City of Santa Monica
City Council Meeting
AGENDA
SUE HIMMELRICH
MAYOR
LANA NEGRETE CHRISTINE PARRA
COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER
GLEAM DAVIS PHIL BROCK
COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER
KRISTIN MCCOWAN OSCAR DE LA TORRE
MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCILMEMBER
DAVID WHITE
CITY MANAGER
DOUGLAS SLOAN
CITY ATTORNEY
DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
CITY CLERK
STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR THAT PROMOTE CIVILITY AT ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS:
• Treat everyone courteously; • Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints; • Listen to others respectfully • Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate; • Exercise self-control • Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions
Meetings are broadcast live on CityTV cable channel 16 and on the internet at santamonica.gov. Cable television re-broadcasts air on Thursday and Saturday at 11:30 AM. The agenda will air on CityTV on Saturday and Sunday at 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and on Monday and Tuesday at 12:30 PM and 6:00 PM.
City of Santa Monica Generated: 11/29/2022 10:54 AM Page 2
RULES OF ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (Resolution No.11427(CCS))
WAYS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT
If you are interested in providing public comment at a City Council meeting, there are several ways to participate:
(1) Written public comment. In lieu of oral public comment, the public is strongly encouraged to submit written public comment on agenda items via email to [email protected]. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be available for online viewing. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments. (2) Oral public comment. Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding items on the agenda must be present and submit their name and address (optional) to the City Clerk before the public comment section is opened for that item or before the public hearing is opened where one is required by law. Register to speak at the Speaker Kiosk prior to the meeting. Remarks from the public are limited to a total of 6 minutes per City Council meeting, with a maximum of 2 minutes and a minimum of one minute per item. Except for the author of the request, public comment on 12-items are limited to 1 minute. Except on Public Input, speakers appearing at the meeting in person, may donate 2 minutes to another person present in-person at the meeting, who may speak for a total of 4 minutes on that item.
Both the donor of time and the designated speaker must register at the Speaker Kiosk in person together.
Oral public comment from any one individual is limited to a total of 6 minutes per City Council meeting, with a maximum of 2 minutes per agenda item; under some circumstances, Council may change the maximum to 1 minute per agenda item.
ORDER OF BUSINESS (may not be changed except by majority vote of the City Council.)
1. General Public Input
(members of the public may address the City Council
only on items not on the agenda, but within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the City).
2. Public Comment for Closed Session, Special
Agenda, and Consent Calendar Items Only
(Commendations and Proclamations presented).
3. Closed Session.
4. Special Agenda Items (City Manager’s Report,
Presentations, etc.).
5. Consent Calendar (All items considered in one
motion unless removed by a City Councilmember for
discussion. Public comment shall be heard prior
to City Council discussion).
6. Public Comment on remaining Agenda Items
7. Study Session.
8. Continued Items.
9. Administrative Proceedings.
10. Ordinances:
• 1
st Reading
• 2
nd Reading
11. Staff Administrative Item.
12. Public Hearings.
13. Reports of Boards and Commissions.
14. Resolutions.
15. Written Communications (other than
Reports of Commission and Officers).
16. Councilmember Discussion Items.
Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].
Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.
City of Santa Monica Generated: 11/29/2022 10:54 AM Page 3
AGENDAS
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 250,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2022
MEETING BEGINS AT 6:00 PM
WAYS TO PROVIDE REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT:
Written public comment can be submitted via email to [email protected].
Written comments received prior to 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be available online. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
(This is a special City Council meeting. Public comment is restricted to only items listed on the agenda.)
(Please note that Agenda Items may be reordered during the Council meeting at the discretion of the City Council.)
1. PUBLIC INPUT (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)
. Public input under this item will not be heard at this meeting. This is a special meeting and public input is limited to agenda items only.
2. PUBLIC INPUT (AGENDA ITEMS UNDER CLOSED SESSION, SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS, CONSENT CALENDAR ONLY)
3. CLOSED SESSIONS
3.A. Public Employee Evaluation Government Code Section 54957(b): Title: City Manager
3.B. Public Employee Evaluation Government Code Section 54957(b): Title: City Attorney
4. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS
City of Santa Monica Generated: 11/29/2022 10:54 AM Page 4
4.A. Statement of Apology to the African American Community and Their Descendants
THE FOLLOWING IS THE ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR ITEMS TO BE HEARD NO EARLIER THAN 7:00 P.M.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.)
5.A. City Council - Special Meeting - Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM
6. PUBLIC INPUT ON REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS
8. CONTINUED ITEMS
8.A. Request of the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission to Receive and Review the Reports Provided by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Recommended Action
The Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission has prepared a series of reports and recommendations concerning public safety in Santa Monica, most recently focused on complaint investigations and the status of the Santa Monica Police Department’s implementations of the reforms recommended by the OIR Group following their in-depth after action report concerning the events of May 31, 2020. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and review the reports provided by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission.
8.B. Request of Councilmembers Negrete, Parra, and Brock that the City Manager develop and return to City Council with recommendations for a Poet Laureate program for the City of Santa Monica. The program and recommendations shall be developed in collaboration with the Library Board and Arts Commission. (CONTINUED FROM 11/15/2022)
City of Santa Monica Generated: 11/29/2022 10:54 AM Page 5
8.C. Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. (CONTINUED FROM 11/15/2022)
8.D. Request of Councilmembers Parra, Brock and de la Torre to direct the City Manager to evaluate the impacts and feasibility of changing the Santa Monica Housing Authority Payment Standard basis to Small Area Fair Market Rate and increasing select zip code/unit size categories to 120% SAFMR to mitigate negative impacts as recommended by the Housing Commission by midDecember. (CONTINUED FROM 11/15/2022)
ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at www.smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].
Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the meeting by meeting by mailing them to: City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 or to [email protected]. Written comments received from the public by 2 PM on the day of the City Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting and posted online.
City Hall and the Council Chamber are wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability related accommodations (i.e. sign language interpreting, access to an amplified sound system, etc.), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or TDD: (310) 917-6626 at least 3 days prior to the scheduled meeting.
Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.
Santa Monica Blue Bus Lines #2, #3, #5, #9 and the EXPO Line serve City Hall. Parking is available on Main Street, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 29, 2022
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Special Agenda Items Subject: Statement of Apology to the African American Community and Their Descendants
Prepared By: Christopher Smith, Assistant to the City Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents (Final version 11-29-2022) (2)
4.A
Packet Pg. 6
STATEMENT APOLOGIZING TO SANTA MONICA’S AFRICAN AMERICAN
RESIDENTS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS
The City of Santa Monica acknowledges over a century of racial injustice and discrimination against African Americans that have resulted in systemically racist policies that continue to exclude and discriminate against African Americans:
Beginning in the 1880s, African Americans migrated from the southern United States to Santa Monica to escape Jim Crow racial restrictions lured by advertisements promoting the benefits of Southern California, which included employment, good climate, health, beautiful landscapes, and a more liberated lifestyle.
Santa Monica’s first African American residents settled near the railroad tracks on the edge of Santa Monica’s original townsite, which is adjacent to the freeway in downtown today, and established their own church in Santa Monica at Fourth and Bay Streets in 1908, leading to a migration south as far as Strand Street and including the area known as the Belmar Triangle, where the Santa Monica Civic Center and parts of Santa Monica High School are today.
Santa Monica is believed to have been the first African American settlement in any seaside community in the region. Due to racism and de facto segregation, African Americans could only enjoy the sand and sun at Bay Street Beach, also known as “The Ink Well,” a place of celebration and pain for the Black community.
In 1922, Santa Monica created its first zoning ordinance, and rushed its adoption before it could be completed for the purpose of denying building permits to a group of wealthy African Americans who wished to establish a bathhouse on a Santa Monica Beach; and further weaponized the new ordinance to close down a popular Black-owned jazz club in the Belmar Triangle.
Public meetings reported in Santa Monica papers in the 1920s presented how zoning could ensure that white wealthy and middle-class residents could keep people of color out of their neighborhoods without violating United States Constitutional provisions for equal rights by rationalizing exclusionary provisions in the name of safety and protection of property value.
Single-unit residential zones referred to today as R1 did not permit additional units on site to bring in income to support the property, ensuring that only the wealthiest could move in; and for the same reason, commercial uses of any kind were barred from residential districts.
The industrial zone, up the middle of the city adjacent to the railroad tracks where noxious uses of all kinds were permitted, also allowed single and multi-family residential uses; establishing the only area in the city where Blacks and other people of color were permitted to live and establish businesses.
4.A.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents (Final version 11-29-2022) (2) [Revision 1] (5497 :
Unabashedly racist realtors of the 1920s who wanted to ensure the new zoning provisions were successful at segregating races in the city committed to the insertion of a Caucasians-only clause in every deed they wrote for a Santa Monica property from that point forward.
The 1920’s was a time of enormous population growth in California, which included a surge of new African American migrants to Santa Monica, resulting in a new Black neighborhood that thrived east of Fourteenth Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard with new churches and a commercial corridor to serve it along Broadway.
To boost recovery from the Great Depression in the 1930s, the Federal Housing Authority began to offer mortgage insurance for homeowners on 30-year amortized loans that allowed the purchase a home for what it would cost to rent, but in order to “protect” the government from risk, loan requirements included a compulsory Caucasians-only deed restriction resulting in a federal-government-subsidized, nation-wide racial segregation program that created new, all-white neighborhoods in Santa Monica.
The Homeowner’s Loan Corporation created maps that marked neighborhoods where people of color lived and worked in red to indicate they were poor loan risks, barring African Americans and other people of color from home improvement or business loans for property they already owned, forcing responsible, employed homeowners of color to endure decades of deferred maintenance as they watched their property values fall.
The result of deed restrictions, prohibitive zoning, and racist realtor practices, African Americans only found homes to rent or purchase in certain integrated sections of Santa Monica between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard, at the edge of downtown, in the Belmar Triangle, and in a discreet section of Ocean Park through the 1950s.
Participating enthusiastically in a nationwide program of urban renewal in the 1950s, City of Santa Monica targeted neighborhoods of color for condemnation; Santa Monica African Americans who were thriving in the Belmar Triangle had homes and businesses condemned and taken away by eminent domain to make way for the city’s new Civic Auditorium and Santa Monica High School expansion; and some structures that had been owned or occupied by African Americans were burned down on site.
In the 1960s the new Santa Monica Freeway cut through the heart of the city predominantly occupied by African Americans and people of Mexican descent, depriving 550 families of longtime investments in homes and businesses; and cutting off Black-owned businesses on the Broadway commercial corridor from the community they served so they dwindled away.
Santa Monica Blacks endured laws and policies that enforced racial inequities and selective access to rights including choice of profession, choice of housing, and opportunities for land ownership by a well-organized movement both nationwide and in Santa Monica in particular, the dreams and aspirations of Santa Monica’s Black families were thwarted; in 1948 the
4.A.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents (Final version 11-29-2022) (2) [Revision 1] (5497 :
Supreme Court declared restrictive covenants to be unconstitutional, but redlining and other forms of discrimination continued until the Civil Rights Act of 1968 made them illegal.
The effectiveness of racial deed covenants and zoning kept Santa Monica’s African American population at only 2% through the 1930s, much lower than the national average that ranged from 11-13% and has crept up to only about 4% today.
Throughout the history of the City of Santa Monica African Americans showed resilience and strength by establishing a strong community with structures to support each other as they endured the onslaughts of racism including numerous churches, a local chapter of the N.A.A.C.P., clubs and organizations including the Philomatheans and a chapter of the Masons, and the wisdom and leadership of African Americans from Santa Monica who broke through discriminatory structures to become educators, doctors, real estate brokers, postal workers, union organizers, and more.
The legacy of racial discrimination and exclusion through single-family R1 zoning which covers significant land area in Santa Monica, prohibits apartments or multi-family housing in certain areas continues to embed racist and exclusionary mechanisms in our laws.
The legacy of restrictive covenants still mars the Santa Monica landscape today with patterns of racial segregation in that the city’s highest resource neighborhoods remain disproportionately populated with white people.
The legacy of racist policies and systems in Santa Monica has resulted in a number of families who have generations of history with the city but were forced to leave and cannot afford to return.
The legacy of racist policies and systems that were rationalized as ways to promote safety and protection of property value in Santa Monica is a conviction that those polices actually do promote safety and protection, when in fact they are the tools of segregation and exclusion.
In the recent years, across the country, we are witnessing a national movement of grassroots leaders pushing and advocating for all levels of Government to demonstrate commitment to the systematic change necessary to dismantle structures responsible for racial disparities and white supremacist policy.
Cities all over the country are realizing that communities lose their character when they lose their socio-economic and racial diversity and are taking time to reflect on the municipal and state-level decisions from the past that had the impact of significantly reducing the communities of color and Black people.
4.A.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents (Final version 11-29-2022) (2) [Revision 1] (5497 :
THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA:
Apologizes to all African Americans who have lived in the city and endured racism engendered through government codes and racism tolerated by city policies.
Understands that real change will occur when all people recognize the impacts of systemic discrimination in the City of Santa Monica and recognizes and takes responsibility for personal and direct contributions to discrimination whether intentional or inadvertent, culminating with an apology that comes from both the City of Santa Monica, as well as every citizen enjoying her advantages.
Acknowledges over a century of racial injustice and discrimination against African Americans that have resulted in systemically racist policies that continue to exclude and discriminate against African Americans.
Recognizes the contributions and resilience of the African American community and its commitment to fostering reconciliation and friendship, and to protecting civil rights for all.
Resolves to rectify the lingering consequences of discriminatory city policies, and to use this Statement of Apology as a teaching moment for the public to move forward towards justice for all.
Commits to programs, policies, and investments that can educate the public about this history of discrimination and its ongoing consequences, and to ferreting out and overturning systemically racist policies to ensure that the pain caused by several decades of racial injustice and discrimination against African Americans and other people of color is mitigated to the extent possible.
4.A.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents (Final version 11-29-2022) (2) [Revision 1] (5497 :
1 November 15, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 5:36 p.m., on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete (arrived at 5:38 p.m.)
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: City Manager David White
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:37 p.m., with all members present except Councilmember Negrete. Councilmember Parra led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA MANAGEMENT
Councilmember Negrete arrived
at 5:38 p.m.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to hear Item 16.F. in conjunction with Item 4.C., and to allow public comment for these items to be heard when the item is called. As well as to allow the public speakers for Item 16.G., who are students, to be heard during the first public input section. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, with all members present.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
McCowan, to continue the board and commission appointment, Item
16.A. to a future meeting. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.
PUBLIC INPUT FOR
CLOSED SESSION, SPECIAL
AGENDA ITEMS AND
CONSENT CALENDAR
ONLY:
There was no one present for comment on closed session items.
Member of the public Jerry Rubin commented on special agenda items.
Member of the public Jonathan Foster commented on consent calendar items.
5.A
Packet Pg. 11
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 November 15, 2022
Councilmember de la Torre
excused at 5:45 p.m.
Councilmember de la Torre recused himself from hearing public comment on Item 16.G. because his son is a member of the Samohi wrestling team.
Members of the public Kai Necci, Donny Szeghy, Isaac Silva and Jaxson Lockwood commented on Item 16.G.
PROCLAMATIONS/
COMMENDATIONS
4.A. Commendations: Supervisor Sheila Kuehl &
Assemblymember Richard Bloom, was presented.
CLOSED SESSIONS
Councilmember de la Torre
returned at 5:53 p.m.
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 6:05 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 7:45 p.m., with all members present, to report the following:
3.A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Gov. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06812
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with a Settlement Agreement in the amount of $215,000. The City Attorney reported that Settlement agreement No. 11334 (CSS) in the amount of $215,000 was approved unanimously by voice vote, with all members present.
3.B. Conference with Labor Negotiator: Government Code
Section 54957.6 -- Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager David White, Chief People Officer Lori Gentles, and Human Resources Manager Robert Scalise; Bargaining Units:
FEMA-Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association.
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.
3.C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Gov. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Santa Monica v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV36027
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.
3.D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Gov. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): John VMA Doe, et al. v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Case No. 22STCV30598; John TAU Doe, et al. v.
5.A
Packet Pg. 12
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 November 15, 2022
Santa Monica PAL, et al., Case No. 22STCV19401; John Doe 1-4 v.
Does 1-50, Case No. 21STCV34537; John Doe 5 and John Doe 6 v.
Does 1-50, Case No. 22STCV08765; John JH Doe v. Police
Activities League, et al., Case No. 21STCV24491; John Doe (D.C.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., Case No. 21STCV47551; John Doe (MU) v. Santa Monica PAL, et al., Case No. 22STCV17022; John Doe #1, John Doe #2 and John Doe #3 v.
Santa Monica PAL, et al., Case No. 22STCV03113; John Doe 142 v.
Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3, Case No. 22STCV01268; Jose Villaseñor v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Case No. 22STCV17835
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.
3.E Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9:
(Police Officers Association v. City).
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.
SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS: 4.B City Manager Report, was not heard.
4.C Proclamation for United Against Hate Week, was presented.
STATEMENT OF APOLOGY 16.F Request of Mayor Himmelrich for the Council to adopt the attached Statement of Apology to African American Residents and their Descendants and direct the City Manager to commit to programs, policies, and investments that can educate the public about this history of discrimination and its ongoing consequences, and to ferreting out and overturning systemically racist policies to ensure that the pain caused by several decades of racial injustice and discrimination against blacks and other people of color is mitigated to the extent possible. Mayor Himmelrich further requests Council to direct the City Manager to post this apology on the City’s website and in a public location within the City, was presented.
Members of the public Robbie Jones, LaVerne Ross, Dr. Shirley Compton, Jamilla Williams, Denise Barton, Craig Miller, Janet McKeithen, Angela Scott, Jerry Rubin, Mark Brandon, Maurice Maxwell, Andrina Sales, and Joanne Berlin commented on Items 4.A. and 16.F.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to adopt the recommendation. The motion was unanimously approved by
5.A
Packet Pg. 13
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 November 15, 2022
voice vote, with all members present.
BREAK On order of the Mayor, the Council took a short break at 9:01 p.m., then returned at 9:20 p.m., with all members present, except Councilmember Negrete.
REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
There was nothing to report on Council travel.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Negrete returned
at 9:21 p.m.
All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Items 5.A and 5.F., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
TELECONFERENCE
MEETINGS
5.B. Adoption of Resolution No. 11482 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA MAKING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY AB 361 TO
PERMIT COUNCIL AND CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, AND
TASK FORCE MEETINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE CONDUCTED
BY TELECONFERENCE WHILE THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY
REMAINS IN PLACE”, was adopted.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution making the findings required by AB 361 to continue teleconference meetings of the City Council and City Boards, Commissions, and Task Force.
WATER/WASTEWATER
PROJECT
5.C. Award RFP #SP2666 to DRP Engineering, Inc. for the design of Water and Wastewater replacement project, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award RFP #SP2666 to DRP Engineering, Inc., to provide engineering design services, develop construction documents, and provide engineering support during the construction of the water, wastewater and recycled water main projects for fiscal years 2022- 23 through 2026-27 for the Public Works Department.
5.A
Packet Pg. 14
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 November 15, 20
22 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11335 (CCS) with DRP Engineering, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,322,991 (including $120,271 contingency) for two years, with three additional one-year renewal options in the amount of $2,136,503 (including $194,227 Contingency) on the same terms and conditions for a total amount not to exceed $3,459,494 over a 5-year period with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
3. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement/Reconstruction), of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The project consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing water and sewer main facilities where the new replacement will be in the same locations and will have substantially the same purpose as the structures replaced.
VEHICLES 5.D. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue purchase orders for the purchase of various replacement vehicles, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a purchase order with Tennant Company for the purchase of six scrubbers for the Public Works Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250(b) and is for a total amount not to exceed $936,260;
2. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a purchase order with Nixon-Egli Equipment Co. for the purchase of one DZero Plus Electric Sidewalk Sweeper for the Public Works
Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section
2.24.250(c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $385,032;
3. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a purchase order with National Auto Fleet Group for the purchase of one bin truck for the Public Works Department and two sports utility vehicles (SUVs) for the Records and Election Services
Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section
2.24.250(c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $188,557; and
4. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a purchase order with Los Angeles Truck Centers (DBA Velocity) for the
purchase of two front loader trucks for the Public Works Department. This recommended award is made as an exception
5.A
Packet Pg. 15
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 November 15, 2022
to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section
2.24.250(c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $991,110.
DISPOSAL SERVICES 5.E. Award RFP for Landfill Trash Disposal Services to Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., dba Athens Services and Chiquita Canyon, LLC, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award RFP# 313 to Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. dba Athens Services for landfill trash disposal services for the Public Works Department;
2. Award RFP# 313 to Chiquita Canyon, Inc., dba: Chiquita Canyon, LLC for landfill trash disposal services for the Public Works Department;
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute
Agreement No. 11336 (CCS) with Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., dba Athens Services, in an amount not to exceed $3,279,863 (including a 15% contingency) for two years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute
Agreement No. 11337 (CCS) with Chiquita Canyon, Inc., dba:
Chiquita Canyon, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $4,575,489 (including a 20% contingency) for two years, with three additional one-year renewal options in the amount of
$7,320,783 on the same terms and conditions for a total amount not to exceed $11,896,272 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
5. Staff recommends the Council adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section15301 and 15308 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
POLICE DEPARTMENT 5.G. Approval of 1st Modification of Agreement No. 11338 (CCS) with Flying Lion for Drone as a First Responder Program, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #4957 in the amount of $136,000 with Flying Lion Incorporated (FLI) to provide air support services for the Police Department. This will result in a twoyear amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $181,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
5.A
Packet Pg. 16
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 November 15, 2022
SENIORS PROJECT 5.H. Approval of First Modification to Alta Planning and Design Professional Services Agreement for Program Services for the Active Aging-Safe Routes for Seniors Project, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Professional Services Agreement (PSA) #10949 (CCS) with Alta Planning and Design for the continuation of Program Services for the Active Aging-Safe Routes for Seniors Project for the Department of Transportation. This will result in a one-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $378,127, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
TRAFFIC SAFETY 5.I. Authorization to accept Grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $290,000 from the California Office of Traffic Safety for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program in the Police Department.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to accept the grants and all grant renewals.
3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.
FIRE DEPARTMENT 5.J. Award RFP to provide professional services to assist Los Angeles Area Fire Chief’s Association Regional Training Group Fire Service Training Officer hosted by Santa Monica Fire, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award RFP #325 for professional services to Fire Resources LLC, to assist Los Angeles Area Fire Chief’s Association Regional Training Group hosted by Santa Monica Fire Department; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute professional service Agreement No. 11339 (CCS) with Fire Resources LLC, in an amount not to exceed $370,000 for a twenty-four month period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval and state homeland security grant funding.
5.A
Packet Pg. 17
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 November 15, 2022
MINUTES 5.K. City Council Minutes- Special Meeting - May 5, 2020 3:00 PM, were approved.
MINUTES 5.L. City Council Minutes- Regular Meeting - May 12, 2020 5:30 PM, were approved.
MINUTES 5.M. City Council Minutes- Regular Meeting - May 26, 2020 5:30, were approved.
MINUTES 5.N. City Council Minutes - Special Meeting - November 1, 2022 6:00 PM, were approved.
MINUTES 5.O. City Council Minutes of September 29, 2020 5:30 PM, were approved.
CUSTODIAL SERVICES 5.A. Authorization of Contract Modification for Citywide Custodial Services, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to Agreement #10534 in the amount of $2,240,069 with UNISERVE Facilities Services Corp., for custodial services for various City locations. This would result in a 7-year amended agreement through April 30, 2024 with a new total amount not to exceed $9,953,390 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
Pulled by Councilmember Brock to ask questions of staff including: if this is an item involving meeting and confer with the unions, how can this contract be extended at this time; how many workers are being displaced through this service; is this displacing any custodial workers that would normally be at these locations; how long has the hybrid pilot been in effect; is the city saving money by doing this; how many custodial employees work citywide at the various sites; and, are we adding anything to the services that would address cleanliness and protocols as a result of the pandemic.
Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to approve the recommended action. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5.A
Packet Pg. 18
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 November 15, 2022
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES
5.F. Annual Reporting of Development Impact Fees, was
presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the FY 2021-22 Annual Reporting of Development Impact Fees per the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000-66025) and the FY 2021- 22 Child Care Linkage Fee Report per SMMC Chapter 9.65.
Councilmember Brock pulled this item to acknowledge the Rec and Park fees that are available and would like to provide direction to staff to use some of those impact fees received to create additional Pickleball courts.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre, to approve the recommended action. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC INPUT ON
REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS:
Member of the public Anna Dailey commented on Item 10.B.
Members of the public Olga Zurawska (time donated by Denise Barton), Tricia Crane, Eve Lopez (time donated by Kate Scott) commented on Item 16.D.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
KIOSK PROGRAM
8.A. Adoption of Resolution No. 11483 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DECLARING ITS INTENT TO AWARD A DIGITAL
WAYFINDING AND OUT-OF-HOME ADVERTISING KIOSK
FRANCHISE TO BIG OUTDOOR”, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15311 (Accessory Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in accordance with the
Environmental Review section of this report; and
2. Adopt the attached Resolution of Intent declaring the Council’s intent to hold a public hearing on December 13, 2022 to award a franchise to BIG Outdoor for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a digital wayfinding and out-of-home advertising
5.A
Packet Pg. 19
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 November 15, 2022
kiosk network for a 20-year term, per the terms and conditions stated in the resolution.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: has there already been a protest filed; did the final comparisons include both companies best and final offers; what are the options for selecting one over the other; can the city continue to negotiate to get a better offer from the company that is selected; is it legal for the Council to select the company that is presenting a better offer after the selection was made public; are the Council’s three options to choose the company recommended by the staff, go with the other bidder, including their most recent bid to indemnify their kiosks, or reject both and go back out to start the bid process over; is there any risk for reputational harm if we decide to scrap the bid and start over for a rebid; why would we throw out a thorough process and go back out to rebid; is there a way to calculate the cost of staff time and the outside consultant time and cost that went into this RFP; do we have any reason to believe that either of these companies is not capable of regularly updating technology as it becomes available; what did staff base the level of experience on to provide the recommendation for Big Outdoor; in order to come up with the dollar amounts, wouldn’t a company need to have experience to produce the advertisers; does a company who has more experience in advertising also have more space available for community uses; was there consideration to the software being used; has staff evaluated that Big Outdoors will be able to deliver on the cash promise, and if there is anything staff can do to expedite the installation of these kiosks; and, given that some kiosks have to go before the Coastal Commission, what is the realistic timeframe for them to be delivered.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
concern about Big Outdoor not having enough experience with the type of kiosk that is needed in this community as compared to the other company; appreciation that in this case it appears that the public/private partnership will benefit the city; and, the importance that we need to maintain the appearance of following a fair process in order to maintain our integrity as a city.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to adopt the staff recommendation, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5.A
Packet Pg. 20
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 November 15, 2022
ORDINANCES:
PUBLIC CAMPING
10.A. Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Ordinance No. 2728 (CCS) entitled “AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING
SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
4.08.095, PROHIBITION AGAINST CAMPING IN PUBLIC
PLACES, TO CLARIFY: (1) THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
SECTION’S PROHIBITIONS, AND (2) THE DEFINITION OF
“CAMP FACILITY”, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of Exemption pursuant to 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
2. Introduce for adoption an Emergency Ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.095, Prohibition against camping in public spaces (“Section 4.08.095”), to clarify: (1) the applicability of the section’s prohibitions in line with recent case law; and (2) the definition of “Camp Facility.” Questions asked and answered of staff included: is it defined that items for sleeping are things that you can carry, and does this mean we are now going to start allowing setting up camping.
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre, to adopt a finding of Exemption pursuant to 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and to introduce and adopt on first reading of the ordinance reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ZERO EMISSION DELIVERY
ZONE PILOT
10.B. Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Lessons Learned; Introduction of First Reading of an Ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.1055 to Authorize the Use of Remote-Controlled Robotic Personal Delivery Devices; Adoption of Emergency Ordinance No. 2729 (CCS) entitled “AN
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.12.1055 TO EXTEND THE
MORATORIUM ON THE DEPLOYMENT AND OPERATION
OF AUTONOMOUS DELIVERY VEHICLES OR DEVICES ON
5.A
Packet Pg. 21
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 12 November 15, 2022
SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS OF TRAVEL”, and
Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Contract No. 11340 (CCS) Extension with Automotus to continue Curb Management Services, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.1055 to authorize the operation of remote-controlled personal delivery devices (PDDs) and prohibit the operation of autonomous delivery devices; and
2. Adopt an emergency ordinance extending the moratorium prohibiting the operation of autonomous delivery devices through January 30, 2023; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute a second modification to the agreement with Automotus to extend an existing license agreement and software as a service (SaaS) agreement through December 31, 2024, to allow for continued study of curb management via Automotus curbside cameras. There are no costs associated with this agreement.
The Assistant City Attorney read a correction into the record regarding an error in the resolution regarding the Municipal Code section. The correct number should be 3.12.1055.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: under this extension, would other companies be able to be participate; are there other companies in the space, that are not coming before Council; do we have a sense of why some of the larger corporations did not participate in this pilot; do we have a program to connect the delivery companies with local businesses, or do they have to do it on their own; what are the stats on incidents and accidents, and do we have any data; where is Coco located, is it in Santa Monica, or are they out of town somewhere operating the devices; is it true that according to State law, these types of vehicles are not allowed on the sidewalk; are we prioritizing bots over pedestrians; how does a resident notify a city about issues that occur with these devices on our public streets; will there be some sort of advertising on the device that provides a number or information on how to report a device that is violating the law; have we audited the video recordings to make sure that the information is not improperly being maintained or used illegally; is the percentage being taken from the businesses higher than what was being charged by other methods of delivery; and, is there some sort of balance between the amount of people versus the amount of devices on the street.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
5.A
Packet Pg. 22
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 13 November 15, 2022
observation that Coco bots are very courteous; they take up less space than the other delivery services in cars; if we didn’t have an accident recently, this wouldn’t be a big deal; staff to gather the data, and continue this item and bring it back on the December 13th meeting; Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to:
1) introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.1055 reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof; 2) adopt an emergency ordinance extending the moratorium prohibiting the operation of autonomous delivery devices through January 30, 2023; and, 3) authorize the City Manager to execute a second modification to the agreement with Automotus to extend an existing license agreement and software as a service (SaaS) agreement through December 31, 2024, to allow for continued study of curb management via Automotus curbside cameras. There are no costs associated with this agreement. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Brock
ABSENT: None
Direction was given to staff to return with data on incidents and accidents from Coco to the City Council within two weeks.
RESOLUTIONS:
PUBLIC SAFETY REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION
13.A Request of the Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission to Receive and Review the Reports Provided by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission, was continued to the November 29
th meeting.
Recommended Action
The Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission has prepared a series of reports and recommendations concerning public safety in Santa Monica, most recently focused on complaint investigations and the status of the Santa Monica Police Department’s implementations of the reforms recommended by the OIR Group following their in-depth after action report concerning the events of May 31, 2020. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and review the reports provided by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission.
COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
AIRPORT COMMISSION
16.A. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Airport Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2024, was continued to a future meeting.
AGENDA MANAGEMENT Motion by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, seconded by Mayor
5.A
Packet Pg. 23
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 14 November 15, 2022
Himmelrich, to continue Items 16.B., 16.D. and 16.E. to the November 29th meeting. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.
POET LAUREATE
PROGRAM
16.B. Request of Councilmembers Negrete, Parra, and Brock that the City Manager develop and return to City Council with recommendations for a Poet Laureate program for the City of Santa Monica. The program and recommendations shall be
developed in collaboration with the Library Board and Arts Commission, was continued to the November 29th meeting.
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF
CITIES
16.C. Designation of a voting delegate for the National League of Cities Annual Business Meeting being held on Saturday, November 19 in Kansas City, MO, was presented.
Councilmember Brock was appointed as the voting delegate and Councilmember Parra was appointed as the alternate voting member.
NEIGHBORHOOD
ORGANIZATIONS/BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
16.D. Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials, was continued to the November 29th meeting.
HOUSING AUTHORITY 16.E Request of Councilmembers Parra, Brock and de la Torre to direct the City Manager to evaluate the impacts and feasibility of changing the Santa Monica Housing Authority Payment
Standard basis to Small Area Fair Market Rate and increasing select zip code/unit size categories to 120% SAFMR to mitigate negative impacts as recommended by the Housing Commission by mid- December, was continued to the November 29th meeting.
5.A
Packet Pg. 24
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 15 November 15, 2022
COUNCIL FUNDS
Councilmember de la Torre
excused at 11:35 p.m.
16.G Request of Councilmembers Brock and Parra that the City Council allocate $5,000 of their Discretionary Funds to the Samohi Wrestling Program, a 501 (c)(3). The funding will be used to offset costs related to transportation, tournament fees, lodging for out of town tournaments and equipment, thereby allowing all students on the team to participate in all activities for the season, was presented.
Councilmember de la Torre recused himself from this item because his son is a member of Samohi’s wrestling team.
Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to adopt the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember de la Torre
ARTS COMMISSION 16.H Recommendation to accept Jeff Swimmer's resignation from the Arts Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was presented.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to accept the resignation with regret.
The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present, except Councilmember de la Torre.
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. in memory of Barbara Levin Himmelrich.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor
5.A
Packet Pg. 25
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 15, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 29, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David White, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission to Receive and Review the Reports Provided by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Recommended Action
The Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission has prepared a series of reports and recommendations concerning public safety in Santa Monica, most recently focused on complaint investigations and the status of the Santa Monica Police Department’s implementations of the reforms recommended by the OIR Group following their in-depth after action report concerning the events of May 31, 2020. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and review the reports provided by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission.
Prepared By: Christopher Smith, Assistant to the City Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ B. Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 C. Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final
D. Written Comment
8.A
Packet Pg. 26
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Derek Devermont, Chair of the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Subject: Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission Annual Update In February 2020, Council voted to create the Santa Monica Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (PSROC). PSROC was designed to provide civilian oversight of SMPD and to evaluate how the city approaches law enforcement. Since its inception, PSROC has created numerous committees, held multiple hearings, and submitted six reports to Council, two of which are attached to this memo. These reports were authored by either the Commission or the Commission's Inspector General (IG).
These reports addressed the following:
1) SMPD's response to the OIR 5/31/2020 report-Commission Authored 2) SMPD's complaints process-Commission Authored
3) SMPD policy surrounding and use of bodycam technology-Commission Authored 4) SMPD's possession and use of military equipment pursuant to AB 481-Commission Authored
5) OIR report on SMPD's progress in implementing IG proposed reforms-IG Authored 6) OIR audit of SMPD complaint process-IG authored
This memo will focus on a few of these topics.
POLICIES AND USE OF BODYCAM TECHNOLOGY
SMPD uses impressive bodycam technology. Perhaps most impressive is how a single officer activating his camera will start the cameras of other officers in the area. This prevents officers, intentionally or unintentionally, from failing to activate their cameras.
PSROC proposed reforms to remove undue officer discretion regarding what is recorded. The Commission heard from officers that they are trained to decide when to turn a camera off in situations involving witnesses or victims. PSROC feels this discretion should be eliminated.
SMPD responds with a genuine and valid concern for the privacy of witnesses and victims. This privacy, however, is already protected under current law. Cases involving sex crimes, minors,
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5495 : PSROC Reports) etc., are not subject to public record requests. Additionally, such footage is usually subject to a court's protective order preventing the distribution of protected materials.
PSROC also learned prosecutors prefer to have witness/victim interviews recorded. With the passage of time, memories fade and become warped. Bodycam footage refreshes the memory of those that would testify and prevents inconsistencies that defense lawyers will use. As court cases drag on, a preserved video record prevents the downfalls of time.
There are instances when an officer should not have his camera running (bathroom breaks, interacting with family, etc.), but PSROC feels the cameras should be running absent these circumstances.
PSROC offers drafts of reports to SMPD for input. SMPD wrote a written response to PSROC's report on bodycams and submitted it to Council. It is important to note they responded to a PSROC draft never submitted to Council. Instead, SMPD replied to an initial PSROC draft provided solely for input. The final PSROC draft submitted to the Council addressed many of SMPD's concerns.
COMPLAINTS
PSROC had many hearings on SMPD's complaint process. Council was provided a report with the Commission's findings. The work done in this area shows how SMPD and PSROC working together can benefit the city.
In PSROC's hearings, it was discovered SMPD lacked a record-keeping/tracking system for complaints that were handled informally or quickly dismissed by a supervisor. If an intended complainer was turned away by an officer, a record was not kept of the interaction nor the attempt to file a complaint. The absence of a system prevented effective auditing and oversight.
To SMPD's credit, they have acknowledged the gap and taken great strides to fill it. SMPD has acquired new software that will track every complaint and ensure interested parties within the department and outside are notified of progress. Additionally, all complainers will be provided a form with a reference number to draft their complaints. Once completed, the complainer is provided a copy of the form for future reference,
SMPD and PSROC worked together in this specific circumstance, and the community benefitted.
PSROC still believes areas of concern remain. The Commission tasked the IG with auditing ten complaints to see if they were processed and adjudicated in a manner that was fair to the complainer, the community, AND THE OFFICER. It is important to note that many of the audited complaints were received under the leadership of a previous Chief of Police.
The IG wrote a report, attached to this memo, and found areas of concern. PSROC found the time taken to process complaints to be inexcusably long. Most took ten months or longer.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5495 : PSROC Reports) Witnesses and complainers were only contacted then. As a result, the potential for faded memories, interest, and loss of contact with relevant parties increases exponentially.
Also, relevant evidence was not obtained or kept in the file. Video footage, pictures, and other records were inexplicably left out of the file preventing an accurate audit of the fairness of SMPD's conclusions.
Perhaps most troubling is the limiting of the scope of the complaint. If an investigator found misconduct by another officer not initially subject to the complaint during the investigation of a complaint, no additional action was taken to hold the malfeasant officer accountable. A glaring example is in the report of a seemingly intentional attempt to hide the use of force by filing it inappropriately in an area where no one would notice. When it was discovered the use of force wasn't filed as a "use of force," the officer who errored was not held accountable.
AB 481-POSSESSION AND USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
In response to Council's referral, PSROC investigated SMPD's possession and use of military equipment. Commissioner Angela Scott and Vice Chair Centeno jointly wrote a report that found possession of all AB 481 equipment in SMPD's arsenal appropriate.
Of particular concern was the famous "Bearcat." This is an intimidating vehicle, and the Commission questioned whether a less militaristic alternative could serve the purpose and function of the bearcat. It was discovered that alternative vehicles would cost twice as much as the bearcat, require an additional vehicle, and couldn't provide the medical services of the bearcat. SMPD was forthright and responsive.
MAY 31, 2020 OIR REPORT
Recently, the IG was tasked with auditing SMPD's progress in implementing the recommended reforms found in the previous OIR 5/31/2020 report. Some recommended reforms were implemented, progress was made on implementing more, and some still needed to be satisfactory. The IG report is attached to this memo.
CONCLUSION
Recommendations: Council should direct the City Manager to work with SMPD to:
1. Eliminate officer discretion in the use of body cams when witnesses who are victims to a crime are involved.
2. Implement all proposed reforms proposed in the Inspector General’s report on complaints and processes.
3. Require all complaint investigations to be processed, investigated, and brought to completion within 90 days.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5495 : PSROC Reports)
4. Require all SMPD officer misconduct be investigated fully irrespective of how the misconduct is discovered.
5. Implement all recommendations in the OIR Group’s After Action Report concerning the events of May 2020.
PSROC looks forward to making a presentation on 11/15/2022 and will be open to answering any questions. Please feel free to contact me in advance should a concern arise.
Derek Devermont
Chair-PSROC
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5495 : PSROC Reports) 1 City of Santa Monica
Inspector General’s REPORT on SMPD
Complaint Investigation Process
October 2022
Michael Gennaco
Stephen Connolly
Teresa Magula
Julie Ruhlin
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 2 323-821-0586
7142 Trask Avenue | Playa del Rey, CA
90293
OIRGroup.com
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 3 Introduction
At its regular public meeting in February of 2022, the Santa Monica’s “Public Safety Reform and Oversight Committee” (“PSROC”) endorsed an audit project that had been recommended by Michael Gennaco of OIR Group, in his capacity as Inspector General.
The project was meant to supplement the work that the Committee had already initiated in learning about the mechanics of the public complaint process as administered by the Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”).
The Committee has produced a report and several recommendations as a result of knowledge it gleaned from members’ interactions with SMPD personnel. These interactions related to protocol and procedure with regard to intake, triage, and investigation of complaints, and the Committee identified areas where it thought the processes could become more effective. In proposing an audit of actual cases completed recently by the Department’s Internal Affairs unit, the Inspector General sought to add to the foundation that the Committee had established through its own efforts.
Specifically, an audit by the Inspector General was intended to add two elements to the Committee’s project. One was a perspective drawn from OIR Group members’ extensive experience with oversight and “best practices” for administrative investigations. The other was a substantive, qualitative review, based on the IG’s unique access to confidential SMPD files and records pursuant to the City Ordinance.
An assessment of recently completed cases offered a concrete way to evaluate the effectiveness of the process through the prism of actual complaints and allegations of misconduct involving SMPD personnel.1
Pursuant to the proposal and the Committee’s authorization, the IG reviewed 10 complete investigation files that were provided by the Department. These materials included the following:
• The memo prepared by the investigator that summarized the evidence; • The transcribed interviews of the complainants, witnesses, and subjects of each case;
1 One aspect of the complaint process not addressed in this audit is how “complaints” that are not referred for a formal administrative investigation are addressed by SMPD. As noted below, that issue is sufficiently weighty to comprise a potential future IG audit project.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 4 • Any documents or other evidence relating to the underlying incident (including police reports, photos, body-worn camera and other recordings); and • The written analysis by SMPD executive-level decision makers as to outcomes.
We evaluated the cases along a range of criteria. These included investigative scope, thoroughness, timeliness, objectivity, accountability, remedial steps (if necessary), and overall legitimacy.
The following Report about those evaluations hopes to provide insight in a couple of ways: first by offering a window into the specific allegations that SMPD addressed, and then, based on those particular examples, by drawing larger conclusions – and recommendations – about the process itself. Accordingly, we provide a factual summary for eight of the ten investigations that we reviewed, in terms of both the incident at issue and the Department’s administrative response.2 The ultimate point was not to validate or question or otherwise re-litigate the actual outcomes of these complaints, though we do share our impressions of the findings. Instead, it was to use the cases as a concrete basis for assessing the process more broadly.
In doing so, we sought to identify systemic issues that may warrant attention or revision for the sake of enhancing future effectiveness. Individual issues that arose, as well as collective tendencies we saw across several cases, are discussed with accompanying recommendations.
A few notes are warranted about our interactions with SMPD in conjunction with this project. First, we appreciate the complete cooperation we received from Department supervisory staff with regard to accessing the necessary materials. Next, it bears mentioning that a prior administration was at the helm during the time these matters were investigated. Our hope is that current leadership will reinforce the strengths we identify and embrace opportunities to make positive adjustments, and we have reason to believe this will occur. Finally, we are grateful for thoughtful feedback that the Department provided, and that helped to clarify and otherwise improve this Report.
In terms of an “executive summary” of our findings, we noted a mix of strengths and limitations that we discuss below. One striking aspect of the review was that accumulating the cases for our evaluation required the Department to go back in time – some of the complaints we assessed were raised in 2018. 2 After our initial review, we learned that two of the cases we examined were also the subject of ongoing civil litigation. At the request of the City Attorney, our discussion of those cases will be deferred until the conclusion of that litigation, but the intent is to discuss in an addendum to this public report what we learned from those cases at that time.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 5 The potential causes of this low volume of formal investigations are various. The simplest and most encouraging would be that SMPD rarely provokes the dissatisfaction or grievance of the people it serves and encounters in Santa Monica. We don’t discount this possibility, and agency leadership informs us that it is common for the Department’s self-initiated misconduct investigations to exceed public complaints in the course of a given year. At the same time, we know the pandemic reduced the number of overall contacts by a considerable amount. And we have worked in jurisdictions in which a higher number of complaints is at least partially a function of heightened engagement and receptivity to public feedback as opposed to greater levels of dysfunction. In short, SMPD’s numbers were objectively small, in a way that is best understood as a notable if only partial metric of overall community satisfaction,
We also take note of the potential relevance to this issue of the Committee’s formal findings about the complaint process in its report from earlier this year, particularly those that relate to the initial screening that occurs at the outset of the process. This sometimes results in the resolution of a complaint without the involvement of Internal Affairs.3 We agree that this process merits further inquiry and potential adjustment to existing protocols.
As for the investigations themselves, we noted several strengths. The completed files were generally well-organized and reflected a methodical, thorough investigative approach. Investigative work was often resourceful in gathering evidence from available sources and reconstructing the events underlying the respective complaints.
Complainants were treated respectfully and interviewed with patience and objectivity.
Interviews of the officers who were the focal point of allegations were often impressive in their depth and effectiveness in addressing the key issues. And the analysis that went into consideration of completed cases was consistently thoughtful; it showed a willingness to engage with the issues and reach appropriate conclusions in most of the individual instances we studied.
We were also impressed that the Department goes to the time and trouble of transcribing interviews. In our experience, most agencies are content to rely on recordings and investigator summaries, but the transcripts make evaluation of the actual content of statements much more efficient (and therefore more likely to happen when decision-makers are assessing completed files).
3 Per the Committee’s report, this can be because the handling supervisor “defuses” the issue without a formal complaint being filed, or because of a determination that the conduct as described does not constitute a policy violation.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 6 Overall, we found that the complaints were taken seriously, investigated skillfully, and evaluated thoughtfully by Department management. Naturally, we noted individual concerns with specific elements of the reviews, but these often reflected the close scrutiny of the review more than substantial problems that undermined the cases themselves.
We also found some “common denominators” that were more substantive in nature, and thus potentially applicable to future investigative effectiveness.
The first of these related to the time of completion for the investigations. All of them took at least several months to finalize, and most ran up to – or over – the one-year statute of limitation which constitutes the eligibility period for California agencies to impose discipline against peace officers who have violated policy. As we discuss, this is problematic in a few ways, even when officers are cleared of all allegations and therefore not subject to disciplinary consequences. We note in fairness to the Department that staffing challenges and COVID impacts have been a factor here, and that the current leadership team has not only acknowledged that “sooner is better” but has implemented steps to better monitor the progress of open cases. This is encouraging, and we assume it will pay dividends.
The next concerns the completeness of the files. Specific evidence was sometimes not included for review, even when it is referenced as having been in existence. The Department’s ability to “show its work” is important to the soundness of its recordkeeping and the underlying process itself.
The third relates to the scope of the Department’s investigative inquiries. While the core elements of individual citizen complaints were generally processed, it is often the case that such investigations reveal other shortcomings or performance issues that were not specifically mentioned by the complainant as a concern. (These might include a deficient report or a failure to follow protocol for notifying supervisors – issues that the complainant would not even be aware of.) These would sometimes be noted, but not addressed within the context of the investigation itself. As we explain, even when such matters don’t rise to the level of a policy violation, they often merit attention, and we are not sure whether SMPD is taking full advantage of these opportunities to use the complaint process as a “feedback loop” to improve future operations.
We hope this report and attendant recommendations will serve as a complement to the PSROC’s work in this arena.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 7 Systemic Recommendations
Internal Deadlines for Completion of Internal Investigations As noted above, another recurring issue within the cases we reviewed related to the pace of completion. Investigative work itself often extended for months beyond the intake of the complaint. In other instances, unexplained delays at the executive level extended the process of final resolution. The year-long statute of limitations period for administering discipline is a deadline, not a suggestion, and for many reasons the appropriate investigation and response will occur in a much more efficient manner.
RECOMMENDATION 1: SMPD should develop internal deadlines for completion of internal affairs investigations of no longer than 180 days and require approval from chain of command for any extensions with reasons articulated for any delay.
RECOMMENDATION 2: SMPD leadership should commit to the timely review of completed complaint cases and should engage in prompt decision-making and remediation as needed.
Items missing in investigative files.
While the files that we reviewed were well organized, each was missing materials that one would expect to find in them. As a result, we were not able to even know whether such materials were generated, let alone review the quality of any materials produced.
It is incumbent that SMPD adjust their protocols and practices to ensure that such materials are included in the investigative file.
With regard to closing letters, we were advised by the Department that they typically are not included in the file but scanned and kept in a different file. Even if there may be value in retaining copies of closing letters in another file, a copy should be inserted in the investigative file as well.
RECOMMENDATION 3: SMPD must ensure that, pursuant to state law, complainants are advised of the outcome of any complaint investigation and a copy of the letter is included in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION 4: When SMPD takes photographs related to injuries or other relevant aspects of the complaint investigation, it should retain such photographs in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Body-worn camera footage of officers that is relevant to the allegations should be included in the investigative file.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 8 Case Reviews and Recommendations
Case #1: Allegations of Excessive Force and Profanity During Traffic Stop
The complainant alleged that, during the traffic stop that had ultimately led to her arrest, the officer used profane language and assaulted her when he closed the driver’s door on her leg. The complainant alleged that she had been subjected to excessive force by both the arresting officer and by jail personnel. She further alleged that she was wrongly denied her requests for medical attention or to make phone calls until after she had been fingerprinted and booked.
According to SMPD reports, the complainant was read the Department’s complaint policy and provided with a copy of the complaint process, but she was not formally interviewed about her complaint. SMPD reported that when an investigator attempted to interview her, she requested “immunity” from the incident and declined to cooperate further.
According to SMPD reports, the complainant was stopped as a result of a defective taillight. When the complainant was advised of the reason for the stop, she asked if she could see the tail-light and opened the car door. The body camera footage confirmed this discourse and the officer’s response to “stay in the fucking car,” followed by the slamming of the door. The complainant is heard to respond, “Why are you cursing me?” According to SMPD reports, the complainant argued with the officer about signing the citation that he intended to issue her and was advised that she would be arrested if she failed to sign. The complainant eventually signed the citation but then threw the pen she had used at the officer, striking him in the chest. As a result, the complainant was charged with assaulting a police officer and taken into custody. The case was presented to the City Attorney for filing consideration, but it was rejected.
The complainant further expressed unhappiness that her tongue stud piercing and her hair extensions were removed. It was explained to the complainant that jail policy required the removal of these accoutrements. SMPD records indicate that the complainant was eventually examined by jail medical staff, and she was cleared for booking. While these aspects of her treatment were problematic to her, they were consistent with reasonable Department protocol and thus did not constitute misconduct.
The officer admitted that his use of profanity was vulgar and contrary to policy, but that it was in reaction to a threatening situation when the complainant abruptly opened the car door during the stop. SMPD conducted a thoughtful analysis of the incident and determined that the involved officer was “short” with the complainant in a way that may have contributed to escalating the encounter. For example, when the complainant
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 9 continued to argue with the officer, the officer responded by indicating that he was going to give her another citation. It also found that the officer’s use of profanity violated SMPD policy; appropriate remedial action was undertaken. While the complainant’s reaction further escalated the situation that eventually led to her arrest, the Department appropriately concluded that the officer’s initial behavior was not in accord with its expectations.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
The Investigation
The investigation was thorough and detailed. A particularly impressive feature of the investigation was that interviews were transcribed and included in the file.
However, while SMPD reports indicated that photographs had been taken of the complainant’s injuries, no photographs were included in the investigative file.4 Moreover, while the report indicated that the nurse at the jail examined the complainant for injuries, there were no jailer medical records.
5 . And while the investigation refers to
and relies on body-worn camera footage to make its determination, no body-worn camera footage was included in the file, which initially prevented us from corroborating what was reportedly depicted.6 Finally, state law requires that complainants be advised of the outcome of any internal investigation, but no closing letter to the complainant was located in the file.7
The report indicated that the involved officer was able to review body-worn camera video of the incident prior to being interviewed. Best practices warrant that subjects of internal investigations not be afforded the opportunity to review video prior to providing a statement so that the “pure” state of mind of the officer can be obtained. After an 4 We were advised that the photographs were not included in the file because they did not show any injuries. However, even evidence of “non-injuries” is relevant evidence and should be included in the investigative materials. Upon our request, the photographs were retrieved; they did not show any obvious injuries to the complainant.
5 In a recent discussion about this issue, SMPD raised privacy concerns of the complainant if the records were included in the internal investigative file. We appreciate those concerns, and encourage the Department to balance them appropriately with ensuring investigative thoroughness. We suggest a reference in the internal investigative file as to where the medical records have been lodged and that they have been reviewed as part of the investigation. 6 When we raised this issue with the Department, they were able to locate the relevant bodycamera footage, which we were then able to review. The footage is consistent with the investigative findings.
7 It is possible that the proper notification was sent but not included in the investigation file.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 10 initial statement is obtained, the officer should then be afforded the opportunity to review video footage to determine whether that review refreshed the recollection of the officer.
Finally, it took approximately 10 months to complete the investigation and review of this complaint. We recognize that some – but not all – of this delay is attributable to the challenges in gaining an interview with the complainant. Even so, SMPD could have completed the investigation in a more timely fashion. While state law allows for one year to complete the process, agencies should strive to complete investigations well before that statutory deadline. Barring exceptional circumstances, police agencies should strive to complete investigations between 60-180 days.
The Outcome
We concur with the outcome of the internal investigation that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the majority of the complainant’s allegations. We further agree with SMPD’s determination that the officer violated the Department’s profanity policy and the remedial discipline imposed.
RECOMMENDATION 6: When there is evidence of medical treatment by jail staff that is relevant to the allegations received, investigators should obtain and review such records and include them in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION 7: When officers are the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation, they should be required to provide a pure interview statement prior to reviewing any body camera or other video footage, with a subsequent opportunity to review recordings and amend their responses as needed (and based on refreshed recollection).
Case # 2: Allegation of Missing Property
This case involved a claim filed by the complainant with the City that he had $1,000.00 in the sleeve of his MacBook carrier when he was arrested for domestic violence, and that the money was missing when he was given back his property. The City’s Risk Management group appropriately forwarded the claim to SMPD; to its credit, the Department then initiated an investigation into the allegation.
Once the investigation was initiated, the SMPD investigator attempted on three occasions to contact the complainant (who lived out of state) with no success. This hampered the investigation. However, a review of the arrest report and related materials noted that the MacBook sleeve in question was unattended and in a public space for several minutes after the complainant’s girlfriend threw it out the window.
Moreover, while the complainant spoke to officers after his arrest of having $100.00 in his personal possession (which was returned to him), he did not mention the larger amount of money that he later claimed was missing.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 11 The Investigation
This investigation took ten months to complete, and efforts were not made to contact the complainant until five months after the investigation was opened. Best investigative practices teach that a complainant should be contacted promptly when an investigative interview is needed to supplement a complaint. This not only assists with the effective framing of issues and compilation of best available evidence, but it also reinforces the notion that the Department is taking the matter seriously and prioritizing it appropriately.
Moreover, as we say repeatedly here, investigations should be completed well before the statutory due date for that and other reasons – including timely resolution for involved personnel and timely accountability and corrective action where warranted.
As with the previous case, there was no letter to the complainant in the investigative file informing him of the results of the investigation nor was there any documentation of the apparent rejection by the City of the claim.
SMPD’s Review
We concur with the determination that there was insufficient evidence to indicate any violations of policy by involved SMPD personnel.
RECOMMENDATION 8: SMPD should strive to contact the complainant of any investigation promptly – ideally within days of receiving the complaint.
RECOMMENDATION 9: SMPD should include any available documentation regarding resolution of a legal claim that resulted in the initiation of the complaint investigation.
Case # 3: Allegation of Excessive Force
The complainant in this matter alleged that he had been subjected to excessive force after he was evicted from a bar, claiming that he had unnecessarily been taken to the ground with his face pushed into concrete.
The investigation established the basic facts of the encounter in question. As a result of a dispute, the complainant had been ejected from the establishment. When police arrived the complainant was aggressively expressing unhappiness about the way he had been treated in the bar. SMPD officers instructed the complainant to sit down, but he declined to do so.
Because of his unruly behavior, a field training SMPD officer told her trainee to go hands on with the complainant, and the trainee first grabbed the complainant’s arms.
When the complainant continued to resist, the officers used a leg sweep to take the complainant to the ground. After he was handcuffed, the complainant was lifted back into a standing position. The complainant was released from the scene after representatives of the bar indicated that they had no interest in pursuing charges.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 12 During the investigation, the trainee admitted to using a leg sweep to take the complainant to the ground. The senior officer stated that she did not know the trainee had used a leg sweep until she reviewed the body-worn camera video after the fact.
The officer said she then asked the trainee why he did not tell her he had used a leg sweep, and he replied he did not know. The field training officer did not take additional action upon learning of this information. The sergeant who was on scene at the time of the incident also said that he was not aware that a leg sweep had been used and believed that the officer and subject had fallen to the ground.
Instead of preparing a formal report documenting the use of force, the force was documented on a field interview card. The sergeant said that it was his decision to document the force in that way.
Investigative Issues
As with other cases, there was no closing letter to the complainant nor any indication that a closing letter was prepared and sent.
Review Issues
We reviewed the reports and body worn camera footage of this incident and concur that there was insufficient evidence that the force used was contrary to SMPD’s use of force policy. However, there were significant issues that were not considered relating to the reporting and documentation of force.
SMPD policy requires officers who use force to report that force to a supervisor and to document that force in a formal report.
300.14.1 NOTIFICATION TO SUPERVISORS
Notification to a sworn supervisor shall be made as soon as practicable following the application of force in any of the following circumstances:
[…]
(j) An individual was struck, kicked, and/or otherwise forcibly taken to the ground. 300.14 REPORTING THE USE OF FORCE
Any use of force by a member of the Department shall be documented by the involved member promptly, completely, and accurately in an appropriate incident/crime report or supplemental incident/crime report before the member completes their shift.
The first issue here is that the trainee had not properly reported the extent of his force (specifically the leg sweep) at the time of the incident, either to his training officer or the sergeant who was on scene. Because of the failure of the trainee to immediately report the use of force to either the training officer or the on-scene sergeant and the way in which the sergeant allowed the force to be informally documented, the use of force
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 13 mechanisms were not effectively activated. This would normally have included an interview of the subject and other investigative steps by the supervisor, as well as certain standardized review protocols as to compliance with force policy.
When that information did subsequently emerge, the field training officer took no action to ensure that the use of force was fully reported and reviewed; instead, she simply inquired of the trainee about his lack of full, accurate acknowledgment at the scene. The field identification card that was originally – and questionably – used as documentation by the sergeant was clearly inadequate to the more significant level of force that had actually occurred, but it was not supplemented. In short, potential violations of the Department’s reporting and documentation policies seem to have occurred, but were not considered and assessed as part of the complaint investigation.
In the executive level review of the complaint investigation, the reviewer failed to identify these deficiencies in force reporting, documentation and on-scene review. Moreover, in discussing the reasons for the force, the reviewer spoke of the “furtive” movements of the complainant in explaining the officer's actions. This sort of vague, catch-all language has become disfavored in current policing, as a greater burden has shifted to law enforcement to explain with precision why physical force was needed. Progressive agencies teach their members that general words such as “furtive” do not provide the level of detail necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of any subsequent actions by officers. Rather, the force analysis should discuss with precision what the individual was observed as doing or saying that became the basis for any subsequent application of force.
RECOMMENDATION 10: In reviewing complaints relating to inappropriate use of force allegations, the internal investigation should expand to include and address potential issues that may emerge in the adequacy of reporting, documentation, and supervisory review.
RECOMMENDATION 11: SMPD should advise its supervisory team that when reviewing or analyzing force reports, it should avoid terms like “furtive movements” and describe with detail what the subject did or said as a basis for any use of force application.
Case # 4: Allegation of Poor Tactics and Excessive Force Officers saw a residential burglary suspect on a bicycle and attempted to stop him; instead, he fled. This prompted an additional response by another set of officers, who soon encountered a different person on a bicycle and confronted him under the mistaken impression that he was their target. The man was uncooperative and eventually taken to the ground in the process of handcuffing him. The initial officers arrived at the location and cleared up the misunderstanding; however, the man was still
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 14 (understandably) upset and claimed that some pre-existing injuries had been exacerbated during the struggle.8
The administrative interview with the complainant was detailed and included affording him the chance to review available BWC recordings. That opportunity prompted him to acknowledge that some of his specific allegations (including the claim that a “chokehold” had been used against him) were not supported by the evidence. He remained adamant, however, that one of the four involved officers had been particularly excessive and inappropriate. This officer had also failed to engage his body-worn camera – an issue that was not pursued in the investigation, but which very much made a negative impression on the complainant. The complainant also questioned the reasonableness of the mistake by which officers had wrongly confused him for the suspect they sought.
The allegations of misconduct were ultimately unfounded. A detailed “Letter of Transmittal” included a lengthy analysis that delved into the entirety of the incident. (The force had been evaluated separately as part of other SMPD internal review protocols; however, no materials relating to findings were included in the file). The mistaken identity was recognized as unfortunate but not ultimately blameworthy to the extent it constituted a policy violation. The lieutenant’s case analysis also pointed out that the officer who had had the most direct contact with the complainant had come on to the scene in way that compressed the timeline and left little room for de-escalation.
Appropriate counseling was recommended.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
There were strengths to the investigation, including the aforementioned thorough and balanced interview with the complainant. The case also included interview statements from civilian witnesses to the encounter – one of whom acknowledged the complainant’s vocal anger but still had the impression that the officers were too quick to engage physically. The interviews were transcribed, and the case file itself was wellorganized – for the most part. Importantly, it was missing the BWC evidence from one of the involved officers that was supposedly a significant basis for the decision that no policy violations had occurred. The file also did not include a copy of the notification letter that should have been sent to the complainant pursuant to state law.
As for concerns, we noted that this case was consistent with the pattern of a protracted timeline: the final signoff at the executive level occurred within days of the end of the one-year limitations period for any potential imposition of discipline by a California police agency. We were also curious about the lack of any formal intervention with regard to 8 He had been afforded medical care at the scene but not transported to the hospital.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 15 the primary officer’s failure to engage his BWC – a deficiency that was certainly noted by, and understandably bothersome to, the complainant himself.9 Perhaps more significantly, the review and decision-making process (as opposed to the investigation itself) seemed to underplay aspects of the complaint that appeared to have some legitimacy. The complainant questioned how well he “fit the description” of the suspect whom the officers were seeking, and he seemingly had a fair point. Apart from the fact that both men were on bicycles, wore an article of clothing that was the same color (though it was a hat on one and a shirt on the other), and were persons of color (one Black, and one Hispanic), the resemblance was limited. The complainant’s chafing at the supposed justification was accordingly understandable in our view. Even assuming the sincerity of the officers’ confusion and acknowledging the dynamic nature of the encounter, the issue is sensitive enough to have warranted further attention.
Ideally, the complaint process ensures not only appropriate accountability, but also a deeper reckoning with performance or training issues that could lead to improvement for involved personnel and the agency as a whole. The “mistaken identity” problem that leads to the detention of innocent Black people is a notorious source of distrust and resentment. The anger and physical resistance that complicated this specific incident should not completely overshadow the underlying mistake by the officers that started things. While the lieutenant’s analysis made a useful gesture in the direction of improving use of time and distance prior to physical engagement, our sense is that a further exploration would have been beneficial.
Case # 5: Allegation of Parking Officer Rudeness
A woman initiated this complaint against a parking officer after what she alleged was a negative encounter. She said she was with a small group of family and friends in a metered parking area when they were approached and scolded by an SMPD parking officer. He apparently seemed to think someone in the group was adding money to expired meters to thwart his ability to ticket cars, and made a sarcastic remark about the person apparently wanting to work for the Department. The woman found it extremely off-putting and an “abuse of authority” – not least because she asserted that this was not what they were doing in the first place.
The allegation was ultimately “not sustained” in the aftermath of the investigation. The officer claimed not to have a specific recollection of the incident. He also claimed that, even if he had suspected people of the conduct at issue, his practice is to provide education (as opposed to chastising). Although the officer was equipped with a bodyworn camera, he did not record the encounter. This was within his discretion at the time that the incident occurred (the policy has since been made more definitive). 9 This is a different problem than the aforementioned non-inclusion in the file of another officer’s recording that was apparently created and relied upon.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 16 Given the differing versions of the encounter, and the lack of definitive proof that improper conduct had occurred to the level of a policy violation, the Department determined that a “not sustained” finding was the appropriate choice.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
The investigation file was well-organized and thorough, though it did not include a copy of the notification letter. This case also showed examples of resourcefulness and due diligence on the part of the investigator, including interviews with other parties who had been with the complainant at the time of the encounter. (Their stories essentially matched hers in terms of the key components). The complainant chose the parking officer from a “six-pack” identification package, and records of his activity established that he had been on-duty and in the area at the time alleged.
Still, although his denial was more theoretical than adamant (since he said he didn’t remember the incident but doubted that he would have treated people like that), the Department decided that the requisite preponderance of the evidence against him had not been established. This, in our view, was at least arguable. It also illustrated the value of relatively prompt interviews (so as to lessen the likelihood that an “I don’t recall” response will credibly occur)10 and the value of body-worn camera recordings (which would be expected per policy to exist in a similar scenario today).
We do have the sense that the Department took the investigation seriously. And it strikes us as an example of a scenario in which the process presumably sent a message that influenced behavior as much or more as the minor discipline that a sustained violation would have warranted.
Case # 6: Failure To Take a Report
The complainant in this case alleged that he had been a victim of a battery while exercising outside, and was frustrated by what he perceived to be the inadequacy of the initial SMPD response. Two officers did respond to the location, but eventually declined to file a report after locating the suspect, finding him to be somewhat incoherent, and lacking a definitive sense that a crime had occurred.
The complainant contacted SMPD again the next day, upset that no action had been taken. Meanwhile, the suspect had been arrested for a separate burglary allegation; he was ultimately cited for the previous day’s encounter as well. The complainant thought that the initial responding officers had underperformed in not taking appropriate enforcement action at the time of the incident.
The investigation established that one of the officers had in fact fallen short of expectations in terms of the diligence of his investigative efforts and documentation.
The other, meanwhile, was relatively new to the job, had deferred to the more 10 This case was not finalized for some ten months after the complaint was lodged, another extended timeline for a relatively straightforward matter.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 17 experienced officer who took charge of the call, and had done due diligence before being released from the scene by his colleague. Accordingly, he was exonerated of any culpability.
As for the first officer, he was forthright in acknowledging shortcomings in his performance and accepted responsibility. (It should also be noted that there were significant mitigating circumstances, including some ambiguity in the complainant’s original information to officers.)
While the Department determined that the senior officer’s performance had constituted a violation of policy, it was ultimately not able to administer formal discipline. This is because the case was not finalized until after the end of the one-year limitations period.
The problem partly stemmed from the two-week gap between the man’s initial complaint and his more thorough, formal interview with an investigator; the latter date was incorrectly relied upon. Accordingly, the Department characterized the ultimate finding as “miscellaneous.” It was precluded from disciplining the officer, but the record of the case nonetheless was included in his personnel file for future reference.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
This investigation file had many of the strengths of others we looked at, in terms of the organized file, thorough interviews, and meticulous efforts to reconstruct events. The notification letter to the complainant was also included here. Clearly, though these attributes were overshadowed by the failure to process the completed investigation in time to impose an appropriate disciplinary consequence. The actual discipline here would likely have been at a minor level -- perhaps only a written reprimand and at most a one-day suspension. The issue is therefore less about the officer’s avoiding a severe outcome than about the ineffectiveness of the process itself.
Establishing a correct limitations date is as fundamental as any element of a functioning discipline process. But the fact that the error in calculation was relevant at all is itself an indication that the Department was extending the process to a detrimental extent.
Case # 7: Allegation of Intentional Provocation of Third Parties and Other Misconduct
The complainant in this case was the newly divorced wife of a Santa Monica officer.
She contacted the Department to express concern about an incident that had occurred approximately 12 years earlier, when she and the officer were still married. She described being at a Christmas party attended by several SMPD officers and family members, at which a disturbing video had been shown.
The on-duty video was taken by an officer who was not her then-husband, but it did involve him and other members of the “Special Policing District” unit that was assigned
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 18 to the beach in Santa Monica. Per the complainant’s version of events, the video showed a clash between two apparently homeless individuals – a male and female.
The complainant alleged that the officers had in fact goaded the two into conflict in order to film the result for their entertainment.
The investigation was largely able to reconstruct events in spite of the passage of time.
There were records of what was apparently the incident in question – a call for service that had involved a dispute between a male and female on the beach who knew each other. Per the recollection of the involved officers (most of whom were still with the agency and were interviewed as part of the investigation), the woman had defecated on the man while he was sleeping in the sand in retaliation for his owing her money. The officers recalled finding the man to be somewhat confused and non-desirous of officer involvement. They remembered assisting him in cleaning up and then clearing the call.
The officers also acknowledged the accuracy of some elements of the complainant’s story. This included the existence of the video, which one of the officers had created with a personal recorder that he sometimes brought on patrol under his own initiative. (The video itself was apparently no longer available.) It also included the fact of that year’s holiday party, and the showing of the video as part of the evening’s events. They denied, however, that the video depicted them engaging at all inappropriately with the two principals whose conflict had generated their response to the scene. Instead, their collective memory was that video had been shared because the situation itself was humorously bizarre – and not because they had played a role in instigating anything.
Though the propriety of the video’s being taken in the first place, and then being shown in a non-work context, remained open questions (to say nothing of the potential legitimacy of the complainant’s allegations as to what it actually portrayed) the investigation eventually became truncated by a procedural matter. This was the realization that a sergeant had been in attendance at the party.
This individual, now retired, was interviewed for the case. He verified that he had seen the video and was aware of its contents. This meant that, as a technical matter, the statute of limitations for imposing discipline could be said to have begun no later than the date of the party. From that starting point, the end of the one-year limitations period had also long since passed. Accordingly, SMPD decided to reach no conclusions as to the evidence with regard to any of the potential allegations.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
The Department’s “rescinding” of the case left several loose ends. In fairness to SMPD, it should be noted that some of these were unavoidable. For example, though the sergeant’s failure to take action with regard to the video was still potentially actionable (since others in a position to initiate an investigation were not aware), he had retired.
Moreover, the extreme passage of time and the tension between the complainant and her former spouse made it difficult to establish which version of the underlying call for service was the more accurate.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 19 At the same time, the allegations – and the undisputed behavior that was related to them – were attention-getting in a way that merited the Department’s follow-up. Even if there was not a basis for formal disciplinary action, the administration could and should have clarified with those involved parties that the conduct at issue reflected poorly on the agency. Additionally, the complainant raised other concerns about more recent offduty conduct involving her former husband. These were peripheral to her original complaint. To the investigator’s credit, he solicited information and sought assurance that she was getting any assistance that she needed in handling ongoing interactions.
However, as with the main complaint, the file gave no indication of achieving resolution or intervention as to these matters.
The distinctive circumstances of this case certainly posed challenges to the Department with regard to fair or meaningful investigation and/or remediation. That said, there appeared to be enough actionable information for some due diligence and a constructive response to have occurred. We hope but have no evidence that SMPD took advantage of this opportunity. More broadly, we encourage the Department to look at the complaint process as an opportunity for improvement at the individual officer or agency-wide levels, with potential that extends beyond the kind of formal accountability measures that were precluded for this complaint. We also recommend that SMPD add to the relevant case file documentation of any actions taken in response to complaintgenerated issues.
RECOMMENDATION 12: SMPD should work to ensure that it maximizes the potential benefits of rigorous complaint review by addressing identified issues through counseling, training, or other relevant non-disciplinary measures, even when formal accountability is not appropriate or possible.
RECOMMENDATION 13: SMPD should be pro-active in responding to peripheral concerns that emerge in the context of a complaint investigation, and should document any resulting interventions as part of the case file.
Case # 18: Allegations of Excessive Force and Unjustified Arrest A man was arrested after allegedly attempting to shoplift goods and then getting into an altercation with the employee of the sunglasses store where the alleged theft had occurred. The employee said that the man punched him in the face as he tried to block him from leaving so he could summon police. The man ultimately became the complainant when he was encountered by multiple SMPD officers a short time later in response to the call for service. He claimed that the arrest had been unjustified, and that the officers had used excessive force in the process of taking him into custody.
Certain facts were not in dispute. The man was indeed arrested on the day in question, and three officers had engaged with him physically in an effort to place him in handcuffs. The first two officers on scene were struggling when the third officer arrived
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 20 with his K-9 partner – which he quickly deployed in an effort to assist his colleagues.
The dog bit the man in the calf, which was a precursor to the end of the struggle and the successful handcuffing. The bite required several staples to close.
As to whether the officers had been justified in detaining him, he did meet the description of the suspect in the shoplifting/assault case and was proximate to the store when officers first engaged with him.11 Moreover, the officers were consistent in their reports that the man was confrontational and resistant from the outset, and asserted that their struggle to get the man into handcuffs was a function of his refusal to submit.
These assertions were reportedly corroborated by body-worn camera evidence, but there were limitations to this. One of the three involved officers did not turn on his camera. The K-9 officer did, but arrived late to the scene and inadvertently ended up facing in a direction that did not capture significant aspects of the bite. (Nor did his recording establish any of the actions by the complainant that prompted the officers’ initial physical response. It did, however, show the extent of the original two officers’ difficulty in controlling the man.) The third officer reportedly did activate his camera appropriately and to useful effect.
The deployment of the dog to assist in taking the man into custody was perhaps the most significant aspect of the force analysis, insofar as two officers were already “hands-on” with the subject and the resultant bite was responsible for his most significant injury. However, the memo that summarized the case and exonerated all three officers noted that the circumstances did fall within the permissible parameters for “apprehension” under the operative K-9 policy.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
This investigation matched several of the strengths we saw in other cases, including a well-organized file and a resourcefulness in gathering evidence to assess the particular claims. While this did not feature the comprehensive interview with the complainant that we noted in other examples, this was apparently the function of a lack of response by the complainant subsequent to his initial outreach to the Department. the available evidence seemed to refute the complainant’s assertions about his actions prior to being contacted by police, and he in fact showed assaultive behavior just prior to their arrival that is consistent with their assertions about his resistance. SMPD also disagreed with his complaint about the “excessive” nature of the force; this too, seems to have been supported by available evidence.
Our ability to corroborate was limited by technical difficulties with regard to one of the videos. Beyond that, though, this proved to be another case in which the potential “pool” of video evidence was reduced by one of the involved officer’s failure to activate his 11 The reporting party was brought to the site of the arrest and made a positive identification of the complainant.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) 21 camera in this first place. SMPD does not appear to have addressed this issue within the investigation. While these events transpired more than three years ago, and while we hope evolutions in policy and Department expectations have increased both compliance and accountability, we accordingly reiterate our encouragement that SMPD focus on this issue. In particular, we recommend the Department address such lapses formally in the context of complaint cases, even if the issue is not a part of the complainant’s original concerns.
While no discipline attached in this case (thereby lessening the impact of any failure to meet the one-year deadline), we noted that the final “sign-off” for the investigation appears to have been some thirteen months after the incident. This is consistent with the timeliness concerns that we have cited above, and which we encourage SMPD to address.
Conclusion
The proper investigation of public complaints is a hallmark of police agency effectiveness. Ideally, these investigations ensure that officers are accountable for their misconduct, that community members are confident about law enforcement legitimacy, and that the feedback from specific incidents leads to relevant interventions for improvement of future performance.
As explained above, our review of the most recent completed SMPD investigations showed them to be fundamentally sound in ways that correspond to achievement of those positive results. At the same time, we noted recurrent – and readily fixable – issues that merit the Department’s attention; we hope our recommendations will provide useful ideas for strengthening its approach in this important area of operations.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports) Santa Monica Police Department
Office of Inspector General
INTERIM REPORT ON THE STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION OF OIR GROUP MAY
31, 2020 AFTER-ACTION
RECOMMENDATIONS
September 2022
Michael Gennaco
Steve Connolly
Julie Ruhlin
Teresa Magula
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
323-821-0586
7142 Trask Avenue | Playa del Rey, CA
90293
OIRGroup.com
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) Introduction
On May 11, 2021, OIR Group presented an independent After-Action report on the events of May 31, 2020, to the Santa Monica City Council. This report included 44 recommendations to improve the City and Santa Monica Police Department’s response to future incidents and increase transparency and accountability.
In response, the Council directed the Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) to report on the status of acceptance and implementation of these recommendations. The Department provided its first response to Council on July 29, 2021, in an “Information Item” that outlined the Department’s response to and plans to implement each of the 44 recommendations. In short, the Department reported that it had accepted all of OIR Group’s recommendations and expressed its commitment to rebuilding trust with the community by implementing them.
The Department also experienced changes in leadership with the appointment of a new Chief of Police in October of 2021.
And, in the interim, the City established two new mechanisms for oversight of SMPD:
• The Public Safety Reform and Oversight Committee (PSROC) is a committee of 11 community members, appointed by the City Council to evaluate and make recommendations regarding public safety reform and promote interaction, collaboration, and trust between the community and SMPD. • The Inspector General supports PSROC by reviewing, analyzing, and reporting on policies and practices of SMPD. The City retained OIR Group as its Inspector General.
The PSROC requested OIR Group to report on the Department’s progress of the 44 recommendations. We are pleased to report that the Department has completed 29 recommendations and is making progress toward implementation of the remaining 15.
This interim report will discuss the recommendations and outline the Department’s progress to date.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 2 | P a g e
Recommendation Overview
OIR Group’s 44 recommendations covered various topics, including:
• Department leadership considerations
• Policy changes or updates
• Necessary training
• Technology updates
• Review and accountability mechanisms
• Community engagement
Of these, some were immediately actionable by Department personnel, such as adding new language to its crowd dispersal order, while others required longer-term considerations or actions by the Department, such as development and delivery of training. Still others required collaboration and feedback from external parties, such as other City agencies like Public Works or the City Attorney, or from the community at large.
Audit Findings
As noted above, the Department committed to implementation of all 44 recommendations. While the Department self-reported significant progress in its initial report to Council, our charge was to validate that progress through the review of related materials that supported completion of each item.
To that end, we met with various “subject matter experts” from the Department who provided extensive information for our review. After reviewing this evidence, our review found that:
• 29 of the recommendations have been completed by the Department • 15 of the recommendations are in progress
The audited recommendations are listed below by category. OIR Group’s specific findings regarding each recommendation follow the summary table.
Planning and Intelligence Recommendations
Several of the recommendations were related to intelligence, planning, and communication lapses identified in the OIR Group report. To address many of these recommendations, the Department created a formal “Planning and Intelligence Cadre” within the Professional Services Division in October of 2020. The Cadre is considered
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 3 | P a g e
as collateral duty1for 15 members, who schedule shifts to constantly monitor intelligence sources, such as social media, and create Incident Command plans for planned events.2 These recommendations and their status are summarized in the table below.
1 “Collateral duty” means an assignment that personnel take on or are assigned in addition to their regular duties. Because SMPD is a smaller agency, many officers take on one or more collateral duties. This is commendable but can also lead to burn-out as officers take on multiple roles and responsibilities. And we advise that the Department carefully consider assignments to roles that might conflict; for example, a member of the Planning and Intelligence Cadre is also a highly-trained member of SWAT. When he is assigned to Intelligence during an event, he does not respond to the field with his team.
2 The Department plans to reduce the size of this Cadre and place it under the direction of new command staff. The Department contends that a smaller size will allow for closer collaboration, better communication, and more specific responsibilities among Cadre members.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 4 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation Policy or Evidence Status
2 The Chief of Police should make clear
to the Department and City leadership
when they will be out of town and
clearly designate an Acting Chief in her
or his absence.
204.5 - Electronic
Mail
701 - Personal
Communication
Devices Completed
3 SMPD should develop written protocols
to ensure that an operations plan is
developed in advance of all potential
crowd control situations, establishing
expectations for the depth and inclusion
as well as a chain of command
approval mechanism.
433.5 - Planned
Event Preparation
Ops Plans are
prepared routinely
now; length and
detail are
determined by the
nature of the event Completed
4 SMPD should develop written protocols
to ensure timely and thoughtful
designation of an incident commander
for special operations.
433.5.2 -
Operational Plans.
IC designation is
part of new plans.
Rank depends on
nature of event,
scope, etc. Completed
5 SMPD should ensure that critical
personnel, including those tasked with
intelligence gathering and other crucial
functions, remain in the City prior to a
major incident and are not sent out as
part of a mutual aid response or
otherwise assigned supplementary
duties.
Intelligence Cadre
schedule in place to
show who is
responsible at each
time of day. That
person does not
report out to field
even if part of their
regular duties. Completed
6 SMPD should establish a dedicated
listserv with “read receipt” functionality
for command to receive intelligence
briefings in a formal and timely manner
and confirm receipt of such information.
Reviewed and
discussed. Completed
26 SMPD should consider who from
command-level staff will take on the
role of Overall Field Incident Command
if the Civil Unrest Annex is activated
and train this/these personnel on the
requirements and expectations of the
plan.
Reviewed ICS
plans; overview from
Intelligence/Planning
Cadre Completed
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 5 | P a g e
27 City leadership, in collaboration with
Public Works, should consider
determining guidelines for use of
barriers in advance of civil unrest, both
protective fencing on public and private
property and for traffic control, that are
practicable and effective.
Reviewed plans
from Public Works Completed
28 City leadership, in collaboration with
Public Works, should consider
establishing guidelines for use of heavy
equipment to support defensive
enforcement action.
Reviewed plans
from Public Works Completed
29 SMPD leadership should work with
Area A partners to develop solutions to
address the bureaucratic challenges
exposed on May 31 and ensure an
equitable distribution of National Guard
assets in future situations involving civil
unrest.
Reviewed currently
used ICS and Ops
Plans showing
advanced calls to
Area A partners. Completed
30 SMPD should reach out to other law
enforcement agencies who confronted
violence and looting in the summer of
2020 and review after action reports
from other jurisdictions to identify best
practices that could be imported to
Santa Monica in responses to future
protest activity.
Reviewed and
discussed. Completed
33 The City and SMPD should continue to
evaluate and refine the ways it
communicates with the Santa Monica
community following any significant
event involving a police response,
guided by principles of transparency,
accuracy and objectivity.
Crisis
Communication
Plan;
Community
Conversation;
Coffee with a Cop
series In Progress
Recommendation 2 deals with communication for intelligence and planning. It requires that the Chief designate and communicate, via email, an Acting Chief. The Department provided an example of an email whereby such a designation was made. SMPD now has the appropriate policy and procedures in place. We consider this recommendation to be completed.3
As detailed in the table above, the majority of these Planning and Intelligence recommendations relate to essential aspects of incident planning and command. The 3 Of course, as with any changed protocol or policy, continued adherence to those written expectations rest with SMPD.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 6 | P a g e
Department provided us with exemplar Operational Plans created and used for various recent events. These included plans for spontaneous events, such as the possibility of unrest after the Derek Chauvin verdict in April of 2021, and plans for pre-planned events, such as an anti-vaccination rally. The Department also provided a plan for a day when multiple events were scheduled to show how resources were assigned to different locations in the City (namely, a pro-Ukraine rally and a Human Rights rally in February of 2022). Finally, the Department provided a plan based on intelligence gathered by the Cadre from social media (posts related to possible looting in the City).
We found these plans, and related written policies, to be responsive to the recommendations as follow:
Recommendation 3 recommends written protocols to ensure that operations plans are developed. These protocols are now explicitly listed in the Department Policy 433.5, “Planned Event Preparation.” The Department reported and the sample plans exemplified that Operations Plans are now prepared routinely. These plans range in length and detail from formal FEMA Incident Command Structure (ICS) plans, which are extremely detailed and include external agencies, to “Event Action Plans” (EAPs) that cover SMPD-specific deployment, such as identification of an incident commander, a briefing, the mission/objectives, communication, location of Command Post, necessary equipment, and assigned personnel. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 4 recommends written protocols to ensure designation of an incident commander. These protocols are now explicitly listed in Department Policy 433.5.2, “Operational Plans.” Here, the designation of “Incident Commander” is explicitly required. The Department shared that the rank of the assigned Incident Commander will vary depending on the nature and scope of event. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 5 recommends that individuals tasked with intelligence gathering remain in the City. The Department shared their current Intelligence Cadre scheduling matrix, which assigns members to the Intelligence function on a rotating basis. The assigned personnel, regardless of his/her regular duties, does not report to the field.
Anecdotally, a sergeant from the Cadre who also serves on the SWAT team shared a recent time when he was assigned to the Intelligence Cadre at a time when the SWAT team was called out; he did not deploy with his team but remained in the Intelligence function. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 6 asked the Department to consider “read receipts” for all intelligence briefings. The Department reported that they did implement this functionality for several months. However, it created two challenges: first, a large
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 7 | P a g e
volume of “read receipt” emails were generated, clogging the inboxes of those who sent them; second, the relative importance of the intelligence briefing was diminished over time. The Department advised that as a result of these difficulties, it currently limits the “read receipt” functionality for intelligence briefings of high importance. OIR Group will continue to monitor this recommendation and how/when intelligence briefings are rated as “high importance.” We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 26 recommended that SMPD consider who would be assigned to Overall Field Command if the City’s Civil Unrest Annex is activated. The Department provided sample plans showing that specific command level staff were assigned to the Incident Commander role in advance, and that a back-up “on-call” commander was also defined if the Civil Unrest Annex were to be implemented. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 27 was one of two recommendations (along with Recommendation 28, below) that directed to City leadership to address some of the Department’s challenges in collaborating with Public Works; Recommendation 27 specifically requested that the City, in collaboration with the Department, determine guidelines for use of barriers in advance of civil unrest, both protective fencing on public and private property and for traffic control, that are practicable and effective. Public Works reported that, for every City-wide event, the “Unified Command” (Office of Emergency Management, Public Works, Fire, and Police) collaborates to prepare an Event Action Plan in which each department details their responsibilities. We reviewed these documents outlining assignments of personnel and resources in advance of possible unrest associated with the trial of Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis and saw evidence of the type of planning and advance coordination needed to mitigate the type of harms experienced on May 31st. In the plans for these incidents, Public Works committed to providing K-rails for barricading, boarding up facilities, performing traffic control, and cleaning up after the events. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 28 specifically recommended that the City, in collaboration with the Department, should consider establishing guidelines for use of heavy equipment to support defensive enforcement action. Here again we reviewed the Event Action Plans for four events. Public Works committed to providing fleet disposal vehicles (that may be used for barricading) and emergency activation vehicles from Public Works that may be used for barricading as a last resort. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Further, the Department’s response to Recommendations 27 and 28 acknowledged the need for greater collaboration to obtain resources and access to Public Works
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 8 | P a g e
equipment for use in incidents of civil unrest. This was evidenced in the collaborative nature of the Event Action Plans reviewed.
Recommendation 29 recommended that leadership work with Area A partners to develop solutions to any bureaucratic challenges related to equitable resource deployment. The Department reported that these meetings have occurred, with more planned for the future. We reviewed the newest Area A Mutual Aid agreement and found it to be sufficient. The Department also showed currently used ICS and smallerscale Ops Plans where Area A partners had been called in advance of operations so that mutual aid was “at the ready” in case of need. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 30 recommended that the Department reach out to other law enforcement agencies to review After-Action Reports. The Department reported that it collected and reviewed the After-Action Reports from the New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago Police Departments and the Portland Police Bureau. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 33 recommended that the Department work with the City to continue to evaluate and refine communication. The Department reported that this recommendation is in progress. While they have established a Crisis Communication Plan and re-engaged with community through sessions such as “Coffee with a Cop,” the Department acknowledged that there is more to do with regard to transparency. In an effort to increase transparency, the Department reported that it is actively seeking to make more information available to the public on their Department website. Like other agencies, SMPD would like to post real-time dashboards with data on calls for service, uses of force, complaints, OIR reports, and other categories of interest. We highly support this effort as it directly ties to Recommendation 33 and the increased need for transparency. We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Training Recommendations
The training recommendations varied from Department-wide to command-level, and SMPD has responded by providing training to personnel, both that which is required by Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) and developed in-house to respond to specific needs. These recommendations and their status are summarized in the table below.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 9 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
13 SMPD should conduct regular and
ongoing training on use of impact
munitions in crowd situations so that all
officers trained in the use of these
munitions are advised of how to most
effectively deploy them and have a clear
understanding of Departmental
expectations.
Training
documents &
Attendance log Completed
16 Training for supervisors on unlawful
assembly should emphasize the need to
follow Department policy and reach out to
event organizers or participants with the
goal of gaining voluntary dispersal prior to
issuing formal dispersal orders.
Training
documents &
Attendance log Completed
19 SMPD should continue to impress upon its
supervisors the need to follow all dispersal
order protocols before any introduction of
less lethal munitions.
433, First
Amendment
Assemblies Completed
21 SMPD should continue to provide
command level staff with updated training
on the ICS so that command staff is
knowledgeable about its use and benefits.
Training
documents Completed
22 SMPD should ensure that all command
staff personnel are well versed in
contemporary crowd control responses,
particularly in the First Amendment
context.
Training
documents, list
of organizations Completed
23 SMPD should continue to regularly train all
officers in Mobile Field Force tactics, to
include the newest techniques with live,
hand-on scenario training and new laws
related to First Amendment Assemblies
and civil unrest.
"SMPD Training
Announcement,"
SMPD April
2021 Training
Curriculum In Progress
24 SMPD should consider additional
Department-wide trainings on topics such
as use of de-escalation techniques and
other tactics to reduce tension in civil
unrest or other similar scenarios.
Training
documents &
Attendance log In Progress
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 10 | P a g e
25 City leadership (specifically, the Office of
Emergency Management) should hold a
City-wide training event with all relevant
City agencies to review the Civil Unrest
Annex so that all agencies are aware of
their role and expectations during times of
spontaneous civil unrest. In Progress
36 SMPD should complete the two
Department-wide training items identified
in the Internal Review Board memo related
to uses of force on May 31: (1) review of
body-worn camera policy and (2) review of
the Department use of force reporting
policy.
"Training
Bulletin: Body
Worn Cameras"
425, Portable
Audio/Video
Recorders Completed
37 SMPD should develop and deliver ongoing Department-wide training related to documenting and reporting use of force in
civil unrest situations or other large-scale
incidents, and incorporate body-worn
camera procedures and use of force
reporting into all department tactical
training.
Scribe position
assigned and
tested In Progress
38 SMPD should remind all officers – in daily
briefings, a Department-wide training or a
Training Bulletin, and specifically in
briefings prior to any protest activity – of
the requirement to activate their bodyworn camera generally per policy and during crowd control incidents in specific.
"Training
Bulletin: Body
Worn Camera" Completed
42 SMPD should review its systems for
supporting officer wellness, including the
availability of counselors and other
professionals, and should consider ways
to encourage officers to take advantage of
those programs who may be struggling
with the trauma of the events of May 31
and other events of the past year.
Wellness
presentation Completed
Recommendation 13 recommends regular and ongoing training on the use of impact munitions in crowd situations. The Department responded by recruiting and training a new Mobile Field Force “cadre,” to join and supplement its Use of Force Cadre. These Cadres serve two functions.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 11 | P a g e
• Deployment. These specialized units deploy to incidents and calls for service where their specific skill-sets are needed (for example, members of the Use of Force Cadre are trained and certified in use of certain less lethal munitions). • Train-the-trainer. Members regularly attend specialized instructor-level training sessions offered nationwide, such as the “Less Lethal and Chemical Agents” training from the National Tactical Officers Association (September 8, 2020) and a “Lessons Learned” presentation from a nationwide expert about the 2020 civil unrest (Winter 2021). Once certified as trainers, the officers train the Department personnel in-house.
Using the “train-the-trainer” model, Department then delivers training to personnel at all levels related to use of less-lethal impact munitions in its on-going Advanced Officer Training detailed below (see Recommendations 23). We received and reviewed anticipated and current course outlines for these topics and found them to be aligned with current best-practices related to these topics. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
We did identify one area of possible concern in a 2011 training outline from the National Tactical Officers Association, which discussed firing “skip rounds” into the crowd, noting that it is “difficult to control skip shots.” When asked, the SMPD Training Division responded that the Winter 2021 training did not advise use of any skip rounds. Further, SMPD Training Division reported that SMPD does not have any less-lethal munitions that are intended for use as “skip rounds” – commonly called “wood batons” or “foam” -- in their current less-lethal inventory nor do they train officers to skip fire any type of munition off of the ground.
Recommendation 16 recommended that the Department train supervisors in the need for reach out to event organizers or participants in advance of dispersal orders. First, we saw this requirement in the “Crowd Management and Intervention Control Strategies” matrix, a training document related to Policy 433, “First Amendment Assemblies,” that lists the different actions to be taken, step by step, when managing a crowd event. (e.g., “use organizers and monitors to gain voluntary compliance” is one step in the matrix). We also saw this in practice: several of the example Operation Plans listed above (see Planning and Intelligence) had contact information for organizers and/or a designated “Liaison Officer” and Public Information Officer role. The Department also covered the topic in MFF training and in the Advanced Officer Training detailed later (see Recommendation 23, below). We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 19 recommended that the Department continue to train supervisors on the need to follow all dispersal order protocols prior to deployment of less lethal munitions. In addition to including this language explicitly in Policy 433, “First
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 12 | P a g e
Amendment Assemblies,” the Department also covered the topic in MFF training and in the Advanced Officer Training detailed later (see Recommendation 23, below). We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 21 recommended that the Department continue to provide command level staff with updated training on the ICS so that command staff is knowledgeable about its use and benefits. The Department reported that it directed all command level personnel, sergeants and above, to attend Incident Command training sessions offered in the Los Angeles area and taught by FEMA and the Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments. It also recommended that command staff become members in national organizations; the Department reported that command staff are members of organizations such as the California Police Officers’ Association (CPOA), the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA). We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 22 recommended that the Department ensure that all command staff personnel are well versed in contemporary crowd control responses, particularly in the First Amendment context. Here again, the Department reported that all command staff attend the Incident Command training sessions regularly, where contemporary crowd management responses are trained and discussed. Membership in national organizations (see Recommendation 21, above) and participation in their respective conferences will further their training. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 23 was the most directly relevant to the May 31st unrest and recommended delivery of Department-wide Mobile Field Force (MFF) training. This training was delivered in-person June of 2020 and April of 2021 to 126 officers. 4 We
reviewed the training deck and found the materials to be a refresher on basic MFF definitions, crowd management concepts, and formations. These are consistent with modern-day best-practices but are very basic, and further training is scheduled to expand on the concepts.
The Department has also committed to providing on-going Mobile Field Force training to all personnel during its regular, two-year “Advanced Officer Training” cycle beginning in 2023. This commitment ensures that personnel will have continued and up-to-date training on a regular basis. We will review these training materials when they are available to ensure that they fully cover modern-day crowd management tactics. In 4 The Department provided attendance logs for these and all relevant training sessions so that we could confirm that the appropriate personnel had, in fact, received training.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 13 | P a g e
particular, we recommend that the Department train on acceptable uses of force in the crowd control context; this was not explicitly trained in the June 2020 and April 2021 training sessions.5 While the general use of force policy applies to all situations, a refresher for use in crowd management is advisable. Because this training has not yet occurred, we deem Recommendation 23 to be in progress.
Recommendation 24, which recommended Department-wide training on topics such as de-escalation, is also in progress. The Department plans to train on these topics in upcoming training cycles. Because this training has not yet occurred and we have not reviewed materials, we deem this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 25 recommended that City leadership conduct a City-wide training event on the Civil Unrest Annex. The Department reported that the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) held this training in October of 2020, but we did not receive information to review regarding this training. As such, we consider this recommendation to be in progress until we receive more information from City and OEM leadership.
Recommendation 36 recommended completing two actions items that emerged from the Department’s own Internal Review Board of the May 31st incident: review of the body-worn camera policy and review of the use of force reporting policy. As we also stated in Recommendation 38, below, the Department issued a Department-wide Training Bulletin regarding the body-worn camera policy and the requirement to activate. We encourage the Department to frequently reference this Training Bulletin in shift briefings and especially in advance of any deployment to major incidents. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
And, as we detail in Recommendation 37, below, the Department is currently training officers in the use of force reporting policy. The Department also updated its use of force policy, Policy 303, to require that all uses of force, including those that occur during civil unrest, be accurately reported before the end of an officer’s shift (see Training, Recommendations 34 and 35).
As such, we consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 37 recommended that the Department develop and deliver training on documenting uses of force in civil unrest. The Department reported that this recommendation is in progress. The Department reported that it assigned the role of “scribe” to two civilian personnel. In addition to documenting uses of force and counting expended munitions (e.g., canisters), the scribe also documents items of importance, 5 Recent changes in state law, have also placed limitations on the use of less lethal munitions in crowd control situations; SMPD should also be trained on the new state law requirements.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 14 | P a g e
such as the time and location of dispersal orders and conversations by command staff and supervisors. The Department has successfully used scribes in all the recent deployments listed above.
However, this new role has not been codified in any policy or procedure. We recommend that the Department formalize this role by including it in the relevant procedure (e.g., its “Use of Force” and/or its “First Amendment Assemblies” policies).
We also recommend that the Department create and formalize a training program for this position to ensure that every assigned individual understands the role, purpose, and implementation of the scribe position.
The Department also plans on training personnel to verbalize all force deployments on body-worn cameras when in crowd management incidents (see Recommendation 23 on Advanced Officer Training). Officers are trained to verbally identify their intended target, the subject’s actions that necessitate force, and the outcome.6 This direction, and the reminder to activate the body-worn camera, is also included in all new Operations Plans.
We were not provided specific lesson plans that included this training. We look forward to reviewing these materials as they are developed by the Department.
Because these are on-going developments with more work to be done, we consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 38 recommends regular and frequent reminders to activate bodyworn cameras, especially before deployment to crowd management incidents, the Department issued a Department-wide Training Bulletin regarding the body-worn camera policy and the requirement to activate. We encourage the Department to frequently reference this Training Bulletin in shift briefings and especially in advance of any deployment to major incidents. The Department agrees, and informed us that it is including the body-worn camera reminder in its Operations Plans. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 42 acknowledged the impact of the events of 2020 on officers’ wellbeing and recommended that the Department evaluate its systems for supporting officer wellness. The Department has had a Peer Support Program for over 20 years, supplemented and supported by psychologists and chaplains, to help personnel process trauma and other job-related stressors. Following May 31, 2020, and on its one-year anniversary, the Peer Support Team hosted “group stress debriefs” facilitated 6 For example, an officer might state, “the man in the red shirt with a black backpack is actively throwing rocks at the skirmish line. I am deploying one 40mm round. It struck the man on the torso and he fled.”
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 15 | P a g e
by licensed professionals. There has been a significant increase in the number of personnel utilizing services from both the Peer Team and licensed professionals since 2020, and the Peer Support Team membership itself has grown by 20% each year.
These are positive and worthy responses to the trauma and stress of a difficult year, but the Department has also sought to take a more proactive approach that looks toward preventing harmful stress responses. In 2020, it created a new Wellness Team that pairs the Peer Support Program with a broader initiative to promote a “culture of wellness” that addresses emotional and mental health as an officer safety issue. We had the opportunity to meet with the Sergeant who leads the Wellness Team and were impressed by his approach to these issues and his passion for delivering his message to the rest of the Department. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Finally, while not tied to any particular recommendation, we also noted that the Department has implemented new technology to track and report on personnel training status. This technology ensures that officers comply with training requirements, including all in-house training such as Roll Call Briefings. It also allows the Department to accurately report out statistics related to training, as they did for our review. We commend the Training Sergeant for identifying the need for, and implementing, this technology.
Policy Recommendations
Seven recommendations related directly to changes and/or updates to Department policies. The Department reported, and we confirmed, that it has updated their current policies and drafted new language to align with the recommendations. We detail the updates and policy modifications as they pertain to each recommendation below this table.
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
7 The Department should regularly review
and update its Mass Booking Procedures
policy to ensure that the listed contact
information and location and availability of
all itemized equipment is current and
correct.
901.11, Training
and Policy
Section
901.12 Policy
Review Completed
11 SMPD should revise its use of force
policies to either specially define “riotous”
or eliminate the terminology from its
policies.
433, First
Amendment
Assemblies Completed
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 16 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
12 SMPD should amend its policy to provide
further guidance regarding deployment of
less lethal munitions, particularly to guard
against injuries to the face and head.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques Completed
17 In crafting dispersal orders to instruct
crowds about the routes of egress from a
protest, SMPD policy and training should
require officers to consider conditions such
as traffic and officer deployment to ensure
the feasibility and safety of any direction
provided about dispersal routes.
433, First
Amendment
Assemblies Completed
18 SMPD policy and training regarding
dispersal orders should be revised to
require personnel officers to include
express warnings about the potential use
of force should the order be defied.
Dispersal order
cards Completed
34 SMPD should develop and approve a use
of force reporting policy/procedure
requiring officers to document force used
in civil unrest situations, or any
circumstance where the subject of a use of
force cannot be identified, and make clear
that in crowd control situations, officers are
expected to document all reportable force,
including each deployment of less lethal
munitions.
303, Use of
Force Completed
35 SMPD should revise its force reporting
policy to require that all documentation of
use of force be completed prior to an
officer completing her/his shift and entrust
supervisors to enforcement of this policy.
303, Use of
Force Completed
Recommendation 7 recognized the new policy on Mass Booking Procedures, Policy 901, the Department created and implemented in the months after May 31, 2020 (and well before the OIR Group report). The written procedures are commendably detailed, including requirements like obtaining contact information and itemized lists of equipment, and our recommendation focused on the need regularly update the policy to account for changes. The Department asserts in its response that the policy will be reviewed every two years. The Department’s commitment to regular review, and assignment of the task to a particular officer responsible for police and procedures updates in the Personnel and Training Unit (within the Professional Standards Section), is sufficient to consider this recommendation to be completed.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 17 | P a g e
Recommendation 11 recommended revising the use of force policy to either specifically define “riotous” or remove the word. We reviewed Policies 303 and 433, “Use of Force” and “First Amendment Assemblies,” and confirm that the Department removed the word “riotous” and replace it with “civil unrest.” We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 12 recommended providing further guidance on deployment of less lethal munitions. We reviewed Policy 303 and found that the Department updated the target areas that “shall be avoided” to include the spine and groin. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 17 recommends that the Department update its Dispersal Order policy to include information about safe routes of egress. We reviewed Procedure 433.0.3, First Amendment Assemblies – Santa Monica Dispersal Order, and found that the new policy, and the related “Dispersal Order Card,” includes this language. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 18 recommends that the Department update its Dispersal Order policy to include warnings about the possible use of and injury from less-lethal munitions. We reviewed Procedure 433.0.3, First Amendment Assemblies – Santa Monica Dispersal Order, and found that the new policy, and the related “Dispersal Order Card,” includes this language. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 34 recommends development of a use of force reporting policy/procedure. The Department updated Procedure 303, Use of Force, to require that officers document and report all uses of force in all situations, including civil unrest.
We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 35 recommends revising the reporting policy to require that all force reports must be completed before the officer’s end of shift. The Department updated Procedure 303, Use of Force, to require that officers document and report all uses of force before their end of shift. Further, supervisors are required to complete their reviews of force reports before the end of the work week.
We discussed the related practical application of use of force reporting and tracking in Training, above. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Accountability, Audit and Oversight Recommendations
Eight recommendations related to issues of accountability, on-going auditing, or oversight. These are summarized in the following table, and individually discussed below the table.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 18 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
8 SMPD should develop a tracking
mechanism, such as a log for less lethal
munitions, specifically to track how many
of which types of munitions are used and
by whom.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques In Progress
9 SMPD should examine the use of the
flashbang device on May 31 through the
lenses of accountability, advisability, and
remediation.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques Completed
10 SMPD should conduct a detailed analysis
regarding whether the Pepperball
deployments on May 31 were consistent
with Department policy and expectations.
Training Docs &
Attendance log In Progress
39 SMPD should identify and consider
appropriate remediation for those officers
who failed to comply with the Department’s
body-worn camera policy on May 31,
2020.
IRB process
under
consideration Completed
40 SMPD should regularly audit body-worn
camera use by officers to ensure that
policy requirements and expectations are
being met in the field regarding activation.
425.10, Review
of Recordings In Progress
41 SMPD should conduct and document a
meaningful administrative review of
officers’ uses of force following civil unrest
situations or other large-scale incidents
and should consider “investigative referral”
of specific uses of force that may be out of
policy or require specific remedial action.
IRB process
under
consideration In Progress
43 The City should request that SMPD
prepare a response to this report indicating
the degree to which it accepts each of the
recommendations made and setting out a
plan for implementation. Completed
44 The City should develop a plan for
independent evaluation and public
reporting on the status of SMPD’s
implementation of the recommendations.
OIR Group
Interim Report Completed
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 19 | P a g e
Recommendation 8 recommended an on-going tracking mechanism for less lethal munitions. As we detailed above in both the Training and Policy sections, the Department reported that it now includes a scribe function in all crowd management deployments. One function of the scribe is to document uses of force. And, to the extent possible, the scribe will collect and count expended less-lethal cartridges. While this somewhat addresses the recommendation in practice (assuming it is used effectively), we found that the Department has not yet documented/defined the new role in policy or procedure.
As a result of Assembly Bill 481, a state-wide law that requires all law enforcement agencies to publish a full account of their military weapons, the Department recently conducted a comprehensive inventory of current munitions and developed a new policy for reporting use and inventory annually that, per statute, requires City Council approval.
The consideration by Council is pending.
The Department also reported that it is developing a worksheet for officers to individually count munitions in their own inventory to better track what each officer carries into the field.
Because these items are still in development, we consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 9 recommended that the use of the flashbang device on May 31st be reviewed. The Department reported that the officer who used the device was immediately counseled in the field; we observed this “counseling” on body-worn camera footage of the day. More importantly with an eye to the future, the Department updated Procedure 303 to prohibit the use of flashbangs (also known as noise-flash distraction devices, or NFDD) on persons in a crowd.
While we would have preferred a more formal remediation for use of the device, as we detail in our discussion of Recommendation 41, below, we consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 10 recommended that the Department conduct a detailed analysis of Pepperball deployments on May 31st. To date, we have not received any such analysis so consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 41 is also a work in progress. We recommended that the Department conduct a “meaningful administrative review” of all force used on May 31st.
In our original report, we commented that the findings of the Internal Review Board (IRB) held by the Department after May 31st, were too broad and lacked accountability for officers’ specific actions.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 20 | P a g e
The Department reported that upon receiving our recommendation, it conducted a secondary review of all available body-worn camera footage. After that review, the Department informally reported to OIR Group that it did not observe any incidents on May 31st that rose to the level of misconduct. To date, the Department has not provided any documentation of this secondary review to OIR Group but has committed to evaluating May 31st uses of force.
But perhaps the more important aspect today is the Department’s commitment to its IRB process, a process that is designed to hold officers accountable for their actions, whether the “accountability” is formal discipline, directed training, or documented counseling. Department leadership reported that it is currently working to reform the IRB process. These updates will ensure that the Department has an adequate “feedback loop” to ensure that their recommended actions were taken and create a more robust review system.
Because this is an on-going process, we consider these recommendations to be in progress.
Recommendation 39 recommended “appropriate remediation” for officers who failed to activate their body-worn cameras. The Department reported that the remediation was training. And, as described in Recommendation 38 in Training, the Department completed this training Department-wide. While it would have been preferrable for the Department to direct training for the specific officers who failed to activate their bodyworn cameras on May 31st, we consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 40 recommended regular audits of body-worn cameras. The Department reported that, per its existing policy (425.10, “Review of Recordings”) supervisors are required to conduct monthly, random body-worn camera audits.
Unfortunately, the Department does not currently have a system in place to verify that supervisors are conducting these audits on a regular basis. The Department was candid in its admission that it could do better on this score, while also asserting that supervisors are regularly viewing body-worn video in their review of force incidents or public complaints.
New technology – an equipment upgrade of the body-worn camera itself to a new model and of Department technology systems that the Department’s technology officer demonstrated for OIR Group – will enhance the ability to audit and review body-worn camera footage. When the new systems are fully functioning, the Department will have a mechanism to easily and formally confirm that supervisors are performing regular audits in accordance with SMPD policy. We noted that the Department is ahead of other jurisdictions in technology enhancements, especially those related to body-worn
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 21 | P a g e
cameras. We consider this recommendation to be in progress and look forward to reviewing the Department’s new systems when they are in place.
Recommendation 43 recommended that SMPD prepare a response to our May 31st Report, indicate the degree to which it accepted each of the recommendations made, and set out a plan for implementation. This recommendation was completed by creation and presentation of the Information Item delivered in July 2021 and by collaborating on this public report. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 44 recommended that the City develop a plan for independent evaluation and public reporting on the status of SMPD’s implementation of the recommendations. That has been fulfilled by this document – a useful starting point for our work on this report, and for our ongoing validation efforts. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Community Engagement Recommendations
Four of the recommendations required that the Department seek community input regarding decisions on use of tear gas, declaration of an unlawful assembly, use of curfews, and communication. Department leadership reported that it is actively seeking a Project Manager to manage the community engagement aspect of these recommendations so that the community is given an opportunity to collaborate and provide insight.
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
14 SMPD should engage with its community
and City leaders to determine whether and
to what degree gas and other less lethal
munitions should be used in the First
Amendment activity context. In Progress
15 After having the above discourse, SMPD
should revise its use of force policy related
to deployment of tear gas and less lethal
impact munitions in crowd control
situations to specify the circumstances, if
any, under which they may be used.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques In Progress
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 22 | P a g e
20 SMPD and the City should engage with
the community as it considers the
circumstances required for a public protest
to be declared an unlawful assembly. The
resulting guidelines should be publicized in
a way that provides City residents and
stakeholders a clear understanding of
under what circumstances the SMPD will
declare an unlawful assembly. In Progress
32 The City should engage with its community
in developing guidelines on whether and
how curfews should be deployed,
particularly when adjacent to First
Amendment protected activity. In Progress
Recommendation 14 recommended that the Department engage with its community and City leaders to determine whether and to what degree gas and other less lethal munitions should be used in the First Amendment activity context. The Department reported that it is currently working to retain a community engagement specialist/facilitator who will manage this community outreach/conversation process.
We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 15 recommended that, after completing the community engagement listed in Recommendation 14, the Department should revise its use of force policy to incorporate the community’s feedback, specifically as it relates to deployment of tear gas and less lethal impact munitions in crowd control situations; we note that the Department has already made some revisions to the related policies (see Recommendations 11, 12, 17, and 18), but the community outreach piece has not yet occurred. The Department expressed its commitment to further revisions and, again, is in the process of retaining a facilitator to manage the outreach process. We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 20 recommended that the Department and the City should engage with the community as it considers the circumstances required for a public protest to be declared an unlawful assembly and publicize the resulting guidelines in a way that provides City residents and stakeholders a clear understanding of under what circumstances the SMPD will declare an unlawful assembly. The Department expressed its commitment to creating these guidelines in collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office, PSROC, and the community. The Department reported that, here, too, it will use the facilitator to manage the community outreach process, which is the first step to this recommendation. We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 23 | P a g e
Recommendation 32 recommended that the Department engage with its community in developing guidelines on whether and how curfews should be deployed, particularly when adjacent to First Amendment protected activity. The Department reported that the City Attorney’s Office is also participating in completion of this recommendation by conducting outreach and legal research on the topic of curfews. Here again, the Department plans on using their community outreach facilitator, when hired, to help complete this recommendation. We consider this recommendation to be in progress until we receive more information from the City Attorney’s Office and the Department.
While community engagement specifically applies to these four listed recommendations, the Department may choose to elicit community input on other items as well.
Next Steps
We appreciate the progress that SMPD has made in implementing the 44 recommendations and look forward to receiving additional information regarding implementation of the outstanding recommendations as it becomes available.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Darlene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 13A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I applaud the work of the PSROC contained in their reports, and request council to review and approve the Recommendations contained in their reports.
Darlene Evans
Item 13.A
11/15/22
1 of 2 Item 13.A
11/15/22
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Written Comment (5495 : PSROC Reports)
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 3:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; David White; Attorney Mailbox
Subject: City Council Meeting 11/15/2022- Agenda Item 13A Public Comments
EXTERNAL
Good Afternoon Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers, I am grateful for the Council's approval to form the City's Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission and look forward to your continued support of independent civilian oversight to strengthen our civilian community's relationships with our public safety organizations and officers.
I urge you to continue supporting the work of the PSROC by thoughtfully reviewing their report and taking the necessary action to adopt the commission's recommendations as laid out in Attachment A to the agenda item including the following:
"1. Eliminate officer discretion in the use of body cams when witnesses who are victims to a crime are involved.
2. Implement all proposed reforms proposed in the Inspector General’s report on complaints and processes.
3. Require all complaint investigations to be processed, investigated, and brought to completion within 90 days.
4. Require all SMPD officer misconduct be investigated fully irrespective of how the misconduct is discovered.
5. Implement all recommendations in the OIR Group’s After Action Report concerning the events of May 2020." Thank you for your continued focus on this incredibly important topic.
Best Regards,
Natalya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
[email protected]
Item 13.A
11/15/22
2 of 2 Item 13.A
11/15/22
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Written Comment (5495 : PSROC Reports)
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 29, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, City Clerk 13 Items Subject: Request of Councilmembers Negrete, Parra, and Brock that the City Manager develop and return to City Council with recommendations for a Poet Laureate program for the City of Santa Monica. The program and recommendations shall be developed in collaboration with the Library Board and Arts Commission. (CONTINUED FROM 11/15/2022)
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
8.B
Packet Pg. 80
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 29, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, City Clerk 13 Items Subject: Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. (CONTINUED FROM 11/15/2022)
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comment
8.C
Packet Pg. 81
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 8:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 7:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide. Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak Item 16.D
11/15/22
1 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPosition=&ID=5477& CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
2 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 8:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: barbanell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We wholeheartedly oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022.
Stephanie Barbanell and Jerry Bass
Santa Monica Residents since 1986
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, David White <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
Item 16.D
11/15/22
3 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 4 We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide.
Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 16.D
11/15/22
4 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 5 Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPosi tion=&ID=5477&CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
5 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: barbanell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We wholeheartedly oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022.
Stephanie Barbanell and Jerry Bass
Santa Monica Residents since 1986
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, David White <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
6 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 7 Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide.
Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the Item 16.D
11/15/22
7 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 8 organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPosi tion=&ID=5477&CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
8 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 9 Vernice Hankins
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 7:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide. Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement Item 16.D
11/15/22
9 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 10 recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPosition=&ID=5477& CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
10 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Karen Kushi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 9:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 16.D
11/15/22
11 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Daniel Galamba; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan
Subject: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must request that you oppose this item 16-D.
This proposal has a chilling effect on neighborhood organizations by requiring them to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website.
Neighborhood organizations have a legitimate interest in endorsing or opposing measures that affect their residents and should not be threatened with reprisals by the City for doing their duty. This is just an attempt to intimidate neighborhood organizations into silence and violates their right to free speech and political expression. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16.D
11/15/22
12 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Agenda item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Strongly oppose. Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office, provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity.
We don't need more bullying threats to democracy, such as in City Council Item 16-D.
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica, 90403
Item 16.D
11/15/22
13 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Cc: Heidi Jo Corey; Neighbor Karen ⛅Percy Neighborhood Watch Buddy; Neighbor 🏡 Carol Dickinson Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
ᨸᨹᨺᨻᨼᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY
ᏟᏠᏡᏢᏣᏤᏥ 310-656-0000
᠀᠁᠂ [email protected]
Item 16.D
11/15/22
14 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marilyn Alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 6:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
I tried by hitting reply all, but it wouldn’t go through. I will try to copy the council members another way. Again.
I also compared this to all of the endorsements for candidates we have been receiving, telling them I want to choose The advice of whomever I choose, not just those who have the money for mail out ads. If they tell our neighborhood leaders
They cannot promote someone, isn’t that violating their freedom of speech? Thank you for your work.
Marilyn Alexander
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 5:49 PM
To: Marilyn Alexander <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 I am opposed to the proposal on the Agenda Item 16- D. It is a violation of freedom of speech. I get to decide whose advice I want to take or reject.
All of the mailers that piled up in my mailbox for weeks were the same thing, advising or pleading for my vote. If Item 16-D is passed then mailers must be forbidden also.
Thank you for voting this one down.
Marilyn Alexander
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2022, at 7:14 AM, Tricia Crane <[email protected]> wrote:
To
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D Item 16.D
11/15/22
15 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide.
Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
16 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPo sition=&ID=5477&CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
17 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Melanie Landsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We oppose Agenda 16-D, please vote NO!
The non-profit communities in Santa Monica provide an invaluable service to its residents by researching and sharing information to help the community better understand the critical issues that face our city.
Thank you.
Melanie & Barry Landsberg
Item 16.D
11/15/22
18 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; David White; [email protected] Subject: FOSP: City Council 11/15/22 agenda iten 16-D -- OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
November 13, 2022
To: Mayor Himmelrich, City Council members, City Manager White, City Attorney Sloan From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: City Council 11/15/22 agenda item 16-D
The Board of Directors of Friends of Sunset Park, a 501(c)(4) organization, opposes agenda item 16-D.
Staff Report Printout
D. Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election.
If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website.
In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
19 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 501(c)(4) political activity: https://ballotpedia.org/501(c)(4)
“Political activities, as defined by the IRS, are the actions that participate in the electoral process. The IRS does not consider direct or indirect political influence to be in the domain of promoting social welfare. However, a social welfare organization designated as a 501(c)(4) can engage in some political activity. Unlike the restrictions for 501(c)(3) organizations, 501(c)(4) organizations can legally participate in political activity in support of or opposition to candidates for office. These political activities cannot be the organization's primary activities and cannot be direct donations to a candidate for office or a candidate's committee. “The IRS does consider legislative activities, commonly called "lobbying," to be activities that further social welfare purposes. Thus, a 501(c)(4) organization may engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying so long as the lobbying is related to the organization's exempt purpose.” Conclusion: The city can place restrictions on how the neighborhood organizations spend city grants. But the city can neither tell neighborhood organizations how to spend members' dues, nor restrict the neighborhood organizations’ political activities. Only the IRS can do that, according to whether each group is a 501(c)(3) or a 501 (c)(4).
While the 7 city-recognized neighborhood organizations in Santa Monica are now allowed to apply for city grants of up to $7,000 per year, as of 2020 according the Santa Monica Lookout, City Council members received an annual salary of $15,696, while the mayor made $18,282, plus all 7 Council members also received $29,012 a year in benefits, and a budgeted car allowance of $4,416.
Question: Would Council member Davis' 16-D proposal also require City Council members to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or ballot measures, since they also receive city funding? Again, the Board of Directors of Friends of Sunset Park, a 501(c)(4) organization, opposes agenda item 16-D.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
20 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:
The Boards of Northeast Neighbors, NOMA, and I'm sure all our other neighborhood associations support both the law governing 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations and the City's requirement of neighborhood associations, including the federal law permitting 501(c)(4)-status organizations to engage in political lobbying and campaign activities.
P{lease vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 16.D
11/15/22
21 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D
From: Roger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council
As a 39 year resident of Santa Monica I was appalled to read the language of Item 16-D on next week’s council agenda. I find this proposal totally unacceptable and urge a “NO” vote.
This is a blatant attempt to stifle reasonable, traditional and invaluable political discourse in the city to protect the entrenched and powerful. It smacks of intimidation and the city acting as a bully.
I am not an attorney, but I have just read the California State statue language for the allowed activities of a 501(c)(4) non-profit and I do not see any prohibition of political activities. It seems to me what you are proposing is the canceling out of an otherwise legal activity? If the City provides operational funds or grants to a local association, it seem to me their only obligation would be to isolate or separate those funds from other income such as dues, grants or gifts. Then, subject to audit, the City could be reassured that City funds were not used for a political purpose.
It also seems silly to have any political flyer, poster or lawn sign say who did not pay for its production (ie. The City of SM). Can you imagine a Vote for Biden sign have to say at the bottom that it was not paid for by a Dojdal Trump PAC.
Santa Monica should be encouraging a vibrant and respectful dialogue on all political candidates and voter related issues.
It saddens and certainly disappoints me to think one of you thought it a good idea to put such an anti-democratic proposal forward for consideration.
Please vote “NO” on Item 16-D.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
22 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 Thank you,
Roger Hill
Item 16.D
11/15/22
23 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Karen Kushi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 9:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 16.D
11/15/22
24 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D -----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must request that you oppose this item 16-D.
This proposal has a chilling effect on neighborhood organizations by requiring them to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website.
Neighborhood organizations have a legitimate interest in endorsing or opposing measures that affect their residents and should not be threatened with reprisals by the City for doing their duty. This is just an attempt to intimidate neighborhood organizations into silence and violates their right to free speech and political expression. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16.D
11/15/22
25 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Cc: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>; Neighbor Karen ⚸⚹⚺⚻⚼⚽⚾⚿⛀⛁⛂⛃⛄Percy Neighborhood Watch Buddy <[email protected]>; Neighbor ౷౸౹ Carol Dickinson <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
ᨸᨹᨺᨻᨼᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY
ᏟᏠᏡᏢᏣᏤᏥ 310-656-0000
᠀᠁᠂[email protected]
Item 16.D
11/15/22
26 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 -----Original Message-----
From: Melanie Landsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We oppose Agenda 16-D, please vote NO!
The non-profit communities in Santa Monica provide an invaluable service to its residents by researching and sharing information to help the community better understand the critical issues that face our city.
Thank you.
Melanie & Barry Landsberg
Item 16.D
11/15/22
27 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:
The Boards of Northeast Neighbors, NOMA, and I'm sure all our other neighborhood associations support both the law governing 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations and the City's requirement of neighborhood associations, including the federal law permitting 501(c)(4)-status organizations to engage in political lobbying and campaign activities.
P{lease vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 16.D
11/15/22
28 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marianne O'Donnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: November 15th Council Meeting: Comment for Agenda item 16D
EXTERNAL
Comment about item 16D
(https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=30&ID=39661&MeetingID=1365):
Council,
Penalizing neighborhood organizations for exercising their right to an equal voice is discriminatory, by attempting to muzzle them when multiple other interest groups also endorse, oppose and finance candidates and measures (Chamber of Commerce, SMPD, SMFD, SMRR, Local 11, Santa Monica Forward, stealthy groups from out of town, etc., to name a few; even Councilmembers.) This request by Councilmember Davis is a denial of democracy. It denies residents the right to hear their own neighborhood associations' opinion, by suggesting that neighborhood associations be canceled from official City listings, as well as their City grants (a mere $7,000 per year each.) I would like to remind the City Council, and City Hall, that residents and their associations are also stakeholders -and the most rooted- in the governance and direction of Santa Monica. They have the right to have a voice, too.
I strongly encourage the City Council to vote this request from Councilmember Davis down, and thus respect the democratic process.
Thank you for your consideration,
Marianne O'Donnell
90405
Item 16.D
11/15/22
29 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D
From: Roger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council
As a 39 year resident of Santa Monica I was appalled to read the language of Item 16-D on next week’s council agenda. I find this proposal totally unacceptable and urge a “NO” vote.
This is a blatant attempt to stifle reasonable, traditional and invaluable political discourse in the city to protect the entrenched and powerful. It smacks of intimidation and the city acting as a bully.
I am not an attorney, but I have just read the California State statue language for the allowed activities of a 501(c)(4) non-profit and I do not see any prohibition of political activities. It seems to me what you are proposing is the canceling out of an otherwise legal activity? If the City provides operational funds or grants to a local association, it seem to me their only obligation would be to isolate or separate those funds from other income such as dues, grants or gifts. Then, subject to audit, the City could be reassured that City funds were not used for a political purpose.
It also seems silly to have any political flyer, poster or lawn sign say who did not pay for its production (ie. The City of SM). Can you imagine a Vote for Biden sign have to say at the bottom that it was not paid for by a Dojdal Trump PAC.
Santa Monica should be encouraging a vibrant and respectful dialogue on all political candidates and voter related issues.
It saddens and certainly disappoints me to think one of you thought it a good idea to put such an anti-democratic proposal forward for consideration.
Please vote “NO” on Item 16-D.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
30 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 Thank you,
Roger Hill
Item 16.D
11/15/22
31 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Karen Kushi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 9:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 16.D
11/15/22
32 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D -----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must request that you oppose this item 16-D.
This proposal has a chilling effect on neighborhood organizations by requiring them to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website.
Neighborhood organizations have a legitimate interest in endorsing or opposing measures that affect their residents and should not be threatened with reprisals by the City for doing their duty. This is just an attempt to intimidate neighborhood organizations into silence and violates their right to free speech and political expression. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16.D
11/15/22
33 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Cc: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>; Neighbor Karen ⚸⚹⚺⚻⚼⚽⚾⚿⛀⛁⛂⛃⛄Percy Neighborhood Watch Buddy <[email protected]>; Neighbor ౷౸౹ Carol Dickinson <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
ᨸᨹᨺᨻᨼᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY
ᏟᏠᏡᏢᏣᏤᏥ 310-656-0000
᠀᠁᠂[email protected]
Item 16.D
11/15/22
34 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 -----Original Message-----
From: Melanie Landsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We oppose Agenda 16-D, please vote NO!
The non-profit communities in Santa Monica provide an invaluable service to its residents by researching and sharing information to help the community better understand the critical issues that face our city.
Thank you.
Melanie & Barry Landsberg
Item 16.D
11/15/22
35 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:
The Boards of Northeast Neighbors, NOMA, and I'm sure all our other neighborhood associations support both the law governing 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations and the City's requirement of neighborhood associations, including the federal law permitting 501(c)(4)-status organizations to engage in political lobbying and campaign activities.
P{lease vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 16.D
11/15/22
36 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marianne O'Donnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: November 15th Council Meeting: Comment for Agenda item 16D
EXTERNAL
Comment about item 16D
(https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=30&ID=39661&MeetingID=1365):
Council,
Penalizing neighborhood organizations for exercising their right to an equal voice is discriminatory, by attempting to muzzle them when multiple other interest groups also endorse, oppose and finance candidates and measures (Chamber of Commerce, SMPD, SMFD, SMRR, Local 11, Santa Monica Forward, stealthy groups from out of town, etc., to name a few; even Councilmembers.) This request by Councilmember Davis is a denial of democracy. It denies residents the right to hear their own neighborhood associations' opinion, by suggesting that neighborhood associations be canceled from official City listings, as well as their City grants (a mere $7,000 per year each.) I would like to remind the City Council, and City Hall, that residents and their associations are also stakeholders -and the most rooted- in the governance and direction of Santa Monica. They have the right to have a voice, too.
I strongly encourage the City Council to vote this request from Councilmember Davis down, and thus respect the democratic process.
Thank you for your consideration,
Marianne O'Donnell
90405
Item 16.D
11/15/22
37 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Andrew Hoyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting November 15, 2022 Item 16D
EXTERNAL
Gleam,
Why do you hate us so much?
Andrew Hoyer
There is only one moment in time when it is essential to awaken. That moment is now. - Buddha
Item 16.D
11/15/22
38 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Darrell Robb <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11/15/22 agenda item 16-D
EXTERNAL
RE: November 15 – City Council – Agenda Item 16-D – Request by Councilmember Davis that neighborhood organizations commit to refraining from endorsing or opposing candidates or ballot measures in future, or else links to their names and websites should be removed from the city website.
It must be noted that while the 7 neighborhood organizations are allowed to apply for city grants of up to $7,000 per year, as of 2020 according the Santa Monica Lookout, City Council members received an annual salary of $15,696, while the mayor made $18,282, plus all 7 Council members also received $29,012 a year in benefits, and a budgeted car allowance of $4,416.
Does Council member Davis' 16-D proposal also apply to City Council members, since they also receive city funding?
Meanwhile, according to the IRS, neighborhood organizations that have 501(c)(4) status ARE allowed to endorse or oppose candidates, legislation, and ballot measures. While the city can place restrictions on how the city grants are spent, it cannot restrict how membership dues are spent.
Sincerely,
(s) Darrell Robb
1440 23rd St, #312
Santa Monica CA 90404-2924
Item 16.D
11/15/22
39 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter Altschuler <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; David White; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Ms. Davis’s request to compel community organizations to cease endorsing City Council candidates is a lesson in political malfeasance. Any attempt to restrict the right of those organizations to support candidates for elective office is inherently unConstitutional, denying them the freedom of speech that even corporations have been granted by Citizens United and McCutcheon.
The effect of item 16-D would be to punish residents — through organizations they have formed to represent the values they consider important to their neighborhoods — by withholding both visibility on the City’s website and access to City funding. Given the candidates who have been endorsed by those organizations, it is possible to conclude that Ms. Davis is hoping to eliminate a threat to her own incumbency and its checkered history of subverting the interests of Santa Monica residents to the interests of developers and businesses that do not have residents’ best interests at heart.
I strongly urge you to quash Ms. Davis’s request and, in doing so, make a clear declaration that community organizations and the endorsements they make can never be the targets of political retribution. p
Item 16.D
11/15/22
40 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Re: OPPOSE - : City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
I oppose Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. They are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations. y.
They take seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
STOP PLAYING LEGAL GAMES TO END FREE SPEECH IN SANTA MONICA WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF IT.. GLEAM DAVIS SURE DIDN'T MOVE TO SILENCE HER PET SANTA MONICA FORWARD GROUP FOR THEIR DIRECT LOBBYING..
Gleam stop the games.. the City is so tired of them from you and SMF.
Danielle Charney
Resident since April Fool's Day 1982
Can't believe I still love this place with all my heart Item 16.D
11/15/22
41 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 1:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; [email protected]; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Zina Josephs; [email protected]; Tricia Crane; Andrew Hoyer Subject: Subject: 16D
EXTERNAL
To help protect y
Micro so ft Office p
auto matic downlo
picture from the
November 14, 2022
Mayor and City Council Members:
The Board of the North of Montana Association (NOMA) has voted to urge you to oppose item 16D. While historically NOMA has not chosen to endorse candidates, we support all Neighborhood Associations' right to do so. We have in the past felt it important to support or oppose ballot measures of great impact to residents, and this proposal would deny our right to do so.
The proposal is anti-democratic and antagonistic. It amounts to a gag order on the free speech of Neighborhood Associations which have long been a valuable source of information about City policy, a forum for residents to interact with City representatives, and a place to discuss politics and issues important to residents.
There are already well-established legal limits that 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations must adhere to regarding candidate and policy endorsements, which renders this proposal unnecessary and unwelcome.
Threatening to take away Neighborhood Associations' modest City funding and recognition, even if groups are in compliance with current non-profit organization regulations, would unnecessarily stifle public discourse.
The NOMA Board
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 16.D
11/15/22
42 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Adam Gross <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; David White; [email protected] Subject: City Council 11/15/22 agenda item 16-D – OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
Threatening neighborhood organizations with Item 16-D makes no sense if you value all citizens’ ability to participate in our democratic process. This item seems even more disingenuous when the council member promoting it has not been endorsed by the neighborhood organizations she is trying to silence.
The neighborhood organizations are mostly funded by dues, not a small potatoes city grant. This is a lawyer’s justification to silence free speech. Please focus on real problems like homelessness, the city budget, and public safety.
Sincerely,
Adam Gross
Item 16.D
11/15/22
43 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:57 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: City Council Mtg. 11/15/22 - Item 16D - OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) has voted to urge you to oppose item 16D. While historically Wilmont has chosen to not endorse candidates, we support all Neighborhood Associations' right to do so. We have in the past felt it important to support or oppose ballot measures of great impact to residents, and this proposal would deny our right to do so.
The proposal is anti-democratic. It amounts to a gag order on the free speech of Neighborhood Associations which have been a valuable source of information about City policy, a forum for education via residents interacting with City representatives and a place to discuss policies and issues important to residents. This year two successful City Council candidates' forums were held as part of our education outreach. One was facilitated by Wilmont and was an introduction to ALL the City Council candidates and the second one, which provided a detailed question and answer forum again for ALL City Council candidates, was facilitated by the Neighborhood Council.
There are already well-established legal limits that 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations must adhere to regarding candidate and policy endorsements, which renders this proposal unnecessary and unwelcome. Threatening to take away Neighborhood Associations' modest City funding and recognition, even if groups are in compliance with current non-profit organization regulations, would unnecessarily stifle public discourse. To outline how modest the city's grant is, given that Wilmont is the largest neighborhood, the current funding of $7,000 a year is insufficient for Wilmont to reach out to its more than 13,000 addresses given the cost of $1.00 for each piece of direct first-class direct mail i.e., $13,000.
Thank-you,
Wilmont Board
Item 16.D
11/15/22
44 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item 16.D - November 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
Council,
A neighborhood association’s purpose often includes advocating for the neighborhood to local government to make resident concerns known and seek improvements on behalf of its stakeholders. It is critical to this work to endorse local candidates and measures to help better inform its members – the stakeholders of the City of Santa Monica.
That being said, if the City intends to place restrictions on the Neighborhood Organization Grant Program to prohibit use of grant funds, the City should consider the following:
• There has been a lack of compliance with the Neighborhood Organization Grant Program, including my own Neighborhood Organization failing to include their bylaws to their grant application. The grant was approved despite the fact that the Neighborhood Organization failed to submit the minimum documentation. • My neighborhood organization's structure is such that it does not actual allow for meaningful stakeholder input. The Board makes 100% of the decisions – without approval of the members and often without consultation or an opportunity for input of the residents. There is a complete lack of democratic process in that the Board slate of candidates that appear on the organization’s election ballot is exclusively complied by the Board and during times not authorized by its bylaws. While there is an ability to “write in” a candidate, the printed names on the ballot exclusively are those “recommended” by the Board. Coupled with the problem of having no term limits and non-compliance with election periods, the effect is that the same Board, with the same uniform viewpoints remain in control of the organization – and as a result, in control of the City grant funds – for many decades. This is to the exclusion of the majority of the resident stakeholders. A handful of privileged Board members are able to maintain control of the organization and the City grant funds to promote their personal agendas, regardless of whether their personal viewpoints align with the viewpoints of the majority of the organizations stakeholders.
Therefore, if the grant program is to be revised, the council should also consider implementing the following additional requirements:
• A method to ensure that organizations comply with the requirement to include their bylaws with the application;
• The bylaws require that a majority of it's membership attending a monthly meeting or participating by an e-vote approve the expenditure of any of the city grant funds. Stated differently, a prohibition that expenditure of the city grant funds cannot be solely approved by its Board members; • The bylaws require a majority of it's membership attending a monthly meeting or participating by an e-vote approve of all city council, board or commission endorsements and/or any local measures; • Alternatively, if Board members are permitted to exclusively determine how grant funds are to be spent, there be a maximum 4-year term limit for each Board member, the organization must engage in a process where members are permitted to nominate candidates to run for the Board with such candidate names and bio’s printed on the ballot in the same font and appearance as candidates recommended by the board.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
45 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Thank you for your consideration.
Eve Lopez
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16.D
11/15/22
46 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: 11/15/2022 agenda item 16D
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers, I write in support of agenda item 16D, as well as to note that I feel it overlooks another important point regarding city funding of the neighborhood organizations. To my knowledge, all of the neighborhood organizations require a paid membership in order to be a voting member; I know this is the case for the Wilmont Org. These organizations should not be allowed to require paid membership to have voting participation if they are going to receive public funding and city recognition as the official representative group for their neighborhoods. They cannot reasonably simultaneously be private clubs and official neighborhood organizations, which I believe also ties back into why they should not be allowed to issue political endorsements if they're receiving city funding and official recognition.
As an aside, I read in the Santa Monica Lookout today that Friends of Sunset Park, Northeast Neighbors, Midcity Neighbors, and the NOMA Org all opposed agenda item 16D. Yet the FOSP website states "All of FOSP’s revenue comes from membership dues and related donations", and the NOMA website states "All of NOMA’s income comes from membership fees and related donations." I can't help but find it curious that they think 16D is such a problem while claiming (wrongly) that they don't receive city funding.
-Jason Mastbaum
Item 16.D
11/15/22
47 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: OZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan; David White
Cc: Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Jorge Casuso; Sam Catanzaro; Dolores Quintana; Santa Monica Observer; [email protected]; Sue Himmelrich
Subject: 👍 16D ---> SUPPORT disclaimer requirement for city funded neighborhood groups
EXTERNAL
FACT: The Supreme Court has generally supported restrictions on government funding, even when those restrictions may stop or have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of recipients.
This item is a step in the right direction in that it promotes transparency and prevents conflicts of interest, and perhaps most importantly, the appearance of conflict of interest, a concept that many Santa Monicans do not seem to be familiar with.
The neighborhood groups should at a minimum include a disclaimer when making political endorsements, as proposed by the item.
The groups currently engaging in political advocacy could also consider creating an affiliated 501 (c) (3) organization to keep the different types of funding formally separate. This is quite common, e.g.
The Sierra Club has both a 501 (c) 3 and a 501 (c) 4 organizations, as does Abundant Housing LA, an organization which has been under scrutiny within the City due to the apparent conflict of interest of its Executive Director when she sat on the Santa Monica Housing Commission.
Another option is that the City could establish a policy that limits disbursing City funding to the neighborhood groups that are 501 (c) 3 organizations.
In my years of advocacy within the City I have noticed some disturbing habits and behaviors relating to the neighborhood groups and the heads of some of them. For one, the habit of the neighborhood group heads meeting monthly outside of the public view while calling themselves the “neighborhood council.” The groups claim to be representing the neighborhoods but choose to have secret meetings? Such a lack of transparency is a slap in the face of the community, and creates the impression of nefarious activity that the groups are not willing to share with the community – while gladly putting out the hand for public funding.
We have to also acknowledge the fact that the neighborhood groups are in fact comprised of a handful of active members, and it is rare that more than a few dozen citizens participate in their regular meetings or otherwise remain involved. I would venture to claim that most Santa Monicans are unaware of the existence of the neighborhood groups, or are disinterested in what the groups have to offer. Such lack of involvement begs the question whether the groups put in an effort to survey and respond to the community’s needs and interests, or whether they prefer to keep the involvement of residents to a minimum for one reason or another, for example to have more control over the group which in reality is tiny and therefore invites less diversity of opinion, scrutiny or demands of accountability.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
48 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 As a resident who lived in Wilmont for over five years, I was never aware of the existence of a neighborhood group in my neighborhood. It was with surprise that I read on the Wilmont website a few months ago that Wilmont “represented” the interests of thousands of Santa Monicans. Is it possible to represent the interests of the residents who are unaware of the existence of the group? Is such a disconnect present in all the Santa Monica neighborhood groups? What I find troubling as well is that I have witnessed behaviors where the head of a neighborhood group acted motivated by her private interests (ego) rather than the interests of the community. Such petty, entitled and narcissistic behavior from a person who collects public funding for her group is unacceptable. I certainly do not wish for my tax dollars to support such behavior or person running a neighborhood group.
I am flabbergasted by some of the neighborhood groups bringing up free speech when opposing this item, as I am aware of instances where the same neighborhood groups engaged in suppressing free speech in the chats during their ostensibly public zoom meetings, and gave a hard time to participants with dissenting views, all while collecting public funding for the group’s activities.
It is my view that the City would be wise examining closely what legal or fiscal relationship, if any, it would like to have with the neighborhood groups as they exist now, and the neighborhood groups would be wise to examine their goals and commitments to the community rather than the handful of people who sit on their boards, and their private interests. A truly ambitious group would not be hung up on receiving funding from the City as it invariably comes with some sort of strings attached, but would instead actively work to engage as many residents is it can, and thus grow its power independently.
A political campaign endorsement by neighborhood groups, as passive/lazy a form of political advocacy as it is, if allowed by the City as a funding agency at all, should be required to be accompanied by a disclaimer distancing the endorsement from the position of the City of Santa Monica. Any policy encouraging transparency is good, especially in a small town with incestuous political relationships and an entrenched establishment fueled by corruption.
As a final note, since some of the neighborhood groups were very upset that Mayor Himmelrich promoted her ballot measure without a disclaimer that the proposed measure was not affiliated with the City of Santa Monica, they should have no problem putting a disclaimer on any of their own political endorsements as long as they receive any public funding from the City and are listed as a City-recognized group on the City website. I cannot think of a downside to being transparent.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 16.D
11/15/22
49 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; [email protected]; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: PNA SM; Brian ONeil
Subject: Oppose Item 16-D; City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: PNA Board of Directors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D While the PNA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization and not be technically affected by item 16-D, we urge you to vote against Item 16-D, which would effectively serve as a gag order against the 501(c)(4) neighborhood associations in the city. We urge you to vote against Item 16-D due to the apparently punitive nature of the item and the appearance that such an action is being taken in a politically retaliatory fashion in the wake of the recent election cycle.
Neighborhood associations are made up of volunteers that care about improving life in their neighborhoods and within Santa Monica. It is a primary means by which residents are able to interact personally and engage on a wide variety of city issues. The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of all neighborhood associations.
Those neighborhood associations with a 501(c)(4) status are enabled and protected by Federal law to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within their right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council. This action has the appearance of being retaliatory against those neighborhood associations that have advocated for residents’ rights and needs. Furthermore, this action, rather than encourage civic engagement, would only chill public debate in our city.
We urge that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
PNA Board of Directors
Item 16.D
11/15/22
50 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please reject the request to throttle our official neighborhood organizations for exercising their legal rights.
I am distressed that a City Councilmember wants to kneecap a vital resource for residents. Our community is enriched by the indispensable service these neighborhood groups provide.
Please reject item 6-D.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 16.D
11/15/22
51 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Written Comment (5492 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 29, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, City Clerk 13 Items Subject: Request of Councilmembers Parra, Brock and de la Torre to direct the City Manager to evaluate the impacts and feasibility of changing the Santa Monica Housing Authority Payment Standard basis to Small Area Fair Market Rate and increasing select zip code/unit size categories to 120% SAFMR to mitigate negative impacts as recommended by the Housing Commission by mid-December. (CONTINUED FROM 11/15/2022)
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comment
B. ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022
8.D
Packet Pg. 133
EE v, T 'rs. ' a $
Item 16.E
11/15/22
1 of 4 Item 16.E
11/15/22
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Written Comment (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area Fair Market Rate) *
s(\
No
N'
ut
=o
;.$
3 3
&
c-)
q
-b
$
6'
q
a
s
-t
s
B
3 ,s
R
f.
6f'
5 R
o
Xr)
o
E"
+
o
-x
h
o
\?
s
\
-)
a
\$
ND'
BE
rb
-)
.s
-J-
-.O
P
G
S\9
-T1
20 S
o'
s
s
rD
S.
o
N
e
$_
+
I
*
o
De
3F
E
+'
5 o
-+
1-
c
v
a
+
B
F
a\
-1)
d
F
6'
-T
o
sS
s
Ndt"
d
6'
o
+
J
r$
(A
dt
R"
s
s
\$
$*
n+s
1q
+t
3 il
d
B$
Tl
.D=
o
T
--t
o,
+5
n
(n
3 P_
>
{_
F
s
x
D
>
F'
g
;0I
a
o
{-
3 s
cr
o
s
f,
J
f\
(n
t,
I
-f
s
f,
o_
o
L^
t)
(^
c
R
N
il
$>.
+.
G.'
.T
-o
s
3 8-
-)
o
t
d
b
V)
D
J
(n
H
:
N
I
O.
-J*
s
\l
s
\
d
\
R"
$
o\
o
)s
TI
=
E
Fn
o
+
o-
\
-t
o
-b
:h
6'
o
-b
o
c-)
o
s
f
d
:
-.l
\Y
s
ft
f,
hf
r0
x
o
(D
(o
n_
-l-
:r
n
o
te
'Tt
:3
x
f,
a-
-a
h
's
:
I
o\
ctt
bs
-\)
-T
o
c$
d
3 -ro
.s
+
6'
-\l
A
J,
C+
^:' t^
d$
5'
.s
t
di
(^
-+
)
g
:>
+
€
J
d
J.
-r
l
s
x,
3g
S
tn
ah(/)
-L
$
s
+
rD
o
;.9
-Tr
-
->
3 sg;:; i=g
tg8
5'+H e
iss$3:B
i*t$i$
$$$g*g
$* $${$1
i$*3F*
s
=
^=
r=
(\
-t
-*
rU
o
N
t\)
dHHFs
T ti,po
Rs sEl
eg $f3
R T
*8.€
$:N * +S
&* $$$
i-$ fi$I
i$5-i aqb $6
$s ii
$t ni^\ s(
\^
.R
--
\
(l,
s
-t
a
F
B5
s_
s-f
R
o=
a
o
rs
-I'
o
q
N
+
(n,
s-l'
)
s
Nto
t t
\
o
N)
EB
Sp-)
Item 16.E
11/15/22
2 of 4 Item 16.E
11/15/22
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Written Comment (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area Fair Market Rate) ,SBverely rent-rmrw-1ec/_; qss&f/ve} oufreach 7l> fhese po.r-ti'c1pan"ts- o.nd offer +hem fhe -Fa.mi/y l-¼t'ver 120,Z Fm R po:yment
FinaJljJ o,r,d ,h fhe f('eo.f)f/me; Hoiu;in.3 ,S'faff could return ·tc. --I-he H()u.sf1>.3 Cotnmission 10 fhe near f'qt()re · -for o. mor_e +ho43hff't1/ c/fscussion wil-h housir:9 bllrden/' por-t-out d0i-/q 0ind To .su.gge�f various opftdh<5; -fqking {hTo accoun·t pa.r-tici pant- Wide need qr,c/ fra3ram budget -fa.c1orcs,, Thank yolf,
Stncerel,Y)
� . . � . ( �
R (cha rd Hi lfbr>
Hous i ().9 Commisslof)e;
Item 16.E
11/15/22
3 of 4 Item 16.E
11/15/22
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Written Comment (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area Fair Market Rate) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; David White
Subject: 11/15/2022 Agenda Item 16-E
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Please approve agenda item 16-E. Orange County and Los Angeles County Housing Choice Vouchers have already been increased and are now worth more than Santa Monica's vouchers. It's a no brainer and easy to do.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 16.E
11/15/22
4 of 4 Item 16.E
11/15/22
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Written Comment (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area Fair Market Rate) 1 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Housing Commission
26 October 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
The Santa Monica Housing Commission voted on 6 October 2022 to advise the City Council and Housing Authority Board to direct Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) staff to do the following by the January 2023 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) deadline for such actions:
1. Change the SMHA Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) payment standard basis from an exception to the Fair Market Rate (FMR) to the Small Area Fair Market Rate (SAFMR) with some corrections, and
2. Increase SMHA HCV payment standards to reflect current market rents, using available discretionary measures.
Recommendation 1
The Housing Commission strongly advises changing the HCV payment standard from the greater Los Angeles area metro Fair Market Rate (FMR) for several reasons:
A. The LA metro FMR is historically significantly lower than the FMR in Santa Monica1; it is not a logical basis from which to begin determining a payment standard for Santa Monica.
B. Because the LA metro FMR is inadequate for Santa Monica, SMHA must deviate from the metro FMR by utilizing a HUD exception to increase payment standards accordingly. In 2016 that exception was approximately 175% of the metro FMR for a two bedroom unit.
C. Continuing to bridge the discrepancy between the metro FMR and Santa Monica rents with an exception from HUD gives an artificially and inappropriately low baseline that contributes to 1 See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA HUD Metro FMR Area; https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html for Santa Monica zip codes 90401-90405.
8.D.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area 2 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity unfair housing practices. Disability accessible housing is difficult to find, especially in Santa Monica. Where it does exist, it tends to be more expensive than average units. However, disabled, low income Santa Monicans are uniquely prevented from receiving a payment standard increase as a reasonable accommodation of disability, despite the ubiquity of this practice nationwide, because HUD caps PHA approval of such exceptions at 120% of the metro FMR2, which the SMHA payment standard already exceeds with the HUD exception. While HUD may approve a payment standard above 120% as a reasonable accommodation3, such approvals are rare, and usually do not exceed 140% metro FMR4, which the SMHA payment standard also already exceeds with the HUD exception. Therefore, a metro FMR payment standard basis for SMHA payment standards uniquely discriminates against disabled and low income Santa Monicans, preventing them from securing accessible local housing.
The Housing Commission strongly recommends changing the SMHA HCV payment standard basis to the Small Area Fair Market Rate (SAFMR) for several reasons:
D. SAFMR, unlike the metro FMR, defines fair market rate by individual zip code5 instead of the average of all zip codes across a large region. By definition, it is tailored to the actual housing prices in the City of Santa Monica, zip codes 90401-90405.
E. SAFMR does not require a HUD payment standard exception to mitigate a fundamentally inaccurate metro FMR.
F. The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) and Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) recommend SAFMR as best practice across housing jurisdictions because it is granular, and therefore more fair and efficient. Payment standards based on SAFMR raise or lower those based on metro FMR according to hyperlocal housing costs, resulting in payment standards that are neither too high nor too low for an area.6 G. Because a SMHA HCV payment standard based on SAFMR may be raised to 120% SAFMR by the PHA as a reasonable accommodation of a disability, and higher if necessary with HUD approval, disabled, low income Santa Monicans will be provided with more equal access to housing via SMHA programs, as required by federal law.7 Furthermore, the Housing Commission recommends that SMHA ask HUD to reevaluate the listed SAFMR for zip codes 90404 and 90405, which are lower than actual market rates in those areas due 2 24 CFR § 982.505(d).
3 24 CFR § 982.503(c)(3).
4 Personal communication with HUD staff, late 2021.
5 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html 6 https://prrac.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NHLP_PRRAC_Voluntary_SAFMR_One-Pager.pdf 7 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disability_overview
8.D.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area 3 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity to insufficient data. While this request is important to ensure the federally determined SAFMR is accurate throughout Santa Monica, it need not delay or immediately impact the Housing Commission’s other recommendations, as there are discretionary corrective measures available to SMHA to make minor adjustments to SAFMR in select zip codes, as detailed below.
Recommendation 2
In addition to changing the SMHA HCV payment standard basis from a broad and inaccurate metro area FMR to a granular and custom SAFMR, the Housing Commission also strongly recommends SMHA raise the resulting HCV payment standards to accurately reflect current Santa Monica market rents. This is crucial for several reasons:
A. Adequate HCV payment standards are required to ensure issued HCVs can be utilized at all.
Santa Monica’s outdated payment standards currently make it difficult for SMHA program participants to find habitable housing to which they can apply their HCV8.
B. Adequate HCV payment standards are required to ensure SMHA program participants can utilize their HCVs across the city, not just in the Pico and Downtown neighborhoods, particularly areas lining I-10, where they are currently concentrated. Such housing mobility affirmatively furthers fair housing as directed by HUD.9
C. The primary data underlying annual SAFMR determinations by HUD are 2-6 years old10.
Therefore, annual SAFMR listings will always be somewhat out of date, potentially requiring Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to make discretionary adjustments to account for current market rents.
D. In times of economic and social upheaval, such as the prolonged coronavirus pandemic, market rents may shift more than usual, requiring local correction to ensure HCVs remain usable.
Changing the SMHA payment standard basis to a SAFMR model, as the Housing Commission strongly recommends, would increase the payment standards for each Santa Monica zip code as indicated in Table 2 below, except where highlighted in yellow. These highlighted portions show problematic impacts, mostly on the Pico Neighborhood.
8 Personal experience and hundreds of personal communications, 2021-2022. 9 https://www.hud.gov/AFFH 10 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/01/2022-18905/fair-market-rents-for-the-housing-choice-voucherprogram-moderate-rehabilitation-single-room
8.D.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area 4 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Based on data and recommendations submitted to the Housing Commission by Denise McGranahan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA), Santa Monica Office11, the Housing Commission strongly recommends the following additional changes to address concerns about the 90404 and 90405 zip codes:
In addition to changing the payment standard basis to SAFMR, increase payment standards for the zip codes and unit sizes highlighted in yellow in Table 2 (1-4 bedroom units in 90404; 2 bedroom units in 90405) to 120% SAFMR as indicated in the figures in Table 2 highlighted in green.
Table 1: Current SMHA payment standards based on metro FMR, unchanged since 201612 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Table 2: Santa Monica payment standards at 100% SAFMR by zip code, with 120% SAFMR for negatively impacted unit sizes in 90404 and 9040513
Zip Code 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 90401 $2210 $2520 $3200 $4160 $4570
90402 $2020 $2300 $2930 $3810 $4180
90403 $2260 $2580 $3280 $4260 $4680
90404 $1620 $ 1850 $ 2350 $ 3050 $ 3350
90405 $1820 $2070 $ 2630 $3420 $3750
120% SAFMR
90404 — $ 2220 $ 2820 $ 3660 $ 4020
120% SAFMR
90405 — — $ 3156 — —
11 Correspondence from Denise McGranahan, Senior Staff Attorney at LAFLA, Santa Monica Office, 6 October 2022. 12 https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-payment-standard%5C 13 Correspondence from Denise McGranahan, Senior Staff Attorney at LAFLA, Santa Monica Office, 6 October 2022. $1512 $1930 $2640 $3366 $3366
8.D.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area 5 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Agencies in any metropolitan area that voluntarily adopt a SAFMR payment standard basis have the option to set payment standards for any or all of the ZIP codes they serve, simply by notifying HUD by email. Furthermore, as with exception payment standards, housing authorities can increase payment standards to 120% SAFMR through December 2023 with field office approval.14 The Housing Commission strongly recommends the latter action, increasing the payment standards in the zip codes and unit sizes highlighted in yellow to 120% SAFMR.
City staff have and continue to argue that raising the SMHA payment standard will reduce the total number of vouchers in Santa Monica. This argument is problematic for several reasons:
1. It is disingenuous to denounce relatively fewer vouchers when SMHA does not issue all of the vouchers they currently have.
2. It assumes SMHA is permitted a finite number of vouchers, which is inaccurate. The federal government has increased, and has announced it will continue to increase, HUD spending, making more vouchers available; SMHA only has to request them.
3. Many SMHA HCV holders already occupy units with contract rents that exceed current payment standards. These low income Santa Monicans are leaving and will continue to leave Santa Monica because insufficient payment standards force them to pay the ever increasing difference between the voucher value and the contract rent, resulting in widespread rent burden that often exceeds 50% of program participants' income.
4. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a higher number of SMHA vouchers with payments standards too low to utilize in Santa Monica are worthless. Program participants must find an apartment to rent for less than the payment standard amount within a fixed timeframe or they lose their vouchers. Those forfeited vouchers are subsequently issued to others, who face the same difficulty using them, and so on. Higher numbers of unusable vouchers cannot be preferable to lower numbers of usable vouchers.
The Santa Monica Housing Authority payment standards are counterproductively outdated and low.
Furthermore, the poorly correlated metro FMR payment standard basis poses several challenges.
Fortunately, HUD provides a clear solution for cities like Santa Monica, where SAFMR based payment standards may be adopted and adjusted as needed, thereby more closely aligning payment standards with the precise local market rents to which they must apply.
Santa Monica has an opportunity to demonstrate, and include in annual SMHA reporting, its active efforts to increase HCV utilization and affirmatively further fair housing. Please ensure this vital progress by directing staff to adopt the Housing Commission recommendations detailed above with 14 Correspondence from Denise McGranahan, Senior Staff Attorney at LAFLA, Santa Monica Office, 6 October 2022.
8.D.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area 6 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity haste, and before all relevant HUD deadlines for 2023 implementation of such changes. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this increasingly urgent matter for thousands of low income Santa Monicans.
Sincerely,
Michelle Gray
Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission
On behalf of the entire Santa Monica Housing Commission
8.D.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5491 : Housing Authority Small Area