UPDATED 9/04/2010 http://www.laweekly.com/2010-09-02/news/done-in-by-democratic-process/ Done In by Democratic Process * Article reproduced below UPDATED 8/19/2010: * The Grievance Panel report reproduced below. * Article by Paul Hatfield, "The Epilog" is reproduced at the end. --------------------------------------------------------------- April 21, 2010 -- NOTE: Click on time to jump to indicted segment after video loads (be patient) -- 1:55 minutes Conduct of Meeting, Point of Order M. McCue 7:25 minutes Todd Royal 9:51 minutes Barbara Monahan Burke 11:31 minutes Rita Villa 13:24 minutes Michael McCue I feel much like Rita Villa, quite sad that people on both sides of the issue, that I know and respect, have reached such a tragic impasse. The petitioners’ arguments are weak while many professed admiration verging on love of McCue. I feel self importance, emotion and personality has dominated many on the boards thinking. If, in fact, bad behavior on McCue’s part has been prevalent these past years, the board should have censured him for those incidents. This could have led to a robust discussion of acceptable behavior and put McCue formally on warning. If in fact that was warranted. An email was authored and sent by the Ben Neumann, SCNC President, to ALL board members PRECEEDING the board meeting. The email accused McCue of lying and misrepresenting the facts. Clearly the intent of the email was to influence the board’s decision. Is that not condoned under the Brown Act? Is not the very purpose of the Act to disallow discussion of items on an agenda out of public view. Since McCue is a candidate for reelection to remove a board member this close to the election smacks of retribution, character assassination or an attempt to influence the election. Yes, i know, hard to reconcile with their professed admiration of him. Frankly, SCNC needs a better procedure for what is the most extreme action a neighborhood council board might take – firing a board member, and overturning an election. McCue if successful in the May election would be back in 5 weeks or so. What then, hmm? More fireworks or will Wednesday’s event prove to be a catharsis for both sides? Allowing the SCNC to get back to real business. I certainly hope so. Yet McCue is certainly within his rights to challenge many aspects of SCNC Board’s procedures and decisions in this matter. Important Links: Paul Hatfield: The Removal of McCue: A Case Study and McCue’s Removal: The Epilog http://phinvv.wordpress.com/ McCue’s Removal: The Epilog August 18, 2010 by Paul Hatfield A grievance committee headed by former Studio City Neighborhood Council member Jane Drucker released its findings regarding the removal of Michael McCue from the SCNC Board last April. The point I and many others made in the weeks following the proceeding, including those who attended the removal hearing, was that there was no specificity in the removal petition. In other words SCNC acted spuriously. The grievance committee concluded that the petition lacked specifics. The lack of detail made it impossible for McCue to prepare a defense going into the hearing. In other words, he had to wing it. That’s not justice. Ms. Drucker also warned the Board that removal actions affect stakeholders and must be weighed carefully. A neighborhood council “is not a private club” where members can be removed simply at the discretion of the board. About twenty-five stakeholders attended the meeting, which was quiet and well-run - in sharp contrast to the removal hearing, which was poorly managed and raucous, including an inflammatory statement by a board member that punctuated the travesty that evening. Although the grievance report contradicts the SCNC’s decision, nothing can undo the train wreck the board created. But there is still time to make amends. The eight members who voted for removal (including one who was defeated in the last election) should do the right thing and issue a public apology to the stakeholders and Mr. McCue (who reclaimed his seat in the election). As I stated before, no neighborhood council is prepared to deal with a removal, much less one lacking basis. Of even greater concern was the role played by the City Attorney’s Office. SCNC should have been advised to step back and reconsider. Instead, it appears the council was given a green light - perhaps a dim green light, but it still amounted to tacit support. The grievance committee deserves the thanks of the stakeholders for not only finding against the council’s deeply flawed process, but, more importantly, for recommending by-law changes to prevent a reoccurrence. There was a little turnover on the SCNC as a result of the election. Perhaps more sensible views will prevail going forward. Let’s hope so. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GRIEVANCE PANEL REPORT DATED JULY 29, 2010 Introduction On May 6, 2010, Mr. M