A cyclist giving testimony during the February 2007 LABAC meeting in the former meeting place of the LABAC (the DWP's headquarters).It wasn't enough to suddenly move the bi-monthly Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee (LABAC) from the Department of Water and Power building to a room in the middle of Griffith Park last night.
The LABAC has a long and established record of screwing over anyone interested in helping to make bicycling safer and easier in L.A.
Last night, Tuesday, April 1, 2008, April Fools Day, the chair of the LABAC, Mr. Alex Baum saw to it that something especially messed up was in store for those crazy enough to care about bicycles in L.A.
I wouldn't normally bring myself to quibble over this inane Brown Act bullshit, but I have been insulted by Mr. Baum's arrogance and ego one time too many. His meetings are run poorly, if not illegally and his attitude towards the public is insulting.
Agenda Out of Whack
This was last night's agenda. Any veteran of public meeting in California will immediately note the bizarre "Information Items" category on the agenda.If you were naive enough to think that Mr. Baum, and his LADOT handlers, would let anything get done, the first surprise of your evening would be the official LABAC agenda.
You'll note, the only things on the official "Action Item" portion of the agenda are the approval of the last meetings' minutes and something called "DWP Festival of Lights". The Brown Act requires at least a cursory statement explaining items on the agenda.
Look, the bloody Brown Act is clear:
§ 54954.2. Agenda requirements;Regular meetings 54954.2.A general description of what is to be discussed? Maybe I'm not looking close enough. All I see on the LABAC's agendas are small phrases that impart nothing of what is to be discussed. Let's move on to another technical point that has frozen this body from acting over the years.
(a) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public.
Everything else is on the some sort of bizarre "Information Items" portion of the agenda. Michelle Mowery, the LADOT staffer the acts as clerk for the meeting, insists that items not on the "Action Item" list cannot have action taken on them.
Wha?!
Things got so wierd that BAC members were "informally voting" to have one of their members draft a letter that they would submit "as individuals who are also on the BAC" to their respective council offices about a matter that they had just discussed.
Anything not on the agenda can be discussed and have action taken on it provided the following occurs (this is also from § 54954.2):
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the conditions stated below. Prior to discussing any item pursuant to this subdivision, the legislative body shall publicly identify the item.
...
(2) Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body present at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a).
God damn it! Hundreds of public meetings happen every month in L.A., all governed by the Brown Act, and somehow both the chair of the committee, Mr. Alex Baum, and Michelle Mowery, of the LADOT, do not know the ground rules for holding a meeting?
Are we really that information poor? Are these things so hard to figure out that it requires years of lies by both the committee chair and the committee staff to cover up their own incompetence?
Board Motions With No Motions, No Votes
Another shot of that February 2007 LABAC meeting in the DWP Headquarters. That is Bart Reed, of the Transportation Coalition, with his hand on his forehead.So, the agenda is screwed up. Oh well.
At least we'll get a chance to address that fact, and many others, during the allotted public comments section of the agenda.
Oh, okay. It's my turn to talk about a particular bike policy ... and Mr. Baum says I've only got two minutes.
Wait - I've been called up to comment on Item 5 - and that report hasn't been delivered yet! How can I comment on something that hasn't even been brought to the floor? Don't you need to have a motion and vote to do something as extraordinary as that?
Whew. Well that was disconcerting, and I'm sure that is out of the ordinary - again don't you need a vote to do something like that? Well they sure seem strict about the rules because I was told that my time had run out as soon as the egg timer beeped at me.
Public comment time (at the end of the meeting), and it's my turn. I've got two quick minutes to talk but ... wait ... the chair says now I've only got one minute. Wha?! I thought that a motion and a vote had to take place for that to happen. When did they cut my time? I had a very short set of remarks that I have been working on for months on two or three policy suggestions. Now I've got to compress that all into 60 seconds? When did the declaration to change public comment time periods take place?
Rules, Social Contract, Broken
Left to right: Chairman Alex Baum, Michael May & Michelle Mowery of the LADOT, and Jay Slater, one of the Mayor's LABAC appointmentees.It is one thing to have a lazy, egotistical, old man and his handlers try to force you to keep quiet.
It is quite another to have him address you, and a room full of cycling advocates, and insult your efforts to improve things for cycling in L.A.
This is just what Mr. Baum did last night, and I am no longer interested in working with him. He needs to go. He needs to be ejected.
I cannot believe that Mr. Baum has the temerity to tell a room full of people who have turned bicycles into positive front page news that they have "done nothing" that compares to his unspecified personal efforts.
Alex Thompson, one of the founders of the BikeRoWave, uses his sixty seconds during the April Fools LABAC meeting.Mr. Baum, you've got a room full of talented, educated, hard working bike riders - all pushing for positive changes. Yet you take their energy and efforts and belittle them. You cut them off and have the nerve to tell them that they have done nothing that compares with your attendance at "meetings in City Hall".
What, sir, have your meetings done for bicycle riders in L.A.? Build a bike lane bridge over Los Feliz Blvd.? Whoopdeedoo.
Your illegal meeting agenda, your board room antics, and your ego have got the best of you now, you old goat.
You've a personal opponent in me, Mr. Baum. Though I hardly know you, I do not like you. I will work to see you shamed out of office.
p.s. You suck.
Posts
13 comments:
Gee Josef, tell us how you really feel...
When I first got to LA I went to an LABAC meeting and decided never to go to one again because they weren't the best use of my time. I didn't know any of you crazy kids yet and didn't testify so you probably don't remember me being there.
Generally, I find the obsession with stopping people right when the buzzer/bell goes off to be a local phenomenon. I'm not used to it and people that are normally pretty awesome, like Metro Board Chair Pam O'Connor, are total terrors when it comes to keeping people on their allotted clocked time.
I've been at a couple of public meetings where the allotted time for public speakers is summarily changed by the chair, so I'm not sure if it's a Brown Act violation.
I can't help it, but the emotion just boils out of me.
I've been going to these meetings for the past year, and last night was the kicker.
I have a baby daughter that I left at home with her mom. I have been working on several very specific policy recommendations for the City of L.A.
I am not paid to do this, so working together with other people is of paramount importance. The LABAC is an excellent way to get the council to take up new pro-bicycle ordinances and policy ideas.
I just lost it last night when I was lectured by Alex Baum about how I "did nothing" and he "has done a lot" for bicycles. Then he decided to cut my time down to 60 seconds as I was standing to talk.
He's treated us like this before.
Did I mention the meeting was held in what could reasonably be deemed a wilderness area? It was a mile and a half bike ride through Griffith Park just to get to the meeting point.
I just can't hide my emotions on this one.
I feel like yelling, "This is WAR!" But that would be going too far.
I just feel really really slighted. I am really pissed off, and no "apology" is going to settle me down. I need that old man off the board.
I agree. Maybe Alex Baum has done a lot in the past for cycling in LA but I have not seen anything that he has done in the past two years. He is old, senile, has no idea what is being discussed, and treats the cycling advocates who attend the meeting like they are in his way as opposed to as his constituents.
He was very happy to see cyclists show up two years ago. He was encouraged to see cyclists getting involved in politics and now he treats us cyclists as nuisance, he ignores those who side with him at city hall meetings, he is lecturing us and he was threatening us last night about making enemies if we don't "get along."
He needs to get off that chair!
Anyone who complains about having to ride their bike A MILE AND A HALF into Griffith Park isn't a real cyclist.
Sorry, but it's true.
I think Baum is living in his "Land of OZ"......
He was so rude to the cyclists at the meeting was I was ashamed to be a part of it and left the Ranger's Station in disgust. The agenda was hokey and I heard later that many board members did not receive the agenda in the mail until days after the meeting. Something needs to be done!!!!
Wow, todd.
You're a complete moron. I had to ride my bike several miles to get to the meeting place in Griffith Park. Griffith Park itself is a massive wildlife area. I had to ride a mile and a half into a wildlife area to get to this meeting.
There is no bus or train service to this public meeting place - so you tell me, was it a reasonable location?
OK, the only reason why you would resort calling me a moron is because you know that I raised a perfectly valid point.
If I had to choice of riding to the DWP Death Star downtown or Griffith Park, Griffith Park would win hands down every time. To me that sounds like the perfect place to have Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting.
I don't understand why as a cyclist you're so hurt that you had to ride your bike into Griffith Park. Sure, I guess you could call it a "wilderness area" though not many wilderness areas I know have boast several golf courses, three museums, and a 5,000 seat amphitheater all while being pretty much smack dab in the middle of the city.
Were you afraid the coyotes might eat you? You don't have to fret, they're more afraid of you than you should be of them.
Plus, if you were riding you bike, why should it matter that public transportation actually swing by the building in which the meeting is held? The whole idea of riding a bike as transportation is so that you don't have to be dependent on anything such as a car, bus or train to get from point A to B.
Besides, if you did have a distance to travel that required use of mass transit, is riding from the Vermont Redline station, or from any of the buses that go along Los Feliz Blvd, or Crystal Springs Drive too far of a haul?
It's really just asinine to think that some who would ride bike would actually complain about riding a bike.
ps. I've been a bicycle commuter since 1994. Been commuting all over LA since 1999 and from the first day I've thought LA was great for riding.
Todd,
You are completely missing the point.
As proponents of alternative transportation our simplest request and standard for public meetings is that they are open and accessible to those on foot, on bike, and those who take mass transit.
To have a meeting that only serves cyclists, is as ego-centric as a meeting that only serves motorists.
One of the fundamental projects that the cycling community is promoting is a concept called "complete streets." In other words streets that are good for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and motorists.
In addition, the people who we are working with are not necessarily cyclists, in fact we hope to include in these public meetings representatives from the many agencies, departments and bureaus, that have impact or influence over our streets and our communities.
Is it reasonable to expect these people to have to check out motor pool vehicles (our bike ways coordinator arrived in a motor pool vehicle) simply to attend the meeting?
And so, it's not that we are opposed to a bike ride (we rode and it was a great ride and we got there faster then we would have in a car,) it's simply that this is whats referred to as an urban wilderness and you have to try hard to get that far away from our densely populated community centers.
This hardly encourages participatory democracy.
We would love to have you join us at the next meeting. We hope it'll be in one of our densely populated neighborhoods.
P.S. CalTrans is the Death Star, DWP is the Lotus Flower and Griffith Park, in spite of it's amenities, is still referred to as the largest urban wilderness park in the United States of America.
Rather then asking if the cyclists are afraid of coyotes, perhaps we should ask if the DOT is afraid of people.
name calling, but "Enci" nailed it.
"Public meetings" held in a locked basement with the lights turned out, and door sign that says "Beware of the Leopard" are not public meetings.
In the end, this was just one more stupid hassle everyone had to deal with simply to talk about making bike policy in L.A.
Or rather this is a publicly subsidized organization to channel our talks into policy. And it only happens once every other month.
This time, with little notice, in a nature park.
One board member couldn't make it because, well, it is in the middle of a nature park and he was using mass transit to get around that night.
Enci-
Apologies for confusing my architecture. I totally got that one backwards. I'm just use to being around non Prizker prize winning architects who have it out for "the Death Star."
I've been to the LABAC meetings in the past but haven't for a while. Maybe I'll have to go again soon.
I fully understand the need for fairness and democracy in public policy meeting but in reading a blog in which seemingly every other sentence was a complaint about something, it just really chapped my hide to see someone complaining about having to ride their bike in the park. That's all. Considering the city of LA is nearly 400 square miles, pretty much anywhere a meeting is held is going to be geographically undesirable for someone.
My last post should read "todd, Sorry to start name calling."
As you can tell, I am not as calm and collected as I ought to be on this post.
I edited my original post severely the morning after I published it - every other word was profanity or an insult.
Again, "enci" has got the gist of what I was referring to. I love to ride (recreationally) in places like Griffith Park. I just think it is an unreasonable place to hold a public hearing of this kind.
Todd,
Looking forward to seeing you at the next meeting in June.
Todd,
If your perception of the blog entry is that "every other sentence is a complaint" then I would contend that the author was being too fair. Every sentence could have been a complaint and it would STILL not communicate the absurd and surreal, total contempt for the public.
This past meeting was not simply a bad night (three BAC members went to the wrong location, agendas were MAILED the day of the meeting, the public was harrangued by the Chair, the DOT staff did not and as of Friday, have not provided the public with copies of requested docs etc.) it is the pattern. The Brown Act has been been state law for 50 years and yet the LADOT and LABAC seem to think it's an option, not State law.
Based on results, often harsh but always fair, is the LABAC performing up to the minimum legal standard? No.
Are they performing according to their charter? No.
Are the Board members even attending and simply representing the cycling community to our Council Members and the Mayor?
Last year nine members did not break 50% attendance. The Board only acted 10 times, 6 were to approve minutes and 4 were to send letters, letters that do not appear to have been sent. (Hard to prove a negative but the letters never came back to the BAC for approval so it appears that no letters were actually sent)
The cycling community deserves better. Or simply dissolve the LABAC so that Council Members will stop responding to cyclists with "Has this gone before the BAC yet?"
The real proof of the bizarre and rude behavior from the Chair and Staff is evidenced by the fact that even representatives from other departments and organizations have stated that they will not return to the LABAC because of the way the meetings are conducted or misconducted.
Our community needs more WatchDogs and less LapDogs.
"Woof!"
MadDog
Post a Comment