Saturday, January 31, 2009

Dennis Zine Statement on New Special Order 40 Training


(Los Angeles) – As part of my longstanding commitment to public safety, I have worked over the past nine months to give the Los Angeles Police Department additional tools to combat criminal gang members. Last April, I introduced a Council motion asking LAPD to modify its immigration policy known as Special Order 40. This policy prevents officers from questioning people solely to determine their immigration status or arresting them only for violations of immigration law.


My proposal called for amendments to Special Order 40 to require that LAPD officers notify federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities of known gang members who are in this country illegally. The motion also affirmed that LAPD has a responsibility and duty to turn over criminals who are illegal immigrants to ICE. 


Last October, my motion received a hearing in the Public Safety Committee. I invited former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates to that meeting to discuss the original intent of Special Order 40, which he authored in the late 1970s. Through his testimony and that of current LAPD officials, many common misunderstandings about the Department's policy were brought to light.


The truth is that Special Order 40 does allow Los Angeles Police Officers to inquire about immigration status if a crime has been committed. The order does not prevent officers from arresting a violent suspect or calling in federal agents to investigate a person they believe illegally reentered the U.S. after deportation. In fact, Department policy outlines how officers should work with ICE to enforce federal immigration warrants.


At that October hearing, LAPD representatives testified that all officers would be re-trained to clarify that Special Order 40 does not prohibit them from obtaining the type of information I called for in my motion. Department officials further stated that they would report back to the City Council in January with the details of their new training procedures.


I am pleased to announce that the LAPD has indeed issued new training documents regarding Special Order 40. However, we have reached the end of January and the Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, still has not allowed this critical issue to receive a follow-up hearing. The Department's modified training can only be successful if it is fully and openly discussed with the general public. That is why I feel I must share this information now.


I have posted the updated LAPD lesson plan on my website at under "Recent News." I also intend to introduce a Council motion next week requesting quarterly reports on the progress of personnel training and specific numbers of individuals reported and transferred to ICE. I am confident that these modifications, along with improved oversight, will strengthen officers' ability to protect and to serve all of us in the City of Los Angeles.
Dennis Zine

FOX 11 10 o'clock News Features ZUMA DOGG's Public Comment on $400,000 Academy Award Party

Thanks to Fox 11 10 o'clock News for featuring Zuma Dogg's public comment regarding Los Angeles City Council's approval of $400,000 for an Academy Awards party.
During this economic crisis, where Villaraigosa's City Hall is cutting services all across the City, hiring freezes, firings, quadrupling of parking meter hourly rates, new fees and taxes always being proposed, seem kinda irresponsible to be taking $400,000 out of the city's general fund, to pay for an Academy Awards party under the guise of "Special Event Fee Waiver."
A couple week's ago, when LA Times quoted Los Angeles mayoral candidate, David "Zuma Dogg" Saltsburg on the Grammy Award "Special Event Fee Waiver," Councilmember Jan Perry said that the council wanted to whatever it takes to keep from losing these types of events to other cities.

As candidate for mayor, Zuma Dogg must remind City Council, however, that the Special Event Fee Waiver is not corporate charity and not intended as a private business stimulus package. It is intended for small community events, open to the public, of public benefit for those (non-profit) type events like a church festival or community event where expenses like trash removal services, parking barriers and whatever city services are required, would prevent the event from taking place.
So you can contact your council office, and they can grant you the "Special Event Fee Waiver." The amount was ranging between $500-$1000, maybe a couple thousand. BUT NOW, they are using it for Grammy and Academy Award parties and other private, commercial entities.
REMEMBER, the SEF Waiver stipulates, "open to the public!" So if they city has just picked up the tab for this better let Zuma Dogg into the event.
I think a Federal racketeering case could be made regarding the abuse of the Special Event Fee Waiver under Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragiosa's City Hall. 
As Mayor of Los Angles, Zuma Dogg will put an end to the abuse of the Special Event Fee waiver, saving millions of dollars, each year on this item alone.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

New Zuma Dogg Blog Posts: Nightline Video, Measure B, Mayor Zuma's 14 Point Plan & More

These are the recent blog posts I would like you to be aware of. Email blast it. Thanks, ZD

Zuma Dogg For Mayor - Recent Blog Posts

Zuma Dogg For Mayor of Los Angeles: My 14 Point Plan on Citywide Operations

ZUMA DOGG'S 14 POINT PLAN BASED ON DR. W. EDWARDS DEMING: First of all, here is a Google search for Deming so you can see the impact he has had on this global economy. Deming is the American from Washington, D.C, sent to Japan in the 50's after the war, to help them rebuild their economy because they were so bad off, it was even hurting the U.S., back home. So when you remember back to when Japan took over manufacturing from the U.S. by building all those cars and electronic stuff that didn't break down and was less expensive...that was through the implementation of Deming's 14 points. And now, Zuma Dogg, as candidate for mayor, says the City of Los Angeles now MUST embrace these 14 points and use them as the "Mission Statement" for all city operations.

I am here to tell you, that I can sit here and blog about every problem in the city for the next fifty years, and until the city starts operating under these 14 points, it will always take eight months to have your tree cut, you will always sit on hold for twenty minutes, only to be sent to voice mail by some city employee who is simply trying to pass the hot potato (your concern) to the next person.

So to start, here is a copy of "Interpreting Deming's 14 Points" that I authored in the '90's after attending one of Deming's famous four day seminars. I sent a copy of this to Deming, himself, because I was concerned there were some things that needed correction. I didin't want to misrepresent his life's work. Much to my surprise and delight, Deming faxed back a letter saying that it was well done and he thanked me. This shocked a lot of folks who didn't even believe me, because they claimed the cantacerous consultant didn't go around sending out letters of praise like that. (I, as most others were expecting a lot of red ink corrections.) This article was also published by Quality Digest in 1994 and publisher Don Deward said it was one of the finest articles he has seen on Deming's 14 points and especially liked my explantion of Deming's more controversial points.

As candidate for mayor of Los Angeles, I am telling you, the only reason I have the nerve to put my name on the ballot for mayor in the first place is because of  these 14 points that I has guided me in my radio industry career and now as a city advocate. And as a concerned citizen and someone who is pissed off by what he sees enough to have atteneded a six month consecutive stretch of city council meetings to complain about the fraud, waste and abuse...


Long after Deming's death, his 14 points will continue to transform U.S. industry.

Interpreting Deming's 14 Points
by David Saltsburg (Aka: Zuma Dogg)

[Editor's note: W. Edwards Deming died December 20, 1993. The following article analyzing his famous 14 points was written before his death. Fortunately, Deming had the opportunity to review this analysis.]

His name is W. Edwards Deming, the American who taught the Japanese about quality.

Back in the late 1940's and early 1950's, Japan was in an economic crisis. They had just lost the war and it was time to rebuild. They took Deming's methods for management and productivity and put them to use in industry. The rest of this economic miracle is history. They listened when no one else would.

How can WE bring our industry and our nation "out of the crisis"? Let's review Deming's 14 points of transformation:

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and stay in business, and to provide jobs.

Pretty complex point. What does it mean?

Think long-term. Set the course today to be in business tomorrow. "Doing your best" is not good enough. Everyone is already "doing their best". First, you must know what to do, THEN do your best. Know what business you are in, THEN commit to constant improvement of quality. Innovate continuously.

Take the vacuum tube industry, for example. Once the transistor was invented, the vacuum tube quickly became obsolete. Could workers "do their best" to produce a better tube? Of course not.

Those who fail to improve constantly and innovate will eventually find themselves out of business. To improve, you must predict customers' needs. Customers rarely point out the need for improvement. The electronics industry didn't ask for the transistor. Someone who was committed to improvement predicted that the innovation would be accepted.

2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities and take on leadership for change.

What characterizes this "new economic age"? Rapid change, turbulent environment, constant technological breakthroughs. Consumers demand instant gratification. Technology changes so quickly that we don't even have time to catch up with the changes. By the time a new product hits the market, a new innovation occurs before you can get the old ones off the shelf.

It has become much tougher to predict and forecast in this turbulent environment. Today, predicting the future means shaping and controlling the future and adapting to what you cannot control.

3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the products in the first place.

The United States builds the product first, then inspects for defects later. By then, it's too late! You've already spent the time, effort and money on production. Catch the defect after the fact, and you have to send it back to be fixed or scrap the whole thing. It's usually a lot tougher to repair a product than it is to build it right in the first place. Meanwhile, you've spent twice the time, effort and money.

We spend too much time defining what IS and ISN'T acceptable, then checking to see if and why the parameters were met. We chase out tails around, never exactly sure, always adjusting and readjusting; doing more harm than good.

SEEK PROFOUND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCESS. Understand what variations (defects) are inherent to the process (common causes) and work to control those variations. Improve the system. If a variation occurs outside the range of common cause, you have a "special cause". Only special causes should generate effort to uncover the reason variation occurred.

4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.

The bottom-line price tag doesn't always tell the whole story. Some one in my area started a local painting business. When he first started his business, he purchased the cheapest paint so he could make more profit.

Turns out he needed to double the amount of coats to get the job done. Therefore, he used twice as much paint, and it cost him twice the time and effort.

In addition, the paint cracked sooner than other paints. He lost the repeat business, as the dissatisfied customers spread the word to neighbors of the bad experience with his company. What advantages come from moving toward a single supplier?

* Customer and supplier work together to create a system of optimization for mutual gain and satisfaction. (Work with each other instead of against each other.)

* Customer and supplier can work toward long-term (constant) improvement of quality of design and service. (They can adapt to each others' changing needs.)

* Lower and lower costs occur by constantly improving quality and efficiency. (It's cheaper and more efficient if a supplier gets a higher volume of a customer's business. Both benefit.)

If you have five suppliers for one part, that's five times the amount of headaches that can occur. (Five times the ordering, five times the accounting procedures, five times the effort. This results in reduced efficiency.

5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.

We set standards, run through the process and analyze the results. As long as we fall within the range of "what has been deemed acceptable," we did our job. If the output isn't falling within the specified range, management will "demand improvement." They'll say: "Do a better job!" "Less Defects!" Or, "Do a better job inspecting for defects."

How many people have been fired from jobs for unsatisfactory results only to have the problem persist with the new employee? Deming says, "Don't blame the individual, fix the system for them." Improving quality and productivity only comes by IMPROVING THE SYSTEM.

The customer of worker almost never tells you anything is wrong. Chances are, they don't know themselves. Management must strive to predict and uncover the need for improvement. Don't blame the individual, fix the system for the individual.

Some other examples of improving the system: The telephone is an improvement of the telegraph. The fuel injector is an improvement of the carburetor.

How does improving the system help decrease costs? If florists can predict how many roses will be needed next Valentine's Day, they can have the proper amount of inventory on hand, so as to fill every order; but not have excessive leftovers to spoil.

Continuous improvement is a cycle: Recognize the opportunity, test the theory to achieve the opportunity, observe test results, act on the opportunity.

6. Institute training on the job.

U.S. Management (and Government) is VERY BUSY. They don't have time for these kinds of details. Managers view training as an expense because they view employees as a commodity -- not an asset. When new employees show up for work on the first day, how many times does a coworker show them what to do?

Management wants the job done right. They institute the rules, regulations and procedures. Each time one employee teaches the next, more is lost in the translation. Mistakes are passes down the line. What gets left out? One person should be responsible for teaching everyone the same skill.

7. Institute leadership. The aim of leadership should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Leadership of management is in need of overhaul, as well as leadership of production workers.

Deming on leadership: "What is a leader? As I use the term here, the job of a leaser is to accomplish the transformation of his organization. How may he accomplish transformation?

First, he has a theory, a vision of his organization as it would be if transformed. He understands why the transformation would bring gains to his organization and to all the people that his organization deals with.

Second, he is a practical man. He has a plan, not too difficult. A leader must guide his organization through the stages of transformation. But what is in his head is not enough. He must convince and change enough people in power to make it happen. He possesses persuasive power. He understands people." [ZD: Sorry Deming kept saying "he", ladies. He was born in 1900 and probably meant "he" as in "MANkind."]

8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company.

Fear is a cause of un-measurable waste and loss. Someone who is fearful takes whatever action necessary to remove the source of fear. These actions do not reflect the company's best interest. Fear robs people of pride and joy in their work and kills all forms of intrinsic motivation. It prevents people from thinking for themselves. They instead concentrate on removing the source of fear (getting the fear "off their back").

For example, a factory worker must build 100 widgets by week's end. His boss tells him, "If you don't finish all these widgets, you're fired!" So, of course the worker gets then done, and they're shipped off to the customer. (Twenty-five are defective, but the employee still hit the quota and has his job.)

Managers who rely on fear believe those working under them are not capable, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Management must create a work environment where workers can take pride and joy in their work. Don't blame the individual -- fix the system for them.

9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales and production must work as a team to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.

Have departments work together at all production stages. Everyone must share knowledge in a cooperative (not competitive) effort. In the United States, departments work independently of each other. In Japan, departments work interdependently at all production stages. It doesn't do any good to design a flawless product the sales department can't sell ot the production department can't produce. [ZD: Massive City Hall applications here.]

For example, an automotive design team makes a minor adjustment in the design of their 1995 model. This change would require the production department to make a major overhaul in their process that is not possible. So the design must be sent back and reworked. Meanwhile, production is delayed and time is spent reworking the project. Had both departments cooperated and involved each other from the start of the process, this inefficiency could have been presented.

10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and this lie beyond the power of the work force.

Management likes to hang up a lot of posters with such exhortations as "Zero defects!", "Safety is YOUR responsibility!", or "Our goal is to please the customer at all times!" These slogans seem harmless enough, until they backfire.

How about the company demanding "zero defects", not realizing that a 12-to-15 percent margin of error (defects) is a built-in function of the system, no matter how hard the worker tries. Deming tells of a poster he saw claiming, "Safety is YOUR responsibility", next to a set of factory stairs that had no railing and steps that needed repairing.

To further illustrate, I look back to an experience I had with a rude salesperson. When I asked, "What about the sign over there that says, 'Customer satisfaction is our number one goal", he replied, "I don't know anything about that sign, my boss hung that up."

Management would like to think such exhortations take the responsibility off them and put it on the employee. However, there is no substitute for leadership. Defect elimination, a safe workplace, customer satisfaction, all start in the boardroom. [ZD: In this case, YOUR office, y'all.] It is management's responsibility to improve the system for the individual.

11a. Eliminate work standards (quotas) from the factory floor. Substitute leadership. 11b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numeric goals. Substitute leadership.

Quotas and numerical goals are the leading cause of fear in the workplace. They rob individuals of intrinsic motivation and force them to work in a counterproductive manner.

For example, a research worker must fill out 15 surveys a night. Sometimes, this presents no problem. As a matter of fact, sometimes he finishes all 15 early and has time to roam around and do nothing. (Or even worse, bother other workers.)

Other times, it's close to quitting time on Friday, and the market research worker only has 12 surveys completed. How will they his the quota? It's easy. You call a friend (13), let someone through the screener who shouldn't have made it into the survey (14), and make one up entirely (15). (Have a nice weekend!) Either case (finishing early or not at all) hurts quality and efficiency.

If we remove quotas, how do we ensure the worker won't "slack off"? Again, there is no substitute for leadership. Eliminate fear, improve the system, create an environment where the worker can take pride and joy in their work. Employees are your organization's #1 asset. If you can't trust your workers, you are in for trouble.

12a. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride and workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective.

THIS IS THE TOUGHEST PILL FOR CORPORATE AMERICA TO SWALLOW. This point calls for eliminating ranking of individuals, grades, gold stars, incentive pay (bonus money) and commissions. Ranking and merit systems please the boss, not the customer. These forces create conflict, competition and humiliation. They rob the individual (and our nation) of intrinsic motivation, cooperation, dignity, self-esteem and joy of work.

If you rank workers, why help a new employee, or someone at the bottom who needs help? That low end MAKES YOU LOOK GOOD. Forget what's best for the company. It's a given that some people perform better than others. In ANY ranking system, you will ALWAYS have a top, middle and bottom. Ranking will not eliminate the middle and bottom, it will only demoralize the majority of individuals.

A grade is a permanent label, a branding. A grade tells children what is expected of them, the rest of their life. Students who get bad grades become demoralized, are viewed in a different light, experience fear and lose self-esteem. They become victims of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Again, there is no substitute for leadership. Fix the system for the individual.

What's wrong with a commission? It forces salespeople to sell customers the wrong items. When customers realize what happened, they will be upset and tell others of their bad experience. Some sales people won't even bother with a customer if the commission doesn't look big enough. If you get a $1000 bonus for selling 100 widgets a month. After widget 100, it's time to start "putting off" turning in new orders, and save them toward next month's totals. They can wait a few days.

13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement. Point 6 deals with training regarding "the skill and knowledge necessary to do the job." Point 13 addresses the need to encourage and provide resources so that people may develop. Just as we reinvest in other sources, we must reinvest in a company's most important asset -- it's people.

Management must make clear, in the beginning, their commitment to this concept. They must take time and make an effort to institute the continuous improvement concept into the system.

14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody's job.

The transformation must start with top management, for they have the most leverage and influence. They are the leaders. Once the decision has been made, middle management, supervisors and workers must come on board. It takes training and removal of inhibitions (fear, competition, barriers and divisions). We must fully cooperate with each other to constantly improve the system. THINK HOLISTICALLY (systematically).

In order for the transformation to occur, management must see things in a new light. Don't be in the business of increasing profits. Be in the business of constantly delighting customers and workers. Then you will find your profits constantly increasing.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Ed Baker, Bill Scherkenbach, Kosaku Yoshida and Jim McIngvale for investing their time, effort and knowledge.

References: Deming, W. Edwards, Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study (1982), Cambridge, Massachusetts.

NOTE FROM ZUMA: Thanks for reading this. I know this didn't relate to the city of Los Angeles, specifically, but this article sets it up. It's the first thing I would hand out to every manager and commissioner on day one as mayor.  From here on in, I will be applying these 14 Points to the City of Los Angeles as I would as mayor. I've said a lot of things over the past few years about many, many city issues. If I can walk away from all of this and make ONE impact, or be known for ONE thing, or leave any type of "legacy" the end of the day, I would have to go with "hopefully raising awareness of Deming's 14 points and hopefully moving the city a little closer to the day when they finally do."  Thanks, ZD (Zuma Dave?)

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Zuma Dogg's 14 Point Plan As Mayor of Los Angeles (Zuma Dogg as Mayor DAY ONE)

ZUMA DOGG'S 14 POINT PLAN TO RUN CITY HALL AS MAYOR: OK, it's Dr. W. Edwards Deming's 14 point plan. But Zuma Dogg plans on implementing it if elected mayor of Los Angeles.  Here it is , "Interpreting Deming's 14 Points." I wrote it in the  early 90's and Deming sent a letter of praise in repsonse to  what you are about  to read. (So you can read with the confidence of knowing that Deming signed off on this.)

It's the one, single most critical qualification that distinguishes me from all other candidates on the ballot, including the current mayor.


We can watch the city trip all over itself for the next fifty years. Do your research on Deming's 14 points. One good thing, Zuma Dogg knows a lot of the top level managers and workers in the city know about Deming, and are thrilled that Zuma Dogg knows about Deming. Quite frankly, it has already impressed the hell out of some city hall workers who have asked me how I got into Deming and why.

From here on in, I'll spend a little more time explaining what it would mean to implement these 14 points at City Hall.

But the FIRST thing I would do as mayor, on the first day on the job, would be to contact all the city managers and department heads and have a giant meeting, where Zuma Dogg and top experts explain/break down the 14 points for everyone in the room, and let everyone know this is how we will be operating.

(See "Interpreting Deming's 14 Points" at

Zuma Dogg feels we have so many genius level people working for the city in these departments across the city, but they are not allowed to "fix" the system, or do what's best for the customer (residents) because of a vindictive and retaliatory city hall under the current mayor.

I have had discussions with countless city workers who start nodding their heads up and down in agreement when I let them know that Uncle ZD knows they have the muzzle on and are not being allowed to do the right thing for the PEOPLE of Los Angeles.


And the first step to fixing the system is letting the top level managers know that Uncle Zuma Dogg as mayor WANTS to know how to improve (fix) the process. How to reduce the beuracracy. People are forced to "fudge" -- hold off on work some months, jam in too much work others. All these things that workers are forced to do to please the mayor, but not the people of Los Angeles. ALL THE THINGS PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO DO BECAUSE THEY ARE WORKING UNDER FEAR!

So when city managers and workers understand that Zuma Dogg LIKES to hear how to improve the to innovate...what needs to change (instead of fighting and resisting change/innovation)...they will feel a lot better about their jobs. And that is how people start to do a better job. It is VERY stressful for people to have to "fudge" and do things the wrong way, when they know how to do it the right way, "IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD LISTEN."

THEN, you have to create a flow chart for every process. For example, if someone calls to have the tree trimmed in front of a stop sign at a school make a flow chart of the process from the 3-1-1 call, until completion. THEN, you vet out the bureaucracy (intentional/fraud, and un-intended/waste). You question why the widget is moving from point A to point B.

HERE'S AN EXAMPLE: I saw a DWP crew show up one morning in front of a home to cut a tree. There were a couple of those big trucks, and some regular vehicles with all the workers ready to do the work. (Several thousands of dollars of workers and equipment.)

WELP, unfortunately, there was some broken down pickup truck that I see in the same spot, every day, for weeks at a time, if not months. And it happened to be right where the crew needed to work.

So one of the workers asks me frantically, "Is this your truck?"

I said, "No, but it's there all the time, so don't plan on anyone coming out to drive it away."


ZUMA DOGG FOR MAYOR SOLUTION: Why wasn't a temporary "NO PARKING" sign posted in the area of work 72 hours in advance (like for movie shoots). THAT WAY, every regular resident that parks on the street would know about it and be able to keep clear of the area that day. AND, DWP would have been able to have the truck (which is parked their for weeks at a time) TOWED.

THIS IS WHAT DEMING'S 14 POINTS IS ABOUT. Innovation, empowerment, improving the process. It all adds up to reducing waste and improving efficiency. And that's how you cut the amount of time it takes to have your tree cut. (Cause if they have to come back the next day, that doubles the amount of time it takes to get to YOUR tree, too...those non-Deming embracing dummies.


Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Silver Lake N.C. Grievance



I, Carol Knapp, stakeholder by reason of property ownership and residence within the boundaries of the Silver Lake Neighborhood council, am filing a formal grievance against the City of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation, Los Angeles City Council and Mayor, and City Attorney and The Silver Lake Neighborhood Council Board as agents of the aforementioned Los Angeles City Council.  Certain members of the SLNC board have consistently violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, California law regarding ethics in government (Government Code SEC. 81,000 – Political Reform Act) as well as breached the duties expressed by the stated SLNC mission, purpose, by-laws and ethical responsibilities during their tenure.


First Amendment violations


Whereas, under Article IX of Los Angeles City Charter as amended in 2000, any and all holders of elected positions, paid or unpaid, must "follow all local, state and federal laws", the above noted parties have violated the inalienable "freedom of speech" right of this individual, as guaranteed in Amendment I of the United States Constitution.


Under the First Amendment and as decided in applicable federal case law, the people have the inalienable right to freedom of speech, a right not to be abridged by any government actor or agent.  This right of the people includes the right to express "political truths" about government officials and to fully inform the public about any betrayals of the public trust engaged in by said officials.  This right also prohibits any government actor or agent from intentionally suppressing such information or from limiting the expression of any political point of view in favor of another. 


In addition, under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, there is a distinction between "protected" speech and "unprotected" speech, the latter of which applies to advocating unlawful action, obscenity defamation, untruthful advertising or inciting a riot.  There is also a distinction between "time-place restriction versus "content-related" restriction, which is restriction based on the message being conveyed.  Content-related restriction of speech by a government entity is presumptively unconstitutional.  If a content-related restriction is to be upheld, the government must show a "compelling state interest" and the restriction must be "narrowly construed" to achieve that end.


The subject website links, and and are all informational and fact laden.  These websites are logically related to issues that frequently are considered by the neighborhood councils, such as redevelopment laws and facts relating to the practice of redevelopment.  Since the City of Los Angeles has 34 redevelopment project areas, and the SLNC has, in fact, reviewed this issue and submitted a Community Impact Statement regarding eminent domain, this topic is of widespread concern to residents of the city. 


Moreover, the Freedom Advocates website gives facts regarding the origination of stakeholder councils and the imposition of Sustainable Development by executive order.   

Neither of these websites advocate for any political party or any political candidate.


Therefore, the right to freedom of speech is indispensable in a free society and is one of the most basic of human rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  That is why it is the "first" amendment.  


Certain of the SLNC board members consistently have denied equal access to this "stakeholder" because of "content-related" motives.  The most recent violations occurred during May of 2008, and during May, June and July of 2006 where board members of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council have consistently violated the above right by refusing to post the above-referenced links on the SLNC website.


The request for these postings is an attempt to offer guidance and support to other stakeholders that may be threatened or abused by government officials, particularly in the area of property rights, since these abuses have been dispensed with alarming regularity to Los Angeles property owners during the past 30 or more years.  One of the websites exposes the agenda and origins of stakeholder councils (1977 Soviet Constitution and 1992 United Nations Agenda 21), facts that have been hidden from the public, and invites SLNC stakeholders to join the Silver Lake chapter of "Freedom 21 Santa Cruz" and Silver Lake chapter of PALS.  (People Against Land Stealing).  The stakeholder council concept was devised for the purpose of advancing Agenda 21, which severely limits property rights and ultimately will destroy them entirely, according to the terms of the U.N. Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development. 


Certain of these board members have responded to these requests with reference to a committee called "Government Liaison Committee" and have stated that this committee must "approve" of the requested links.  The responses indicated that this committee was not meeting at present, and that probably would not even be able to address the request until autumn, 2006.  This stakeholder advised these board members that such "approval" is unnecessary under the law and is an unreasonable obstacle to the individual right of freedom of speech and again requested the postings.  These links provide important "political truths", which is precisely the type of speech that the First Amendment seeks to protect, according to relevant federal case law.


Nevertheless, the board refused to post either of the links, despite the fact that this stakeholder offered to provide technical assistance to relieve any board member of additional responsibility. 


The SLNC website is replete with links for other organizations, including those that espouse a particular political viewpoint. (see below). 


Another request was directly made to the two region 6 representatives of the SLNC to assist with this request.  One of the representatives promptly responded stating that he did not have the technical ability to upload the links.


The other board member eventually responded, but stated that "no policy has been established with respect to website postings" (see attached).  This stakeholder replied that such a "policy" is inapplicable to the current situation as no authority, federal, city or state, can supercede the authority of the United States Constitution.  Moreover, the SLNC currently is replete with website links, links that uniformly express the one-sided political points of view (described below) of the established Los Angeles City Council, Mayor and City Attorney and the individual/s who placed the existing links on the website, thus refuting the claim of "no existing policy".  There is also a link supplied under the picture of one board member that connects the visitor to a private blog site of this individual.  This site, named "Silver Lake at Large", is filled with personal political views of this board member, endorses certain political candidates and is acting to promote the political agendas of City Council members, particularly in the area of implementing Agenda 21 on Sustainable Development. 


**2008 Update – This stakeholder again requested that three links be placed on the SLNC website, but was told that no one had the technical expertise to upload the links.


This stakeholder then volunteered to provide technical assistance and contacted Sarai Molina, the Silver Lake Manager at DONE, who indicated that DONE would provide technical assistance and/or a list of competent webmasters for the board.


Nevertheless, the board…and in particular Laura Dwan whose name appears on the website as the liaison for the "webmaster"…refused to answer my question, "are you saying that I must get approval from the board for these links?"  I have all electronic messages in my files to prove these allegations. 


As of November 1, 2008, these links have not been posted although the first request was made in 2006. 


Requested Remedy:


This stakeholder demands equal access to the SLNC website for the placement of links intended to advise SLNC stakeholders of their rights and equal access for any other stakeholder who should desire to place differing or contrary views to the approved monolithic "party-line views" described above.  This remedy will not only return First Amendment rights to all stakeholders, but will also be a "source of information for the community on community issues and governmental matters", one of the stated goals of the SLNC (see below)


Violation of state law because of exemption from financial disclosure requirements


This section of the grievance is directed at the Los Angeles City Council.  In February of 2003 the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to exempt neighborhood council board members from financial disclosure requirements, i.e. Form 700, the Statement of Economic Interest-abbreviated version, which merely requests a signature from each board member disavowing any monetary interest in holding the board position.  This disclosure requirement is applicable for all elected officials, paid or unpaid… and is for the purpose of avoiding conflict of interest.   Conflict of interest can cause decision-making entities unable to render unbiased opinions in the best interest of the public.  This exemption is also a violation of the Political Reform act and against public policy as being contrary to the goal of transparency in government, and thus sets a dangerous precedent.


Requested Remedy:


Thus, this exemption granted by Los Angeles City Council members must be rescinded in the best interest of the public and neighborhood council board members should be required to submit the "Short Form" 700 along with all other public servants being entrusted with decision-making authority by the people.


Violations of SLNC Mission and Purpose Statement, By-laws, and Ethical Responsibilities of SLNC Board Members


The Los Angeles City Charter of 2000 provided for the institution of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and neighborhood councils.  The stated purpose was to "promote public participation" in the governance function and to make local government "more responsive to public needs".  The grievance procedure from DONE also references a desire to "maintain independence from city hall".


Such a "neighborhood council" was established in the region of Los Angeles, commonly known as "Silver Lake" and established its name as the "Silver Lake Neighborhood Council".  As part of the statutory provisions necessary for certification as an "official" Los Angeles agency, the SLNC established a mission statement and bylaws.  The following are relevant excerpts from this statement and these bylaws:


                        Article II – Mission and Purpose


Mission statement: "The Silver Lake Neighborhood Council will work to honor diversity, build community, forge bonds with neighboring communities, and promote participation in city governance and decision-making processes to improve the quality of life for all of Silver Lake's stakeholders."


Relevant excerpts from by-laws:

" To fairly and faithfully represent the interest of all stakeholders",


"To be a source of information for the community on community issues and governmental matters",         


"To educate, encourage, and facilitate in helping government work better for the community"


"To support the efforts of existing community groups"




                                    Article VI – Ethics


B. "The SLNC board must comply with all local, state and federal laws…all applicable Conflict of Interest Laws, Political Reform Act, and the Government Ethics Ordinance"


C. "…will not discriminate in any of its policies, recommendations or actions against any individual or group on the basis of…political affiliation."


D. "..may not endorse candidates for political office."


Actions contrary to SLNC Mission Statement Goals and SLNC By-laws.


Since the inception of the SLNC these goals have been ignored and subverted by those unelected individuals who had control of the formation process and by some of the subsequently elected board members as described below: 


1.  "…to fairly and faithfully represent the interests of all stakeholders" and to "honor



During the formation process, unelected facilitator Vincent Brook wrote this statement as part of the description of Silver Lake: "We are proud of our liberal political heritage." 


This stakeholder requested a more inclusive statement be written, since obviously not all SLNC stakeholders hold the same political views, and this statement excluded some members, and thus did not "honor diversity", at least diversity of thought.  It was then revised by Mr. Brook to read: "We have a history of liberal politics".  This stakeholder again objected to the discriminatory statement.  Mr. Brook finally changed it to, "We have a history of political activism", but complained, stating that this stakeholder was "the only person that objected", thus showing his reluctance to comply with the request and aggravation at being forced to recognize any views that did not conform to the majority opinion "party line" to which Mr. Brook apparently subscribed.


Another example of the failure of this and other neighborhood councils to "fairly and faithfully" represent the wishes of the people as opposed to the wishes of the politicians is the subject of the "density bonuses" that were forced upon the city during the last Master Plan Update.  The vast majority of Los Angeles residents are opposed to density bonuses because of the obvious deleterious effects on quality of life that such density bonuses will cause.  Yet the alleged "consensus" achieved by the SLNC and other neighborhood councils was to approve the density bonuses that the city politicians and corporate beneficiaries wanted.  Thus, this alleged "consensus" is in direct conflict with the majority view of the people, as measured by informal vote-taking at other public meetings by this stakeholder.  As a matter of fact, there were many objections to density bonuses expressed by Silver Lake stakeholders at a Town Hall Meeting in October of 2003 and these objections were filed with the planning department.  However, those that were responsible for collecting the data and sending it to the planning department (Derek Ryder of SLNC and Bennett Kaiser of GEPNC) vastly minimized the objections and relegated them to the phrase a "vocal minority".  (FYI: Mr. Ryder was an architect by his own admission, and thus had a personal financial interest in supporting redevelopment law, density bonuses, and government subsidized corporate welfare projects.  He also did not own property in Silver Lake, so he had less concern for the effect on quality of life than would someone who owned property and was therefore less mobile).


It is this attempt to substitute this fraudulent "consensus" process for the individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution that is most dangerous.  The City Council and corporate supporters had an agenda to add density well before any "Town Hall" meeting was planned.  Therefore, the neighborhood council mission statement to be "independent" from City Hall has not been realized.  That Town Hall Meeting was merely to give the illusion that our input mattered.  They got the density bonuses and we suffer and that's that.  


(2008 update:  The predictions of those opposed to the density bonuses have been realized.  The freeways and local streets all throughout Silver Lake have been so impacted that it can take a half hour to drive Silver Lake Blvd. in rush hour.  These unlawful "density bonuses" are currently the cause of action of a recently filed class-action lawsuit by the "La Brea Coalition")


The same is true of allegedly "affordable", corporate welfare housing projects.  The majority of Los Angeles residents do not want these projects in their neighborhoods, yet have been forced to submit to the wishes of the politicians and corporate welfare beneficiaries under the fraudulent claim of "helping the poor".  Thus, this and other neighborhood councils have been instrumental in thwarting the wishes of the people in favor of the wishes of the politicians. 


Additionally, in June, 2006 this stakeholder was advised of a meeting of the "Government Affairs Committee", which included an agenda item regarding the use of "eminent domain for private gain", i.e. allowing the government to condemn private property and transfer ownership to other private entities.  There were two board members in attendance, and five other individuals at the meeting.


This stakeholder attended and presented objective facts and information regarding the inadvisability of this practice, i.e. the brochure entitled "Redevelopment: the Unknown Government" (Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform) and volunteered to write a statement of opposition to the practice.  This brochure contained the only objective information submitted at that meeting.  However, both board members in attendance (Jason Lyon and Elizabeth Sharkov) stated their support of the above eminent domain practices…despite the informal "consensus" of the rest of the attendees to oppose it… and refused to state any formal opposition to the practice, other than to perhaps request the clarification of the word "blight" in the current redevelopment law.


Nevertheless, this stakeholder wrote the letter in opposition to the above practice and forwarded to the chairperson of this Government Affairs Committee, who neither circulated it to other committee members nor submitted it to the City Council.  This letter was merely ignored.  The City Council was the intended recipient of such a letter as stated by Ms. Sharkov to "guide the Council" in their up-coming agenda item regarding eminent domain (as if the politicians actually listened to any opposition to their self-serving agenda.) 


This inaction on the part of those board members evidenced their breach of the duty to "fairly and faithfully represent the interests of the stakeholders of Silver Lake" and also evidences undue influence on the part of Councilperson Eric Garcetti and/or other City Councilpersons on these board members, thus preventing the attainment of the stated goal of DONE to achieve "independence from city hall".  The City Council subsequently voted unanimously to oppose any impending legislation that would limit their ability to transfer private property to private corporate entities.  In doing so, the Council thus reflected the only opinion that the chairperson of the Government Affairs Committee" and chairperson of the Urban Design and Preservation were apparently willing to support, i.e. the predetermined decision of the City Council to continue their abhorrent practices of seizing private property on behalf of corporate interests and supplying such corporate interests public monies.  Recent surveys conducted by Castle Coalition (Institute for Justice, Wa. D.C.) reflect overwhelming sentiment on the part of Americans against this type of eminent domain abuse, yet these SLNC board members supported the wishes of the City Council instead, thus demonstrating breach of the duty to represent the Silverlake residents.


2.  "To be a source of information for the community on community issues and

governmental matters", and


"To educate, encourage, and facilitate in helping government work better for the community"


This stakeholder initiated a meeting to discuss the impending intrusion of allegedly "affordable housing" projects in Silver Lake and to present evidence to the community of the fraudulent and illegal actions of Los Angeles politicians, actions which have deprived thousands of "life, liberty and property" in the city.  It was my wish to alert the community of these acts, since local media simply has refused to cover most of it.    


Since I had received certain non-official emails from those in control of the stakeholder email list, such as invitations to "anti-war protests" and requests to declare one presidential candidate "the winner" of a recent debate, I assumed that this list was for the purpose of inviting stakeholders to community meetings of importance.  I made a request for an invitation to be sent out for a meeting to discuss the impending allegedly "affordable housing" corporate welfare projects.  I wanted to discuss this matter openly with my neighbors, without the interference of city hall.  However, because those in control of the list stated their personal approval of and desire for such projects, they refused to honor my request, stating that the list was only for "official" use.  Again, the duty to "fairly and faithfully represent the views of all stakeholders" and to "honor diversity" was breached, and guarantees of "equal protection" and "freedom of speech" were also violated. 


Additionally, the duties to "To be a source of information for the community on community issues and government matters" and "to educate, encourage, and facilitate in helping government work better for the community" were breached.  It is certainly important for the public to know facts regarding government abuse.  Moreover, how can anyone "facilitate in helping government work better" if they are unaware of what the government is doing?


Therefore, the refusal to announce the meeting, and the failure to add the requested links (described above under "Violation of the First Amendment" is also a breach of the stated intentions to "fairly and faithfully represent…", to "honor diversity", "to be a source of information…" and to "facilitate in helping government work better…".  




Conflict of Interest


This stakeholder also demands the disclosure of economic and political interest of all Los Angeles Neighborhood Council board members, in keeping with applicable California statutory provisions for all elected officials, both paid and unpaid.  The continued exemption of these individuals from the "Statement of Economic Interest" (form 700) is a violation of state law, of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, SLNC by-law Article VI – Ethics- B. Conflict of Interest – see above) and is against public policy as discouraging transparency in government.  





The neighborhood council system was mandated by Agenda 21, a United Nations dictum  that has thrust "Sustainable Development Goals" upon American people by executive order (George Herbert Walker Bush and William Jefferson Clinton) without the knowledge or consent of the American people.  The stated goals of Agenda 21 include the ultimate dissolution of private property rights to all but the wealthy "elite" and "politically connected".  The City politicians have refused to disseminate this etiology and merely claim that this is "state law". 


My experience with the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council from the years 2002 until the present is testimony to the realization of these goals. 


Moreover, the neighborhood council system was created by the 1977 Soviet Constitution as an effective means of controlling the Russian people by such historically effective methods as peer pressure, marginalizing "dissenters", including government-connected "plants" at the meetings and socially engineered "visioning meetings".   All of these manipulative techniques have been implemented by the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council System in a fraudulent manner.     


Therefore, I, Carol Knapp of 1817 Micheltorena Street in Los Angeles, am filing this grievance, in accordance with Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment guidelines, against the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council for breaching certain of the duties as stated in the "mission statement" and by-laws of said Neighborhood Council, and for violating applicable federal law, i.e. the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.


The complaint regarding the exemption of N.C. board members from applicable state "conflict of interest" laws is best addressed to the Los Angeles City Council as this governing body was solely responsible for the ill-advised exemption. 




This stakeholder demands equal access to post links on the SLNC website on pertinent community matters, particularly when relevant factual information exists that belie statements or claims of government actors.  The continued denial of this access is a violation of my First Amendment right to freedom of speech and my 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.    


This stakeholder demands that all Neighborhood Council board members in the City of Los Angeles must file form 700, "Statement of Economic Interest", as all other elected officials…paid or unpaid…are required to do. 


This stakeholder demands that no alleged "consensus statement" that has emanated from this or any other neighborhood council meetings be admitted into the public record under the guise of representing the wishes of the community.  If "community input" is desired, a vote count by individuals is the only acceptable measure after a well-publicized opinion poll.  "Consensus-building" in the experience of many knowledgeable sources including this stakeholder, means nothing more than bullying and destruction of Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, property rights and equal protection under the law.  


Thank you for processing this grievance,


Carol Knapp                                        (323) 660-2932

1817 Micheltorena St.

Los Angeles, California