Will the director of the Office of Community and Civic Life, Suk Rhee, go before the city council as anticipated on Thursday, November 14, to introduce the controversial “3.96 code change” proposal during a dedicated twilight session from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m.? Or will Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, Rhee’s boss, opt to yet again postpone the hearing (originally scheduled for September 3, then late September, then October)? Or will a majority of the city council (three votes) direct Eudaly and Rhee to scrap the code change proposal all together and go back to the drawing board? As of press time, the decision was still anyone’s guess. This issue’s Calendar of Events has a hearing listed for November 14, but should there be a change, go to the BWNA blog (i.e., home page of the BWNA website) www.bwna.us to read about it.
If adopted by the city council, the code change would end more than four decades of formal city recognition of neighborhood associations and possibly end insurance funding essential for neighborhood association community events and projects. Not surprisingly, neighborhood association activists and supporters strongly oppose the proposal in its current form. For insights into the BWNA board position on this issue, go to the BWNA blog and scroll down to “Letter to City Council from BWNA Board.” Proponents of the proposal cite the “privileged status” in the code for neighborhood associations and welcome the inclusion of “traditionally marginalized” community groups instead. Absent from the proposal, however, are criteria by which groups would qualify for inclusion, the number of groups to be included, and the process by which these and other related matters would be decided. The code change proposal does, however, specify the person who has the final say on all decisions: Civic Life’s director.
The code change was crafted by Civic Life’s staff after months of input from a 25-person Code Change Committee hand-picked by Commissioner Eudaly and Director Rhee. Almost totally absent from the committee’s mix were neighborhood association leaders, who were neither briefed about the formation of the committee nor informed of the committee’s predetermined objectives, including the elimination of any mention of neighborhood associations in the code. Incredulous over the lack of transparency in the process, neighborhood association leaders subsequently organized a Google Group that grew in size from half a dozen to over 30 representatives from various neighborhoods. Group members communicate online with each other and meet monthly for strategy sessions. Based on feedback from several group members who met with commissioners and the mayor, it became evident that Commissioner Eudaly did not have council support for the proposal, hence the multiple hearing postponements. The drama continues.