Some small changes are coming for neighborhood associations accustomed to receiving a predictable amount of city funding for their own newsletters.
According to a staff report, “Currently, the city provides funding to seven neighborhood organizations through the Neighborhood Organization Grant Program (NGP), which allocates up to $7,000 annually per group for outreach, events, and communications. Allowable uses include newsletters, community meetings, and civic activities. Political activity has always been restricted, and recipients must disclaim on their websites that City funds are not used for political purposes.”
The city’s seven neighborhood associations, representing more than 50,000 households, are:
- Friends of Sunset Park (7,193 households)
- North of Montana Association (5,084 households)
- Ocean Park Association (8,033 households)
- Pico Neighborhood Association (7,476 households)
- Mid City Neighbors (7,972 households)
- Northeast Neighbors (1,622 households)
- Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (12,560 households)
On Tuesday evening, the city council passed a motion to bring back Seascape (read the September 2022 issue here) at least annually to inform the public of neighborhood activity and other programs, to prevent neighborhood associations that receive funding from endorsing or opposing local candidates, to adopt an equity funding model based on a group’s number of households, and to have the city once again sponsor candidate forums in concert with the League of Women Voters
The issue came to a head this summer, when some members of the city council questioned whether the city should fund organizations that make political endorsements, as apparently two of the seven neighborhood associations did in the most recent election cycle.
In July, the council directed city staff to review the NGP and identify options to ensure funding and communications platforms are not used for political purposes. The staff undertook this effort with the following goals in mind:
- Ensure every resident has equitable access to information
- Provide fair and transparent use of taxpayer funds
- Support inclusive community engagement while maintaining compliance with legal standards
- Clarify the boundaries between civic participation and political activity
Using this criterion, the staff developed three options for the city council to consider. They are, as stated in the staff report:
Option 1: Provide Participating Groups With Enhanced Communications Support
- Consider reinstating Seascape magazine as a City-managed publication, with dedicated space for neighborhood content (estimated cost: $200,000 annually).
- Alternatively (or in combination), consider providing each recognized neighborhood group with one annual City-funded postcard mailer (estimated cost: $50,000 annually).
- Continue listing neighborhood groups on City platforms, limited to those in compliance with program terms.
Option 2: Modernized Neighborhood Organization Program
- Maintain modest grant funding but distribute equitably scaled by households (e.g., $0.50 / household) or standardized flat amounts (e.g., $5,000 / group).
- Require formal participation agreements with all groups.
- Limit grant uses to neutral civic activities (mailings, clean-ups, safety planning).
- Establish clear guardrails for any group electing to apply for the NGP program to be recognized as a formal City neighborhood organization:
- Explicit prohibition on political endorsements.
- Five-year ineligibility for groups that engage in such activity, including removal from City publications and communications as a recognized neighborhood organization.
Option 3: In-Kind Support and Civic Engagement Enhancements
- Replace or supplement direct funding with in-kind support, such as fee waivers for community events (block parties, neighborhood cleanups, movie nights).
- Provide City co-sponsorship of eligible neighborhood events.
- Consider reinstating City-hosted election forums, to provide a neutral access program to candidates and create a more inclusive voter engagement process.
Each option comes with its own budgetary considerations.
Dozens of written comments were submitted to the city council by residents. Former Mayor and Councilmember Kevin McKeown wrote a lengthy and thoughtful letter expanding on the history and practices of neighborhood organizations.
Ultimately, McKeown concluded, “The neighborhood groups serve an important function in our community. They were not created by the city, and their independence is part of their relevance. Assisting their outreach to maximize resident participation is an appropriate use of public resources in the public interest, but letting any of the groups use public money for political campaigning is clearly unacceptable. I hope you can come up with definitions and rules that preserve the positive aspects of independent resident organizing without letting public money and the public trust be abused.”
Recreation and Parks Commissioner John C. Smith, writing as a Wilmont Board Member, encouraged the council to adopt Option 2. Smith said, “Council should reject Option 1. $200,00 is too expensive and Seascape would not support neighborhood groups or cover any basic group expenses. Council should also reject Option 3, which only provides money for specific events and nothing for basic group expenses.”
Smith added, “It would be blatantly unfair if this Council punishes other groups for the actions of one or two others. Council already places restrictions on how the money is used. Wilmont has always followed those rules, and we’ve been doing so since our founding 35 years ago in 1990.”
My Santa Monica Next colleague Jason Mastbaum went the other direction, calling for an end to funding neighborhood associations, and not just because some may have become political. He said, “These groups are tiny, exclusionary cliques which are overwhelmingly older and whiter than the population of the city. Other than OPA, the meetings of these groups are mostly the same 10-20 group of longtime regulars each time. If a newcomer who doesn’t share their political views attends a meeting, they’ll be met with overt hostility.” He says he experienced such hostility at a Wilmont meeting last year, as well as being asked to leave a Friends of Sunset Park meeting for doing nothing more than sitting and listening, all because he was perceived to be an opponent of the organization.
Andrew Hoyer, President of Mid-City Neighbors, spoke in public comment, cautioning the council only to prevent endorsements of local elected offices. “Are you going to suggest that the neighborhood groups will no longer be able to endorse a Great Park?!”
“I don’t see the appropriateness, regardless of what’s legal or not, for the city to be subsidizing groups that engage primarily, or substantially, in political or lobbying activity,” said Councilmember Jesse Zwick. He compared the donations currently given to neighborhood associations as akin to funding the Democratic Club, Santa Monicans for Renters Rights, or Santa Monica Forward, which the council would never do.
He also recommended that to receive official recognition by the city, neighborhood groups should be required to submit demographic information on their membership and board representation, as he questions whether they truly represent the makeup of their respective neighborhoods.
Councilmember Dan Hall said he doesn’t care if an organization exercises its rights to endorse as a 501(c)4 organization, though he would prefer the neighborhood groups all be 501(c)3s. He said he also admires the volunteers who serve and lead neighborhood groups. But, he said, “It crossed an ethical line, however, when that same membership list, and the same brand recognition that the taxpayer-funded expansion of, was used for partisan politics through endorsements and opposition of political candidates.”
He then moved for the return of Seascape, and as a condition of recognition and participation in the NGP, groups must not endorse or oppose political candidates, or else lose funding and public recognition for at least five years. He also moved for the equity funding model based on each group’s number of households, and that funding only be used for community building events. Further, he called for the return of a city-sponsored election forum in partnership with the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica.
Councilmember Ellis Raskin seconded the motion, but suggested that “a thriving city” should have neighborhood organizations that advocate on issues that they see affecting their community. He saw Hall’s motion as still allowing for that. He acknowledged that spending on the return of Seascape is high for a moment of fiscal crisis, but argued it is “money that is critically well spent.”
Following some pushback on Seascape and allowable advocacy by Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis talked about the unprecedented level of engagement by the public on this issue, saying it is a sign that “Our neighborhood organizations are a vital part of our civic life.” But she acknowledged public concerns about the groups’ inclusivity and need for boundaries around public funding. She called for a framework that “strengthens trust but maintains neutrality,” and said she feels Hall’s motion does that.
Mayor Lana Negrete said that neighborhood groups are supposed to push back against City Hall, and are not supposed to just be an echo chamber for the city. But she agreed on banning candidate endorsements and for the groups to be open and for meetings to be publicly noted.
Despite one last effort by Zwick to eliminate a return of Seascape from the motion, it ultimately passed unanimously, 7-0.
Author
About The Author
