CC SR 20160802 G - 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury Report ResponseRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: 08/02/2016
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
Consideration and possible action to approve the City's response to the 2015-16 Civil
Grand Jury Report regarding appointed commissions.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Authorize the Mayor to sign the City's response letter regarding the report by the
2015-16 Civil Grand Jury regarding appointed commissions.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst .
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Managers
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager:/r
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Response to 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury Report (page A-1)
B. Civil Grand Jury Report (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On June 30, 2016, the 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury for Los Angeles County (CGJ) issued
its Final Report, which included an investigation of information regarding appointed
commissions that is available on city websites in Los Angeles County (Attachment B).
The CGJ found that many cities' websites lacked detailed information about their
appointed commissions, including:
• Compensation for appointed commission members;
• Eligibility of elected officials to serve on appointed commissions;
• Eligibility of persons to serve on multiple appointed commissions simultaneously;
and,
• Availability of commission agendas and minutes.
The CGJ also concluded that many cities' websites were "unsatisfactory for ease of
use," including our own website. However, the CGJ provided little to no information
about how it came to this conclusion.
1
The CGJ makes five (5) recommendations in its Final Report. California Penal Code
Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all CGJ recommendations, to
be submitted to the Clerk of the Court no later than ninety (90) days after the CGJ
publishes its Final Report. Therefore, the deadline for responses is September 30,
2016.
Staff has prepared draft responses to the CGJ recommendations (Attachment A). In
response to these recommendations, the City Clerk's Office and the Information
Technology Manager have already begun to develop a "Commission Facts" webpage
that will address the issues raised by the CGJ in Recommendation Nos. 5.1, 5.2 and
5.3. It should be noted that the City was not required to respond to Recommendation
No. 5.4 regarding the posting of agendas and minutes. With respect to Recommen-
dation No. 5.5, it should be noted that, as suggested by the CGJ, the City's website
already includes a conspicuous link to information about appointed commissions under
the "Government" tab on the home page (http://www.rpvca.gov/149/Advisory-Boards-
Committees-Commissions).
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alterative action is available for
the City Council's consideration:
Direct Staff to revise the City's response to the CGJ, for the City Council's
review and approval on or before September 30, 2016.
2
August 2, 2016
Presiding Judge
Los Angeles County Superior Court 4A
Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
210 W. Temple St.
11th FI., Rm. 11-506
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUBJECT: Response to Civil Grand Jury Final Report of June 30, 2016
Honorable Presiding Judge and Civil Grand Jury:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05, enclosed is the written
response of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the recommendations contained in the
Civil Grand Jury's Final Report entitled "Appointed Commissions: Transparency will
Maintain the Public Trust". At its regular meeting of August 2, 2016, the Rancho Palos
Verdes City Council approved and authorized the submittal of these responses to the Civil
Grand Jury's recommendations, as set out in the enclosed document.
The City appreciates the dedication of the Civil Grand Jury to the investigation of this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Ken Dyda
Mayor
enclosure
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Doug Willmore, City Manager
Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst
A-1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Response to 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury Final Report
on Appointed Commissions
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.1.
Los Angeles County and each listed city in Section VI should add to the "Commission
Facts" for each existing commission whether compensation is paid and in what amount,
including whether attendance is mandatory for payment. If there is no compensation,
state that none is provided.
Response
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is in agreement with the Los Angeles County Civil
Grand Jury that information about the compensation of appointed City commission
members should be included on the City's website. In Rancho Palos Verdes, only
members of the Planning Commission receive compensation, in the amount of $135.00
per month. The members of all other appointed City commissions—Emergency
Preparedness Committee, Finance Advisory Committee, Infrastructure Management
Advisory Committee, Traffic Safety Committee, and Water Quality and Flood Protection
Oversight Committee—serve as unpaid community volunteers. With respect to
compensation in the event of missed meetings, Section 2.20.030 of the City's municipal
code provides that members of the Planning Commission who have five (5) or more
unexcused absences from the Commission's twice -monthly meetings within a 6 -month
period shall forfeit their seat on the Commission.
In response to Recommendation No. 5.1, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall, on or
before September 30, 2016, add a "Commission Facts" page to its website that includes
the information provided above.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.2.
Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to "Commission Facts" for each
existing commission whether or not elected officials may serve on it.
Response
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes agrees that information about the eligibility of elected
officials to serve on appointed City commissions should be included on the City's website.
Although there is no explicit prohibition against it, it has been the City's practice not to
appoint elected City officials to City commissions. This ensures that the City Council
receives objective recommendations and feedback from the City's appointed
commissions, which serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council.
A-2
In response to Recommendation No. 5.2, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall, on or
before September 30, 2016, add a "Commission Facts" page to its website that includes
the information provided above.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.3.
Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to "Commission Facts" for each
existing commission whether or not commissioners are allowed to serve on more than
one commission at the same time."
Response
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes agrees that information about the eligibility of residents
to serve on more than one (1) appointed City commission should be included on the City's
website. Although there is no explicit prohibition against it, it has been the City's practice
not to appoint any resident to more than one (1) City commission at any time. This
ensures that the City Council receives recommendations and feedback from the broadest
possible spectrum of City residents.
In response to Recommendation No. 5.3, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall, on or
before September 30, 2016, add a "Commission Facts" page to its website that includes
the information provided above.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.4.
Each listed city should publish or provide a link to the current agenda and timely meeting
minutes for each meeting of each existing commission on the website.
Response
Pursuant to the June 30, 2016, Final Report, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was not
required to respond to Recommendation No. 5.4. However, we would note that agendas,
agenda reports, minutes and (in some cases) videos of appointed commission meetings
are available from links on the City's website and the individual commission webpages.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.5.
Each listed city should add a conspicuous link to "Commissions" on the home page or as
a menu option under "Departments, " "Government, " or "Services. "
Response
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes agrees that links to information about the City's
appointed commissions should be conspicuous and easy to find on the City's website.
We would note that, as suggested by the Civil Grand Jury, there are already conspicuous
links to the City's Planning Commission and other appointed commissions under the
Rancho Palos Verdes' Response to Civil Grand Jury Final Report
August 2, 2016
Page 2 of 3
A-3
"Government" tab that is located near the top of the home page on the City's website
(http://www.rpvca.gov/149/Advisory-Boards-Committees-Commissions).
Rancho Palos Verdes' Response to Civil Grand Jury Final Report
August 2, 2016
Page 3 of 3
A-4
APPOINTED COMMISSIONS:
TRANSPARENCY WILL MAINTAIN
THE PUBLIC TRUST
m
APPOINTED COMMISSIONS:
TRANSPARENCY WILL MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC TRUST
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The primary purpose of this investigation was to examine the degree of transparency
provided by Los Angeles County and city governments for the commissions they have
authorized in their jurisdictions. The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury
(CGJ) studied the county and 88 city websites for information provided to the public
regarding each commission's:
• membership,
• mission statement,
• term, and
• compensation or lack thereof.
Each website should additionally inform the public:
• whether elected officials are allowed to serve,
• whether citizens are allowed to serve on more than one commission, and
• whether agendas and minutes of each meeting are published.
The website should be generally easy to use.
The CGJ review shows that many local government websites in this example yield less
transparency than citizens expect. The CGJ believes that providing this, and other,
information in an accurate and accessible manner is a legitimate public interest and is
an important aspect of maintaining the public trust.
Recommendations are made for individual entities to improve the public information
about commissions on their websites.
II. BACKGROUND
This investigation was prompted by the scandals in Bell' and Compton.2 City council
members and other officials there were appointed to commissions and then
compensation for commission members was raised to unrealistic amounts.
Subsequently, multiple meetings were held in which little or no work was done. This
Gottlieb, Jeff, Winton, Richard, and Vives, Ruben, 'Bell Council was Paid for Boards that Seldom Met," Los Angeles Times, August
25, 2010. http://pgasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/doc/746642334.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&t.
2 Jennings, Angel, "City Officials Take Extra Pay," Los Angeles Times, August 21, 2015.
http://pgasb.pgarchiver.com/latimes/doc/1705694136.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT.
2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 93
B-2
scheme allowed the perpetrators to amass thousands and in some cases tens of
thousands of dollars in unearned income.
If information was readily available to citizens about these cities' commissions, it is likely
that concerned citizens would have noticed, and these scandals could have been
shortened or avoided entirely. Websites that do not include information, such as
compensation (if any), whether elected officials are allowed to serve, whether service on
more than one commission at the same time is permissible, and do not publish agendas
and minutes, are not serving the public interest. Although a person determined to
defraud will find a way, an informed public can be a formidable barrier.
A. Accessibility to Relevant Information about Commissions
Records pertaining to the creation and operation of the commissions are a matter of
public record and explanatory information about each commission, along with pertinent
records, such as relevant ordinances, agendas, and minutes of public meetings, should
be available in an easily accessible form. Websites must be easy for users to navigate
as well. A website publishing all facts and minutes with 100% transparency is worthless
if citizens cannot find the information.
A commission may be authorized by a county or city government to investigate and/or
handle an issue in a timely manner and, further, to advise the appointing authority.
Commissions provide a valuable service and many citizens serve without
compensation. Others receive a small monthly stipend, capped at $150 by state law
unless superseded by a statute specifying a different amount. Some commissions, like
South Pasadena's "Fourth of July/Festival of Balloons," promote civic pride and
community spirit and others, like Planning Commissions, are created to provide a
valuable service and ease the workload that could otherwise burden elected officials.
Regardless, an interested citizen should be able to find the published information on
commissions in one or two clicks on a website. The Los Angeles County website was
one of the better that the CGJ examined. It was easy to navigate, but even it omitted
relevant facts in some cases.
Many of the city websites examined by the CGJ were comparable to the Los Angeles
County site but some were difficult, and a few were impossible, to navigate. Most
websites omitted information that ought to be readily available to the public. A common
omission, for example, was the failure to mention whether compensation was paid, in
any amount, for membership on a commission. If no compensation is provided the
"Commission Facts" should state this explicitly.
Easy navigation will present a website user with a selection for "Commissions," either
on the main page or under a heading such as "Services" or "Government." Clicking on
this choice should contain an up-to-date list of all of the existing commissions, and also
have choices or links under each for "Commission Facts" and "Agenda/Minutes."
Commissions that are inactive and likely to remain so should be deleted.
94 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
B-3
B. Statutory Basis for Commissions
(1) Government Code Section 37112 provides authority for the establishment of
commissions by cities. It states that "... a legislative body may perform all acts
necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this title." 3
(2) Government Code Section 65100 states that "the legislative body shall by
ordinance assign functions of a planning agency to a planning department, one
or more planning commissions" or some combination of appropriate and
necessary entities. In the absence of this assignment, the legislative body shall
carryout the functions of the planning agency. Sections 65001 through 65007
define the rules for creating a planning commission.
(3) The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 and following,
requires that commission meetings, agendas, and minutes shall be open and
available to the public and, further, establishes strict rules for closed meetings.
Closed meetings generally are necessary when discussing personnel evaluation,
compensation issues, employee discipline, and pending litigation, among other
topics.
(4) Government Code Section 36516 authorizes the maximum compensation for
serving on a commission as $150 per month unless another statute specifies a
different amount. Unfortunately, a few officials have used this procedure to enrich
themselves at the expense of the general public.
(5) Government Code Section 54952.3 requires that a commission meeting being
held simultaneously or in serial order with that of any other legislative body
meeting must announce the compensation amount or stipend that each member
of the commission is to receive.
(6) The Maddy Act, Government Code Sections 54970 and 54972, requires public
posting in December of all commission vacancies that will be occurring in the
next calendar year. This "Local Appointments List" also shall include the
qualifications required for each position.
III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The CGJ examined county and city websites for information, finding it usually under the
heading "Commission Facts." It looked specifically for information about the
commissions in each jurisdiction, including the date created, the purpose of the
commission, the membership requirements, length of term, compensation facts, how
often each was scheduled to meet, attendance requirements, agendas and minutes of
each meeting, and whether the website contained up-to-date information.
3 Title 4: Government of Cities, Section 3400 et seq., California Government Code.
2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 95
B-4
Much website information was incomplete so the CGJ sent an email with the
appropriate questions to each of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County.4 A second email
was sent to non -responders of the first one, followed by telephone requests to any city
that had still not complied. Interestingly, many of the failures to reply were caused by
invalid or out of date email addresses that the CGJ took directly from the July 2015 Los
Angeles County Roster of City Officials. The email responses provided the missing
information and after analysis allowed the CGJ to make its recommendations.
The CGJ then compiled and analyzed the information. A decision was made to grade
the websites for clarity and ease of use. A website was graded as satisfactory if facts
about the commission were accessible from the home page.
A second analysis was done for content, concentrating on matters of compensation,
membership requirements, and whether minutes were published.
IV. FINDINGS
1. CGJ queries to the 88 cities in the county elicited 86 responses with only Compton,
and Monterey Park failing to respond.
2. Two cities, Bell and Westlake Village, have no commissions.
3. The Los Angeles County website lists 174 commissions and compensation amounts
that range from $0 to $300, with the higher amounts paid for serving on
commissions requiring special expertise. "Commission Facts" provided on the
county website document the history for each of its commissions, including the
establishing ordinance, purpose, membership, duties, compensation, and minutes of
all meetings. The data appears to be updated in a timely manner and can be
displayed to any interested party.
4. Some cities publish agendas for commission meetings but not the minutes.
5. In lieu of publishing minutes, many cities post video recordings of commission
meetings on their web site. This is acceptable and after the initial cost of the video
equipment is absorbed, the process is relatively free.
6. Many cities are not current in publishing minutes of commission meetings. Some are
many months behind.
7. The websites of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County most commonly omitted
information pertaining to compensation. Other common omissions were whether
elected officials are allowed to serve and whether a commissioner can serve on
4 The questionnaire is attached. See Appendix.
96 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
B-5
multiple commissions simultaneously. This information was provided in responses to
our e-mail queries.
8. Of all the cities reporting compensation for service on a commission, only two
currently report this on their websites in "Commission Facts."
9. Stipends are not always provided for commission service. While the CGJ applauds
the 34 cities whose commissioners serve without pay, it notes that stipends provided
to commissioners in 50 cities, which ranged from $10 to $250, is not a major
concern.
10. Higher stipends were generally reserved for service on Planning Commissions,
whose members are usually required to have more specialized knowledge and
experience.
11. Only the City of Industry exceeded the $250 upper threshold and pays members on
two of its commissions $680 per meeting. Attendance is not mandatory for
compensation.
12. Many cities' "Commission Facts" mentioned the Brown Act and/or the Maddy Act
and appeared to follow the rules outlined in them, but Government Code section
36516, which authorizes a maximum compensation of $150, was conspicuous by its
absence.
13. It was impossible to reach the Lomita website, even as we tried many variations of
the web address.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The CGJ recommends that local government websites be improved in the five following
ways:
5.1. Los Angeles County and each listed city in Section VI should add to the
"Commission Facts" for each existing commission whether compensation is paid
and in what amount, including whether attendance is mandatory for payment. If
there is no compensation, state that none is provided.
5.2. Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to "Commission Facts" for
each existing commission whether or not elected officials may serve on it.
5.3. Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to "Commission Facts" for
each existing commission whether or not commissioners are allowed to serve on
more than one commission at the same time."
2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 97
B-6
5.4. Each listed city should publish or provide a link to the current agenda and timely
meeting minutes for each meeting of each existing commission on the website.
5.5. Each listed city should add a conspicuous link to "Commissions" on the home
page or as a menu option under "Departments," "Government," or "Services."
VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all
recommendations contained in this report. Such responses shall be made no later than
ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of
the Court). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05 (a)
and (b).
All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be
submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to:
Presiding Judge
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
210 West Temple Street
Eleventh Floor -Room 11-506
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Responses are required from:
THESE WEBSITES WERE JUDGED SATISFACTORY FOR EASE OF USE.
Location Web Address Recommendation
Agoura Hills
www.ci.a ours-hills.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
Artesia
www.citvofartesia.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
Avalon
www.citvofavalon.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
Bellflower
www.bellflower.or
5.1
5.2
5.3
Beverly Hills
www.beverlyhills.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
Burbank
www.burbankca. ov
5.2
5.4
Carson
www.ci.carson.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Cerritos
www.cerritos.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
Claremont
www.ci.claremont.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
Commerce
www.ci.commerce.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
www.cityofcudahy.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
-Cudahy
Gardena
www.ci.gardena.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Glendale
www.ci.glendale.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
Hawaiian Gardens
www.hgcity.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
Hermosa Beach
www.hermosabch.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
98 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
B-7
Hidden Hills
www. hiddenhillscity.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Huntington Park
www.hpca.gov
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.3
City of Industry
www.cityofindustry.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.2
Inglewood
www.citvofinglewood.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Irwindale
www.ci.irwindale.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
La Canada Flintridge
www.lcf.cg.gov
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Lakewood
www.lakewoodcity.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
La Mirada
www.cityoflamirada.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
La Puente
www.la uente.or
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Lawndale
www.lawndalecit .or
5.1
5.2
5.3
Malibu
www.ci.malibu.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
Manhattan Beach
www.ci.manhattan-beach.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Maywood
www.citvofmaywood.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
Monterey Park
www.ci.montere - ark.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
Palos Verdes Estates
www.pvestates.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
Paramount
www.paramountcity.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Pasadena
www.cityofpasadena.net
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Pico Rivera
www.pico-rivera.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Pomona
www.ci.pomona.ca.us
5.1
5.3
Redondo Beach
www.redondo.org
5.1
5.2
Rolling Hills Estates
www.ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us
5.1
5.2 1
5.3
5.4
San Dimas
www.citvofsandimas.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
San Gabriel
www.sangabrielcity.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
Santa Clarita
www.santa-clarita.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Santa Monica
www.smqov.net
5.1
5.3
Sierra Madre
www.cityofsierramadre.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Signal Hill
www.cityofsignalhill.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
South Gate
www.cit ofsouth ate.or
5.1
5.2
5.3
South Pasadena
www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Torrance
www.torranceca.org
5.2
5.3
Vernon
www.cityofvernon.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
West Covina
www.westcovina.orq
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
West Hollywood
www.weho.or
5.1
1
5.3
Los Angeles County
www.bos.co.la.ca.us
5.1
15.2
5.3
THESE WEBSITES WERE JUDGED UNSATISFACTORY FOR EASE OF USE.
Location Web Address Recommendations
Alhambra
www.citvofalhambra.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Arcadia
www.ci.arcadia.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Azusa
www.ci.azusa.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Baldwin Park
www.baldwinpark.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Bell Gardens
www.bell g dens.or
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 99
B -8Q
Bradbury
www.cityofbradbu[y.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Calabasas
www.cityofcalabasas.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Compton
www.comptoncity.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Covina
www.covinaca.gov
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Culver City
www.culvercity.org
5.1
5.4
5.5
Diamond Bar
www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Downey
www.downe ca.or
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Duarte
www.accessduarte.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
EI Monte
www.ci.el-monte.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
EI Se undo
www.elsegundo.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Glendora
www.ci.glendora.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.5
Hawthorne
www.cit ofhawthorne.or
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
La Habra Heights
www.la-habra-heights.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.5
Lancaster
www.cityoflancasterca.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.5
La Verne
www.ci.la-verne.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Lomita
www.lomita.com/cityhall
5.1
5.2
5.315.4-
5.5
Long Beach
www.longbeach.gov
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Los Angeles
www.lacity.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Lynwood
www.lynwood.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Monrovia
www.cityofmonrovia.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Montebello
www.cityofmontebello.com
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Norwalk
www.ci.norwalk.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Palmdale
www.citvofpalmdale.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Rancho Palos Verdes
www.r vca. ov
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.5
Rolling Hills
www.roIIing-hills.org
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Rosemead
www.cit ofrosemead.or
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
San Fernando
www.ci.san-fernando.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
San Marino
www.ci.san-manno.ca.us
5.1
1 5.2
5.31
1
5.5
Santa Fe Springs
www.santafes rin s.or
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
South EI Monte
www.ci.south-el-onte.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Temple City
www.ci.tem le -cit .ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.5
Walnut
www.ci.walnut.ca.us
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Whittier
www.cit ofwhittier.or
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
VII. ACRONYMS
BOS Board of Supervisors
CGJ Civil Grand Jury
100 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
B-9
VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS
George Zekan Chair
Lorraine Stark Secretary
Edna McDonald
Molly Milligan
2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 101
B-10
APPENDIX
Dear City Manager,
The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury is gathering information on city -appointed
commissions. We have examined many official city web sites and found some information useful to
citizens but many sites lack essential facts and others are incomplete.
Please respond to us no later than December 21, 2015. If your city has committees, agencies, and/or
boards that function in the same capacity as commissions we ask that you treat them as such when
answering the following questions.
1. How many commissions exist in your city?
2. Are commission members compensated in any way?
a. If so, what is the compensation amount?
b. Is attendance at commission meetings mandatory to receive compensation?
c. Is there a maximum amount of compensation a member may receive?
d. Does your city have term limits on a commissioner's service?
3. Are elected officials in your city allowed to serve on commissions?
4. Are commission members permitted to simultaneously serve on more than one commission?
5. Are the agendas and minutes of all commissions published on your city's web site?
6. Do the above answers apply to all of your city's commissions?
Thank you very much.
2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury
civilgrandiury@lacourt.org (213) 628-7914
102 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
B-11