Real Stakeholder Service Due at ERNC- A Candidate's View

The Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council election is tomorrow at the Eagle Rock City Hall from 10am until 4pm. I am running for the office of AT-LARGE DIRECTOR and think I am the best candidate for the job. I have 3 years of prior NC board service as Education Director and Secretary which is one part of the picture. Add the fact that I have accumulated more information since last election and being off the board, attending many other meetings, some being those of other NCs, as well as informational/training sessions that have taught me a lot more than when I was on the ERNC board.

During that time that I was not on the board, I found a lot of problems with how ERNC was functioning and wrote a letter to President Michael Nogueira detailing the problems, with bylaws citations to show the discrepancies.

I later put the principal part of the email into an Eagle Rock Patch blog entry that is still online and supports my concerns at "Trying to move the ERNC along for more and better service to it's Stakeholders" Posted by Robert Guevara , August 07, 2013 http://eaglerock.patch.com/groups/the-good-and-bad-of-local-government--and-beyond/p/trying-to-move-ernc-along-for-more-better-serving-the-stakeholders  Note, that the  Brown Act application to "all meetings" appears at two places in the Bylaws, and that was not highlighted in this email of August 2013 "shopping list" of actions that should be taken by the ERNC.

What brought this all back to mind is the simple correction email about now needing an ID that an earlier ERNC email stated was not required to vote. And the stated explanation in that email just did not ring true, deflecting the blame to the City and not in any part the ERNC's blame.

If all depended on the City, maybe inexperience here applies for the mistake as only able to follow what the city directions provide. However, I think it was more a matter of somebody on the ERNC's side not paying attention to what the process is here, or even not knowing the process. More on this a bit further down. This is a symptom of the overall problem in serving stakeholder interests at the best level possible, and I don't see that now.

ERNC PUTS FORTH  A "LESS THAN ATTENTIVE" LEVEL OF INTEREST TO ELECTION DETAILS:

From all that experience, a lot that ERNC has done I have seen as not complying with what should be done. There are situations that are not necessarily illegal but are giving short-shrift to the stakeholders in making communication less that what it could and should be.

Even at the Candidate Forum comments were made by one candidate about the lack of notice that day even on Facebook. The attendance was low, with candidates outnumbering the audience for most of the program. That notice for stakeholders is what NC business is all about and that's why I think, aside from my experience for the office, that there has to be some turnover to put a new attitude of accountability to stakeholders, a duty that should be front and center for any NC.

These NC communication and accountability deficiency issues seems to be pervasive. The email I got yesterday corrects the earlier statement that "no I.D. is needed" to vote. That was just wrong as addresses are needed to sort out eligibility for voting for the proper sub-district.

The correction noted was due to the City informing of the change of what earlier was stated. I can see from being on the board, and even now, that's just  a bit of shifting blame.

 The ERNC, like any NC, has to submit an "Election Stipulation" that tells the supervising body whether it's "documentation" or "affirmation", that means ID based on either a piece of paper, or, one's word.  ERNC submits the form and indicates, "documentation."  That happen at or near step one of the process. It can be seen as such if you look at the online candidate page sidebar, upper right, 'Documentation- No vote by-mail," based on what ERNC submitted.

Maybe not a big deal alone, as somebody did not check their own work on the ERNC side, but the whole concern I have is that, taken together with other actions or lack of actions, this is so characteristic of the weak level of service that should be produced, and it's of little concern to those on the board.

I have a lot more that I see to improve performance and expanding the ERNC impact on city issues, something that still appears foreign to the current board.

I would like your vote to be able to apply what i know to serve stakeholders and for the first time, activate all the bylaws required committees, and providing agendas and minutes for all to see as actions move forward. That does not happen now and it should be plain to board members to see if they had more interest.

Also, the excuse of being a volunteer is never acceptable here as no one is forced to run for office if they don't have the time or interest to serve properly.