Santa Monicans can expect several changes to their boards and commissions over the next year. And a new Restorative Justice Commission will soon join the roster.
A comprehensive review of city boards and commissions and proposed changes
In January, city staff presented a Boards and Commissions Comprehensive Review, which included several recommendations to achieve greater impact, improve efficiency, simplify staff support, and align with available resources. Several changes will take place swiftly.
Effective on July 1:
- The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Advisory Committee will be permitted to hold its annual meetings jointly with a Council Audit Subcommittee meeting, and the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee (Clean Beaches Committee) will hold its quarterly meetings jointly with the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment (Commission on Sustainability)
- The Housing Commission and the Human Services Commission will be consolidated into a new Housing and Human Services Commission (HHS Commission)
- Seven new members will be appointed
- Two members must be affordable housing residents; one must be age 62 or higher, the other must be unhoused or formerly unhoused
- The Disabilities Commission will remain its own standalone body
- There may be a reduction in members from 11 to seven, with the number being required to have a disability adjusted to at least four
- The Arts Commission and Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (PSROC) will reduce their respective memberships to seven, and expand the age range for the two PSROC commissioners between the ages of 18-22 to 18-25
- Arts Commissioners will no longer be required to be members of the Santa Monica Arts Foundation
- More artistic disciplines will be added as qualifiers for commission appointment
- The Urban Forest Task Force will be converted into a formal commission
- Implement the proposed administrative changes to the general policies and procedures governing boards, commissions, and task forces
- To accommodate more applicants, application deadlines will be extended to not less than one week before the Council meeting when appointments are scheduled
- Subsection G. prohibiting close family relatives of Councilmembers from serving, will be deleted
- Will allow members who have been termed out of service to qualify for re-appointment after one year
- Eliminates the annual boards and commissions dinner, and allows for those bodies to submit work plans and reports if the council’s agenda does not allow time for a presentation
In addition, the council had also asked staff for the following:
- A review of the Landmarks Commission’s work, including a pause in the Mills Act and work in processing Structures of Merit
- Options for Youth representation
- A performance system for boards and commissions, housed in the City Clerk’s Office, measuring efficiencies and positive impacts on policy
- A review of the Airport Commission’s composition and potential conflicts of interests
Concerns have arisen in the past, and are so again, about Airport Commissioners’ residences and their proximity to the airport being an issue, as the financial benefits of airport operation or closure could cloud their judgment in decision-making.
Several speakers addressed the council during public comment to complain about the Airport Commissioners’ lack of aviation or aeronautical knowledge in decision-making.
One speaker, a wide-body airline pilot named Bobby [last name inaudible], complained, “The lack of aviation knowledge is downright insulting.”
The council is also adding a new commission to the catalogue.
Following the city’s work on the Ebony Beach House and financial settlement with the White family, the council also voted on January 27 to establish a Restorative Justice Commission “to advance the development of a programmatic framework for addressing claims of historically rooted harm in Santa Monica,” as stated in the staff report.
The city also committed $3.5 million in one-time funds from the RAND Corporation to support a Restorative Justice Program. The council also directed an additional $2 million to support the program they expect to receive from RAND.
The report states, “the Restorative Justice Commission would be tasked with developing program criteria, eligibility standards, and oversight mechanisms for the broader Restorative Justice Program.”
The city council will appoint the seven-member body. To qualify, applicants will need to reside in the city, have subject matter expertise in restorative justice, or have lived experience relevant to restorative justice.
Council discussion and vote on proposed changes to existing boards and commissions
During the council discussion, interest was raised over the Disability Commission’s response to news that it would remain independent, but at a smaller size. Staff responded that it was mixed, with some members preferring to maintain an 11-member body, while others were receptive to the idea that a 7-member body would better allow the commission to reach a quorum to conduct business.
Councilmember Dan Hall, after expressing appreciation for the move to add genres of art to qualify for the Arts Commission, moved for passage to adopt the proposed package of reforms for existing commissions, with one exception. He did so while asking for the anti-nepotism protections in Section G to be added back, which prohibits close family relatives of Councilmembers from being appointed to Boards or Commissions.
Mayor Caroline Torosis seconded the motion.
But Councilmember Barry Snell found it troubling that the council would prevent relatives of councilmembers from serving, given that they may be subject matter experts.
“Prohibiting relatives just because they are close family relatives, but maybe have an expertise in a particular area, I find that kind of troubling from my standpoint,” he said.
He later disclosed that his wife, who has extensive expertise in the travel business, had to leave her position on the Board of Santa Monica Travel & Tourism simply because he was elected to the city council.
He moved a substitute motion to pass the proposed changes to boards and commissions without Section G. It was seconded by Councilmember Ellis Raskin.
“Let’s be clear about what Section G was,” said Raskin. “It was a targeted attack on a specific commissioner who happened to be the husband of a former councilmember and former mayor. He continued, “It’s discriminatory in a lot of ways to think that spouses and family members of people serving on this dais can’t make substantial contributions to the community.”
He also reminded his colleagues that the councilmember whose husband was appointed and later removed had recused herself on the vote to appoint him.
Councilmember Lana Negrete pointed to one aspect of the public’s distrust in government is the feeling that there’s a lack of transparency and a perception that only a small group of familiar people are involved in decision-making.
“We’ve got plenty of people in this community that we just need to get a hold of to serve on these boards and commissions, and we will find the valuable residents who can serve,” she said.
Snell’s substitute motion passed, 4-3, with Councilmembers Raskin, Natalya Zernitskaya, and Jesse Zwick joining him in the affirmative. Hall, Torosis, and Negrete voted no.
The Restorative Justice Commission
The council then moved on to the issue of the Restorative Justice Commission.
Mayor Torosis asked staff when the council could expect the first appointments to be made, given that the community has been waiting since discussions in January.
City Manager Oliver Chi stated that the idea was passed at the end of January, and it has simply been moving through the process with the other boards and commissions changes. He anticipated it passing on a second reading at their next meeting, and that 30 days later, it would take effect. Once it takes effect, he said, a recruitment process would begin, but the city needs to decide how long that recruitment process should take. He could simply say it would be “this year.”
Chi did state, and was supported by the city attorney, that while on the present timeline the commission wouldn’t come into effect until July 1, a recruitment process could begin now.
“I would like to open the recruitment process ASAP, and I think it would be good for us to see what questions we’re asking people,” said Torosis.
Zernitskaya asked if, like the Reparations and Land Back Task Force, members of the new commission would be financially compensated for their service. She is in favor of compensating them for the “time and energy spent” on their efforts.
“I just think this is a very unique commission, and I want to be mindful of asking folks from marginalized backgrounds to do the heavy lifting without any sort of compensation,” she said.
Torosis cited previous council discussions that affirmed the desire to compensate these commission members.
“Too often, we expect people of color to do work for free, and that is not acceptable to me,” she said. She also made her view clear that the council should not be telling this commission what to do, but that they should be informing the council “what repair looks like to them.”
“We would need to look at this issue a little more to see what we can do to structure it,” responded City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln. She cited a City Charter provision that limits some of what the council can do.
The new commission was approved, 6-0. Councilmember Snell recused himself from this discussion and vote. Snell is the Chair of the Board of the Santa Monica Black Empowerment Association which has the potential to receive funding from future programs of the commission.
Author
About The Author
