.  

• Independent Staffing:  Staff for the commission should be screened for conflicts of interest before hiring - any ongoing work or recent work on behalf of a political party, incumbent City Council member, or City-level political candidate should be disqualifying. Just as city officers and employees are prohibited from serving on the redistricting commission, current/recent city officers and employees should be prohibited from serving as Director or support staff.

• Independent Counsel: Under current plans, the City Attorney would advise the commission in its work. The City should follow the example of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission and grant the commission the ability to hire independent legal counsel who is not an elected official in the City of Los Angeles and thus does not have an inherent conflict of interest in the redistricting process.

• Ban Ex Parte Communications:  The city should embrace the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s practice of prohibiting ex parte communications, ensuring that commissioners are not being influenced by back channel conversations.  

• Drawing the Lines Publicly:  The map-drawing process should maximize transparency and public participation, in contrast to the process 10 years ago.[3] Draft maps should be presented to the public multiple times throughout the process, accompanied by statements identifying who drafted them and what their rationale was for the district boundaries included.  Public comment should be accepted on draft maps online, by phone, in writing, and verbally at public hearings.

• Notice Requirements for Meetings:  The Brown Act only requires 3 days notice for meetings.  To ensure accessibility and public participation, the commission’s meetings should follow the California Citizens Redistricting Commission example of providing 14 days of notice for any meeting meant for the submission of public testimony about district lines.[4] 

• Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee:  Council has authority in determining which committee handles the recommendations of the redistricting commission.  Last cycle this was left to the Rules Committee, while in the previous cycle a five-member Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee heard the recommendations.  Council should ensure a larger and more representative committee of Councilmembers can weigh in during this critical period. 

• Language Access: All redistricting materials should be made available in all languages in which ballots are available in Los Angeles County.

If done well, the City of Los Angeles’s redistricting process can encourage greater public participation and civic engagement and restore public trust in City Hall. If done poorly or with manipulation behind the scenes by those in power, the City of Los Angeles’s redistricting process will deepen cynicism and distrust.

The legal requirements of AB 849 (Bonta, 2019) will mandate some degree of public outreach, transparency, and fairness in the line-drawing process. Given this unprecedented moment in Los Angeles city politics, we believe the City Council should go further and implement the recommendations above. Finally, we hope the Council will consider moving to a fully independent redistricting process in 2030.

Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles (AAAJ)
CA Clean Money Campaign
CA Common Cause
Ground Game LA
LA Forward
Represent.Us LA-SGV
Unrig LA
_____________

Current GPLAC policy is to favor a favor of a larger city council https://losangeles.cagreens.org/issues/los-angeles-city-council-size, elected by ranked choice voting https://losangeles.cagreens.org/issues/los-angeles-elections-ranked-choice-voting in November general elections.

Proposal (Feinstein): That the GPLAC co-sign onto this letter and add an additional statement in favor of a larger city council, elected by ranked choice voting in November general elections.
 

9. Decision: Sign-On to Letter, Stop Federal Executions (ten minutes)*
Sponsor/Presenter: Pierva-Avila

Background:  Stop the Federal Executions     Organizational Sign on Letter
Sign the Petition     Sponsor this Campaign  

Proposal (Piera-Avila): That the GPLAC sign onto this letter https://actionnetwork.org/forms/federal-execution-sign-on-letter/

10: Discussion: Creating Word Clouds for GPLAC website, social media (ten minutes)*
Sponsor: Feinstein
Presenter: Andrea Houtman

Background:  This item is to understand what word clouds are and how they might be used by the GPLAC. LA County Green Andrea Houtman, who creates them, will explain how they work.

11: Decision: Nominate delegates for 2020-2021 GPCA Standing General Assembly (five minutes)*

Sponsor/Presenters: Drew, Rai, Feinstein

Background: GPLAC Bylaws 12-4.2 state:  "Delegates to the GPCA Standing General Assembly shall be chosen on an annual basis, in the month before the beginning of each term.  The County Council shall select delegates by ranked choice voting, using the Droop threshold, and including a No Other Candidate option. Voting shall occur on the GPLAC Voting Page. Where there are vacancies, County Council may conduct additional elections to fill them."

At its June 28 meeting, the County Council set out a timeline to seek applications for GPLAC delegate to the 2020-2021 GPCA Standing General Assembly (SGA).  Notice was sent to the gplac-forum list and to the County Council list.  Nominations and applications were open through Saturday, August 8.  There were 27 people nominated for the 27 seats the GPLAC is alloted. The GPLAC's agreed upon timeline was to post them to the GPLAC voting page on August 10th for one week discussion, followed by a one week vote.  However the GPCA launched the SGA weeks earlier than expected, without forewarning.  

Proposal (Drew, Rai, Feinstein):  Still contine the on-line vote, but forward the 27 names now to the GPCA so they can begin participating as soon as possible. If any of the 27 don't get elected, the GPLAC will notify the GPCA.

12. Decision: Planning Fall Endorsements - candidates and ballot measures (thirty minutes)*
Sponsor/Presenters: Feinstein

Background: This item is to discuss timing and implemention of the GPLAC's process for endorsing candidates, and experiences working with it this year; and to authorize email blast to query on local City ballto measures. The email blast would be to contact Greens in the 54 cities, school districts and other districts that will have local ballot measures in November - and ask if they have a recommendation for the GPLAC and why

Proposal (Feinstein): That the GPLAC sent an email blast to its member for positions on the 54 city and special district measures.

13. Decision:  Re-schedule Zoom interview with George Gascon for LA District Attorney (ten minutes)*
Sponsor/Presenters: Feinstein

Background: The County Council has previously discussed not supporing incumbent Jackie Lacey for Los Angeles District Attorney, but has not yet decided if it wants to support her opponent George Gascon.  At its August 2nd meeting, the Council approved an August 23 date for a Zoom conference with the GPLAC and Gascon .

Proposal (Feinstein): That the GPLAC reschedule the Zoom conference with Gascon, and schedule a brief County Council meeting beforehand.

14. Discussion: Hearing from those seeking future appointment to County Council to fill unfilled seats from March primary election (fifteen minutes)*

Background: The County Council has approved outreach to registered Greens to let them known of the duties and responsibilities of the County Council, and to attend a county council meeting to present their interest in apply to the new County Council, and in that process satisfy the attendance requirement of at least one meeting in the last six months. This item is an opportunity for such individuals to present themselves to the County Council and have their questions about it answered.