Dear Community of echo park - silver lake -
i know your time is valuable and i have tried to condense my words so as to communicate my meanings as efficiently as possible. the following does not in any way represent the silver lake neighborhood council - merely my observations and opinions as a resident & participant.
i was taught as a child that questioning authority is good; a healthy way for a culture to check and balance itself. i was taught this would be especially important in checking the development of authoritarian and militaristic governance and maintaining our open format system of checks and balances.
As is public knowledge, recently a motion opposing gang injunction in our neighborhood was sent before the Silver Lake Governing Board questioning the authority of the city attorney’s injunction to be imposed on silver lake and echo park. The motion was written with the support of many silver lake stakeholders and a community organization, the silver lake neighborhood assembly (an all-are-welcome, leaderless group, informally meeting Mondays @ 6:30pm at the polka-dot plaza). The motion is a part of a movement that seeks to give voice to hundreds of scared, frustrated people organizing across echo park and silver lake. teresa sitz, amy Clarke and myself (all SLNC board members) crafted the motion in collaboration with folks in the SLNA (cause someone has to write and send a motion to the city) and submitted it to the co-chairs of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council.
The motion did not pass, but was tabled & referred to the public safety committee in a move for 'further vetting' that I voted against. The key timing was missed by the board. Now it would be impossible for the board to vote for/against the injunction before the city takes its beta-form live on the 21st of this month unless public safety committee co-chairs agreed to make the injunction forum a joint meeting of committee and board at large. Public Safety Committee co-chair Nadine Trujillo reports this will not happen - board members will need time to ponder and consider after the forum and won't be ready to vote at that time according to the logic given. I am filled with regret about this board action and the committee decision to delay a vote on monday night. Further, In an attempt to facilitate safe space, i have requested that police be asked to attend the forum un-armed, but have been informed by Public Safety Committee that to do so would be akin to asking a woman to remove her high-heel shoes. So those of us intimidated by guns will gulp vulnerably before speaking our minds, once again.
What’s more, i regret not standing up there at governing board with teresa sitz and frances tran to read the motion, representing my name on the motion, the hundreds organizing across silver lake and echo park to resist the injunction, and the 100 plus folks who voted for me to serve the SLNC at-large too. For what it’s worth, I felt at the time I could be of greater service supporting from the wings. some beneficial regret further motivates me to come forward with the following:
Re cutting teresa sitz out of communications & planning this up-coming forum on the gang injunction: it’s is a stick in the eye. it's a slap to any of us who might question the authority of any board member, or authority in our midst - and a clear message - 'you will be punished and excluded' for speaking out & questioning authority’.
what kind of message is that to send ourselves and our community? can't we be inclusive of challenges and questions to the authority around ourselves and to our own authority? or is the message just simple - 'you will be punished and excluded for speaking out and questioning authority'?
in regards to the question posed by ms sitz, ‘do neighborhood council members who work for LA city agencies supporting the injunction have a conflict of interest and should they recuse themselves from debate?’. I have further witnessed the singling out of council woman teresa sitz and the slandering of her reasonable questioning with big inflammatory words (‘macarthyite’, ‘demagoguery’). This is not ok (though i am one of 21 board members). Her questions are directly informed by LA City Directive 2005-1 asking city employees to avoid even 'the appearance' of a conflict of interest. While I acknowledge that it is uncomfortable to be called out, i request SLNC board members please refrain from these reactive behaviors and openly include Teresa Sitz and all in transparent conversations to do with planning the upcoming debate beginning immediately. i further request those who may have been active in this pattern consider apology. Finally I request that all SLNC board members, and community members who are witness to these events unfolding also step forward and make their feelings known under the banner "silver lake neighborhood council culture".
though i am aware it is very uncomfortable when our authority is questioned, certainly we are all strong enough to field those questions gracefully (from within and without our board).
i envision a silver lake neighborhood council that one day might even welcome those kinds of questions and ensuing self-searching with jocularity and understanding in service of more fairly representing or even non-hierarchally cooperating with our community.
there was no demand involved in ms sitz request for recusal...indeed, council members questioned (johnson/nahum/neuman) declined to see the situation as a conflict of interest and the conversation continued without obstruction.
what about developing a culture where gratitude and introspection is the response when our authority is questioned? or will we continue to defend, exclude, re-frame, marginalize and ignore when meeting resistance to authority in our culture?
i remember the african-american woman who asked a surprising question in support of reducing police presence on our streets at the SLNC candidate forum 2012, a while back. i remember how she was heckled, dismissed, and then her question was re-framed by the moderator to serve the dominant point of view that more police are better. we then all (either actively or passively) participated in the moment passing un-examined. I have not seen her at a council event since. what i imagine might have been her fear, sense of persecution, interest in restorative justice models and/or lack of safety around police that motivated such a question was not acknowledged by any of us. i voice it now because it’s important for me to put it out there, and because I see there's a pattern emerging.
In both situations (ms sitz at governing board/ the female participant in our candidate forum) is a woman involved that questions dominant authority and control -- and in both cases SLNC council culture supports heckling, and re-framing within a feedback loop where the establishment opinion seems to confirm itself in a process that excludes, appropriates and discards the challenging voice.
From my perspective someone is definitely being punished, marginalized and excluded -- and i'm most certain it’s not only teresa lucha sitz. At this point, I’m seeing that it’s anyone who challenges our SLNC establishment – and that includes many, many, many of us (and now myself).
something to think about and consider.
The SLNC Public Safety Committee will host a forum on the gang injunction on Monday night august 19th at the Church at 650 micheltorena street from 6pm. The forum will be hosted by SLNC board members Millar and Johnson.
the board can be reached via the collective email board@silverlakenc.org -- but don't let your vocalization end there. write blog posts, come to meetings, speak up, be heard, insist, do not be silenced.
And remember there are SLNC committee chair elections in November, and SLNC general elections coming in the spring, So you can vote me off the council for my cheekiness and run to serve in my place if you so desire.
:)
with respect for our community and all -
charlie
