University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Negotiating bureaucratic responsiveness in collaboration with citizens: findings from action research in Los Angeles

(USC Thesis Other)

Negotiating bureaucratic responsiveness in collaboration with citizens: findings from action research in Los Angeles

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NEGOTIATING BUREAUCRATIC RESPONSIVENESS IN COLLABORATION
WITH CITIZENS: FINDINGS FROM ACTION RESEARCH IN LOS ANGELES
by
Thomas A. Bryer
---------------------------------------
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION)
August 2007
Copyright 2007 Thomas Andrew Bryer
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation
to my past and future:
to the memories of my grandparents Bryer and Pupelis;
you gave me love and joy; I hope you are proud as your light shines down today
&
to Andrea Nelson, who will be my wife as of June 16, 2007;
we will accomplish great things together
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My greatest appreciation goes to Dr. Terry L. Cooper, my chair, colleague,
and mentor. Further appreciation goes to Dr. Robert C. Myrtle and Dr. Ann Crigler,
my committee members. I am grateful for their guidance, feedback, and willingness
to give so much of their time and minds.
The work of this dissertation would not have been possible without the
research assistance of several student researchers. These researchers include
Mahabat Baimyrzaeva, Mark Elliot, Pradeep Kathi, Cristian Pliscoff, Joshua
Steinberger, and Feng Wang. Their professionalism and attention to detail made my
analysis possible. Discussion with each of them helped clarify my thinking on the
study and findings.
Two additional student researchers were instrumental in this study and
deserve special acknowledgement. Grace Bae and Yoon-Kyung Oh offered
countless hours in a short period of time to code hundreds of pages of data. Their
work made this dissertation possible. Cristian Pliscoff stepped in to serve as a third
party, neutral facilitator of their discussions. Without his assistance, the dissertation
would not have been completed in such a timely fashion.
Additional research support in the project came from Dr. Jack W. Meek,
University of La Verne. His collegial support and regular availability to talk helped
me get through my studies.
iv
Special acknowledgement is also due to Ronald Kuramoto, the facilitator
hired for the Collaborative Learning Project. His facilitation skills prompted
thoughtful discourse among research participants and among members of the
research team. I learned a lot by watching and listening to this exemplary facilitator.
I cannot acknowledge only the research team when considering the people
who helped make this study possible. For all of the neighborhood council
representatives and city agency officials who participated in the project, I hope they
learned at least half of what I did while studying their interactions. I have always
been taught to leave a place in better condition than when I found it; I hope this study
helps leave Los Angeles in better condition for all the neighborhood volunteers and
professional administrators. Among the many participants in the research, I
particularly thank Bill Robertson, Nazario Sauceda, Daniel Hackney, Sol Ajalat, and
John Bwarie. Their participation went above and beyond the requirements of the
project, as they lent their talents and expertise in my classroom as well.
In the course of my studies, I have also had the opportunity to interact with
and learn from numerous other individuals. These include Dr. Nail Oztas, Dr. Kyu-
Nahm Jun, Michael Sithole, Ellen Shiau, Alicia Kitsuse, Meredith Drake-Reitan, Dr.
Chris Weare, Dr. Carol Baker Tharp, Ryan Alcantara, Don Morgan, Jill Cannon, and
Chang Bum Ju. I have benefited from their friendship and support.
I have also been fortunate to have great faculty at the University of Southern
California who helped shape my thinking and encourage my learning. This faculty
includes Dr. Juliet Musso, Dr. Shui Yan Tang, Dr. Peter Robertson, Dr. Gerald
v
Caiden, Dr. Paul Adler, and Dr. Peter Monge. Outside of the University of Southern
California, I have benefited from professional friendships with Dr. Kaifeng Yang,
Dr. Chao Guo, Dr. Patricia Nickel, Margaret Stout, Shannon Portillo, Tina Nabatchi,
and Larry Terry II. I am also indebted to my faculty at The George Washington
University, especially Dr. Kathryn Newcomer, Dr. Lori Brainard, Dr. Jennifer
Brinkerhoff, and Dr. James Edwin Kee. I have also benefited from continued
professional association with former colleagues at the Council for Excellence in
Government, especially Barry White.
In addition to scholarly and professional mentors and friends, I have
benefited greatly from the insights and questions of my students. I particularly
acknowledge the insights from Elizabeth Navarro, Anthony Rosas, Daniel Duran,
and Sherene Chou. Their enthusiasm and interest in learning inspired me to show up
to work everyday.
My entire family has given me much support throughout my extended stay in
the world of a student. Theresa and Stanley Bryer, my parents, gave me moral
support, words of encouragement, and financial support to get me through hard
times. Scott and Eileen Bryer, my brother and sister-in-law, gave me a model to
follow as Scott completed his own Ph.D., and they gave me a comfortable place to
stay and friendly people to meet on my annual pilgrimage to Chicago for the
Midwest Political Science Association meeting. Beth and Brian Dorgan, my sister
and brother-in-law, gave me great breaks from academia to enjoy the real world.
Their son, Shawn, and daughter, Julie, are new people every time I see them.
vi
Hearing stories about and seeing pictures of them brighten my days. Barbara Bryer,
my aunt, always made me welcome on my trips home to New York. Charlie and
Janice Pupelis, my uncle and aunt, always provide friendly conversation and a good
distraction from the stresses of academia. Their children, my cousins, Connor and
Evan, are fun to watch as they march towards their future.
Thanks are due as well to my soon-to-be extended family. Jay Nelson, my
soon-to-be father-in-law, and his wife Kate, have provided a welcome home away
from home in California. Kate’s family has welcomed me with open arms on
Thanksgiving while I have been here; I cannot say how much I appreciate this.
Linda Baker, my soon-to-be mother-in-law, and her husband Mickey, have provided
welcome arms on my visits to Maryland to be with my fiancé. My fiancé’s sister,
Kathy, brother-in-law-Travis, and brother, Matthew, have also provided friendship.
I am also indebted to the long-time and continued friendships with Marina
(Ann) Tasopoulos, Jeffrey and Bernie Glazer, and Nikki Graham. Regular phone
conversations with each of them have helped keep my senses about me.
I am most grateful to my soon-to-be wife, Andrea. We will be married on
June 16, 2007. I thank her for being patient as we lived on opposite sides of the
United States for four years. Her love gave me a reason for finishing and incentive
to finish quickly. Our daily phone calls kept me going. I loved hearing about the
trials and comedies associated with having three dogs, five birds, and two cats in a
household. I thank all the animals—Mary and Zoe (Briards), Mooshi (Chinese
Crested), Buddy (African Grey Parrot), Cupid and Portree (parakeets), Shakespeare
vii
and Tully (cockatiels), Jesse and Salem (cats), Nicholas (Arabian horse), and Skye
(my parakeet in California).
I can only hope my work will allow me to give back to all these people as
much if not more than what they have given to me.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY AND RATIONALE
1.1 Introduction: Setting the Context
1.1.1 Recruitment of Neighborhood Council Participants
1.1.2 Selection of the Agency
1.1.3 Preliminary Homework Before Meeting Face to Face
1.1.4 Learning and Design Forum Process
1.1.5 Implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding
1.1.6 Political Context of Each Case
1.2 An Empirical Puzzle: Different Patterns of Administrator
Responsiveness
1.3 Endnotes
CHAPTER 2 SIGNIFANCE OF THE STUDY
2.1 Introduction to the Study of Responsiveness
2.2 Determinants of Responsiveness
2.2.1 Responsiveness and Representation
2.2.2 Responsiveness and External Control
2.2.3 Responsiveness and Organizational Culture
2.2.4 Responsiveness and Leadership
2.2.5 Responsiveness and Organizational Rules and Structure
2.2.6 Responsiveness and Dependence
2.3 Negotiating Responsiveness in Collaboration
2.4 Where This Study Fits
2.5 Endnotes
CHAPTER 3 DATA AND ANALYSIS
3.1 Data Sources
3.1.1 Strengths and Limitations of Data Collection
3.2 Data Analysis
3.2.1 Defining Initial Categories
3.2.2 Clarifying Differences Between Coders
ii

iii
xi

xii

xiv
1
1
3
8
10
10
15
16
27

33

34
34
35
35
39
42
44
45
47
49
52
54

55
55
58
61
62
63

ix
3.2.3 Sorting Statements into Categories
3.2.4 Creating New Groupings
3.2.5 Creating New Categories and Final Sorting Piles
CHAPTER 4 DESCRIPTIVE QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
4.1 Preface
4.2 Aggregate Number of Statements across Cases
4.3 Penultimate Coder Agreement across Cases, Types of Participant,
and Categories
4.4 Final Statement Distribution across Cases, Types of Participant,
and Categories
4.4.1 Distribution of Statements across Cases for each
Category
4.4.2 Distribution of Statements across Categories for Each
Type of Participant
4.4.3 Summary of Overall Statement Distribution
4.5 Sub-Categories
4.5.1 Roles/Responsibilities Sub-Categories
4.5.2 Communication-How Sub-Categories
4.5.3 Current Interactions Sub-Categories
4.6 Collaborative Learning Project Categories
4.6.1 CLP Evaluation Sub-Categories
4.7 Summary of Descriptive Quantitative Findings
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS IN THE WORDS OF PARTICIPANTS
5.1 Preface
5.2 Roles/Responsibilities
5.2.1 Department/Agency Official as Service Deliverer
5.2.2 Department/Agency Official as Expert
5.2.3 Department/Agency Official as Employee
5.2.4 Department/Agency Official as Information Provider
5.2.5 Neighborhood Council as Partner
5.2.6 Neighborhood Council as Educator
5.2.7 Neighborhood Council as Advisor
5.2.8 Neighborhood Council as Advocate for Community
5.2.9 Neighborhood Council as Advocate for Department
5.2.10 Summary of Roles/Responsibilities
5.3 Communication-How
5.3.1 Facilitating Communication
5.3.2 Formal Communication
5.3.3 Hindering Communication
5.3.4 Informal Communication
5.3.5 The Power of Communication
66
68
69

72
72
72
73
78
83
87
88
89
89
96
98
101
102
106
108
108
108
109
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
121
122
x
5.3.6 Summary of Communication-How
5.4 Current Interactions
5.4.1 Evaluation
5.4.2 Regular Interactions
5.4.3 Partnership
5.4.4 Summary of Current Interactions
5.5 Priorities/Problem Definition
5.5.1 Summary of Priorities/Problem Definition
5.6 Funding/Budget/Resource Allocation
5.6.1 Summary of Funding/Budget/Resource Allocation
5.7 Role of Elected Officials
5.8 Future Interaction
5.9 Collaborative Learning Project Evaluation
5.9.1 Attitude Assessment
5.9.2 Cooperation/Partnership
5.9.3 Other Sub-Categories and Summary of CLP Evaluation
5.10 Summary of Findings in the Words of Participants
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND PROPOSITIONS FOR FUTURE
STUDY
6.1 Preface
6.2 Determinants of Responsiveness in Collaboration and
Propositions for Future Study
6.2.1 Questions and Propositions Directed Toward City
Agencies
6.2.2 Questions and Propositions Directed Toward Citizens
6.2.3 Questions and Propositions Directed Toward All Parties
6.3 Influence of Researchers
6.4 Implications for Public Administration
6.4.1 Administrator-Citizen Interactions
6.4.2 Administrator-Elected Official Interaction
6.4.3 Administrators and Representation
6.4.4 Power and Responsiveness
6.5 Recommendations for Citizens and Public Administrators
6.6 Summary and Contributions
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
122
123
123
125
126
127
127
130
130
132
133
133
135
135
138
140
140
142
142
151
153
166
169
172
175
175
178
181
184
186
189
193
202
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Racial Characteristics of Case 1 Neighborhoods
Table 2 Income Characteristics of Case 1 Neighborhoods
Table 3 Electoral Characteristics of Case 1 Neighborhoods
Table 4 Racial Characteristics of Case 2 Neighborhoods
Table 5 Income Characteristics of Case 2 Neighborhoods
Table 6 Electoral Characteristics of Case 2 Neighborhoods
Table 7 Positive Statements about Case 1 Administrator Responsiveness
Table 8 Positive Statements about Case 2 Administrator Responsiveness
Table 9 Negative Statements about Case 2 Administrator Responsiveness
Table 10 Mixed Statements about Case 2 Administrator Responsiveness
Table 11 Independently Generated Categories
Table 12 Agreed to Contexts and Categories
Table 13 Number of Statements Sorted by Coders, Both Cases
Table 14 Final Categories
Table 15 Number of Statements per Case, by Type of Participant
Table 16 Participant * Penultimate Agreement between Coders Crosstab
Table 17 Category * Penultimate Agreement between Coders Crosstab
Table 18 Final Categories Aggregated across Cases
Table 19 Final Categories * Participant Crosstab
Table 20 Baseline Statement Distribution across Categories
Table 21 Roles/Responsibilities Sub-Category * Participant Crosstab
4
5
5
7
7
7
28

31
31

32
63

64

68

69

73
74
75
80
81
85

90
xii
Table 22 Communication-How Sub-Category * Participant Crosstab
Table 23 Current Interactions Sub-Category * Participant Crosstab
Table 24 Current Interactions Statement Tone
Table 25 CLP Category * Participant Crosstab
Table 26 CLP Evaluation Sub-Category * Participant Crosstab
Table 27 CLP Evaluation Statement Tone
Table 28 Agency Official Statements Relating to Previously Identified
Determinants of Bureaucratic Responsiveness
Table 29 Agency Official Statements Relating to Variants of Responsiveness
Table 30 Questions and Propositions for Future Study
96
98

101
102
103
105
143
149
152
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Collaborative Learning Project Process
Figure 2 Administrator-Citizen Interaction
Figure 3 Elected Official-Administrator-Citizen Interaction
2
176
179
xiv
ABSTRACT
The Collaborative Learning Project conducted an action research program in
the City of Los Angeles between 2003 and 2006, in which researchers facilitated a
collaborative process between recently created neighborhood councils and city
departments of council choosing. In two cases conducted, the patterns of
administrative responsiveness to the neighborhood councils differed substantially.
This dissertation asks: How can we explain the patterns of administrator
responsiveness observed in each of two cases of collaboration between
administrators and neighborhood council representatives? To answer the question,
an exploratory assessment of each case was conducted from multiple emergent
perspectives using an inductive analysis. Data from semi-structured interviews,
open-ended email questionnaires, and participant-observation notes were analyzed.
Findings from each case and across both cases are considered, and propositions are
offered for future, more systematic study of bureaucratic responsiveness in a
collaborative process.
Differences emerged between cases in the following category areas:
communication-how, roles/responsibilities, current interaction, role of elected
officials, prioritization/problem definition, funding/budget/resource allocation, and
CLP evaluation. Research participants made statements that define how they
perceive their role and the role the other party, how they interact with each other, the
influence of elected officials, and their assessment of the overall process and people
with the process. The differences between cases can be summarized with the
xv
following sentence. Agency officials in one case actively sought partnership with
neighborhood council participants and an active role for them in the decision-making
process; agency officials in the other case instead focused on their expert, service
delivery role, and were cautious about involving neighborhood councils directly in
decision-making.
1
CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY AND RATIONALE
1.1 Introduction: Setting the Context
In this study, I seek to explain differential patterns of bureaucratic
responsiveness to citizens in two collaborative learning process cases. From
inductively generated explanations, I offer hypotheses for future, more systematic
study of responsiveness to citizens in collaboration.
In 1999, City of Los Angeles voters approved a new charter that had as its
centerpiece the creation of a citywide system of neighborhood councils. The
rationale behind the creation of neighborhood councils was grounded in part by the
threat of sections of the city to secede. There was a perception among some
residents that they were disconnected from city government and were not getting the
services they needed. This was the case in outlying parts of the city—San Fernando
Valley, harbor area neighborhoods, and Hollywood (Sonenshein, 2004).
Neighborhood councils formally began to develop after passage of the new
charter, though they were developed in design preceding charter adoption. Their
charter-given role is as advisory bodies that give feedback to city agencies and
elected officials based on neighborhood needs. Boundaries of each neighborhood
council were, by design, to be defined by stakeholders of each neighborhood, and
neighborhood stakeholders were eligible to run for the volunteer council board
positions.
In order for this new system to work, city residents, workers, business
owners, and property owners would have to develop their capacity to operate within
2
the city governance process. Further, city administrators would have to develop the
capacity to interact with newly empowered citizens who now would have the
charter-given role of advising city officials (Kathi & Cooper, 2005).
Against this backdrop, researchers with the Collaborative Learning Project in
the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern
California created an action research program. The project sought to open or
democratize city agencies so that neighborhood council representatives could
successfully provide input and potentially influence administrative decision-making
(Kathi & Cooper, 2005). Figure 1 displays the action research process. The process
model remained consistent across two cases. The first was conducted in 2003/2004;
the second was conducted in 2006.
1
Figure 1 -- COLLABORATIVE LEARNING PROJECT PROCESS
STEP 1: Neighborhood Councils Choose a
Department with which They Want to Collaborate
STEP 2: Department Consulted by CLP
and Chooses Officials to Participate
STEP 3: Participants Asked to Complete Homework – Identify
Existing Knowledge of and Experience with the Other Party
STEP 4: USC Facilitates Three Learning and Design Forum Sessions --
(1) Develop Relationships and Personal Understanding,
(2) Move Participants to think about what they each Need and Want From Each Other and How
Those Needs and Wants Might be Achieved
(3) Develop and Possibly Finalize a Written Agreement Between Participants
STEP 5a: Neighborhood Councils
Implement Agreement and Maintain
Relationships with Department Officials
STEP 5b: Department Implements
Agreement and Maintains Relationships
with Neighborhood Council Representatives
3
1.1.1 Recruitment of Neighborhood Council Participants
First neighborhood councils were recruited to participate in the project. In
each case, councils were selected according to criteria that evolved with the
experience from each prior case. Each case consisted of a different geographic
dispersion of participating councils. The intent in this variation was to explore
through pilot cases the efficacy of the collaborative learning model with different
groupings of councils.
In the first case, researchers made an open call for participation at a citywide
gathering of neighborhood council representatives. One council volunteered and
inquired whether three additional adjoining councils could also be part of the
process. Thus, the first case consisted of four geographically contiguous
neighborhood councils from the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles that had
previous experience working together.
Each neighborhood council sent five representatives to participate in the
process. One of the four councils was not certified by the city as an official
neighborhood council at the time the process began, but they wished to participate as
a council that was in the process of forming and adjacent to the other three councils.
Additionally, the four participating councils had experience working together prior to
this process. As one participant observed, “The four neighborhood councils had
already horse-traded and knew how to tango.”
Each council was distinguished from the others on several criteria. The
neighborhoods from which they came varied in racial and income demographics; the
4
size of their respective neighborhoods varied, as did their turnout at neighborhood
council board elections. The last criterion raises possible questions regarding the
legitimacy of the councils as representative bodies, a fact that could have been
damaging to the councils as they presented themselves as credible actors to city
agency officials. This much is evident in the work of Berry, Portney, and Thomson
(1993), who find that responsiveness to neighborhood councils in the cities they
examined was greatest when the councils were perceived to represent the true voice
of the community. Table 1 displays the racial characteristics of the neighborhoods
for each of the four participating councils; table 2 displays the income
characteristics; table 3 displays neighborhood size, voter turnout in neighborhood
council elections, and the councilmanic districts in which each neighborhood is
situated. Neighborhood council boundaries do not align with city council districts,
which allows for a single neighborhood council to be represented by more than one
city council representative.
Table 1 – Racial Characteristics of Case 1 Neighborhoods
Neighborhood White Black Asian Hispanic Other
Greater Toluca Lake 67 7 6 16 4
Midtown North Hollywood 28 6 5 57 4
Studio City 80 3 5 8 4
Valley Village 67 6 5 18 5
Source: United States Census 2000; all figures are percentages. Calculated by Dr. Kyu-Nahm Jun.
5
Table 2 – Income Characteristics of Case 1 Neighborhoods
Neighborhood < $15K $15K < $35K < $50K < $75K < $125K
Greater Toluca Lake 10 23 16 22 17 12
Midtown North
Hollywood
22 34 17 16 9 3
Studio City 8 19 15 21 19 17
Valley Village 16 28 18 19 13 8
Source: United States Census 2000; all figures are percentages. Calculated by Dr. Kyu-Nahm Jun.
Table 3 – Electoral Characteristics of Case 1 Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Neighborhood
Size
Votes Cast Councilmanic Districts
Greater Toluca Lake 10,833 1/19/03: 173
12/4/04: 103
12/3/05: 72
11/5/06: 120
4 (LaBonge)
Midtown North
Hollywood
69,026 2/28&3/1/03: 342
6/6/04: 140
5/17/05: 222
2 (Greuel), 4 (LaBonge)
Studio City 32, 227 3/26/03: 241
3/24/04: 380
3/29&4/3/05: 753
3/29/06: 585
2 (Greuel), 4 (LaBonge),
5 (Weiss)
Valley Village 22,967 10/22/03: 187
10/20/04: 101
10/19-20/05: 759
10/1806: 430
2 (Greuel), 5 (Weiss)
Source: Department of Neighborhood Empowerment Neighborhood Council Status Report 11/29/06
The second case consisted of four geographically non-contiguous
neighborhood councils. Members of the research team selected these councils
through an iterative process where research team members conducted a series of
informal interviews and reviews of meeting agendas for councils around the city to
see what issues were of most importance to councils. Researchers created a short list
that contained four councils from different parts of the city that seemed to share
interest in the same or similar policy issues: traffic and parks. Once researchers
6
confirmed council interest, they invited them into the process. In each case,
researchers asked each council to designate three to five individuals to serve as
delegates to the collaborative learning process.
Three of four neighborhood councils sent five representatives to participate in
the process. Silver Lake Neighborhood council sent five board members; Mar Vista
Community Council sent one board member, three transportation committee
members, and one community stakeholder; Hollywood United sent three board
members and two community stakeholders. One of the Hollywood United board
member participants dropped out after the first Learning and Design Forum session.
Northwest San Pedro neighborhood council sent three board members.
As with the councils in the first case, the neighborhoods from which the
councils in the second case came are quite diverse, along the same dimensions as
discussed with the first case. A primary difference between councils in each case is
the geographic divisions and consequent diversity in councilmanic districts in which
each neighborhood is situated. Table 4 displays the racial characteristics of the
neighborhoods for each of the four participating councils; table 5 displays the
income characteristics; table 6 displays neighborhood size, voter turnout in
neighborhood council elections, and the councilmanic districts in which each
neighborhood is situated.
7
Table 4 – Racial Characteristics of Case 2 Neighborhoods
Neighborhood White Black Asian Hispanic Other
Hollywood United 66 5 6 16 7
Mar Vista 50 4 16 25 4
Northwest San Pedro 60 4 7 26 3
Silverlake 34 3 18 42 3
Source: United States Census 2000; all figures are percentages. Calculated by Dr. Kyu-Nahm Jun.
Table 5 – Income Characteristics of Case 2 Neighborhoods
Neighborhood < $15K $15K < $35K < $50K < $75K < $125K
Hollywood United 23 27 14 13 14 11
Mar Vista 14 23 17 17 17 11
Northwest San Pedro 11 18 14 20 26 11
Silverlake 19 28 14 15 14 9
Source: United States Census 2000; all figures are percentages. Calculated by Dr. Kyu-Nahm Jun.
Table 6 – Electoral Characteristics of Case 2 Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Neighborhood Size Votes Cast Councilmanic Districts
Hollywood United 19,944 2/12/03: 770
3/30/04: 508
5/31/05: 191
9/26/06: 405
4 (LaBonge), 13 (Garcetti)
Mar Vista 50,417 3/27/03: 389
3/16/04: 145
3/15/05: 360
6/05/06: 209
5 (Weiss), 11 (Rosendahl)
Northwest San Pedro 21,312 5/29/02: 228
6/09/03: 77
6/14/04: 205
6/13/05: 277
6/12/06: 748
15 (Hahn)
Silver Lake 34,675 9/20/03: 655
9/18/04: 538
9/17/05: 459
9/30/06: 455
4 (LaBonge), 13 (Garcetti)
Source: Department of Neighborhood Empowerment Neighborhood Council Status Report 11/29/06
8
1.1.2 Selection of the Agency
The second step in each case was to ask each neighborhood council recruited
to participate in the process to identify a department with which they would want to
work in the collaborative process. Motivation for agency selection could have been
based on a perceived need for enhanced service delivery, a perception that the
council had a lack of knowledge about how the agency operates, or an interest in
improving a relationship that was already strong. Councils made the final decision
about which department to invite into the project. The reason for this is captured by
one department official who commented on the selection of participants for the first
case. “It was key that we had the right group of people there, but letting the
neighborhood council choose the department was even more critical. They came
prepared to do business.”
The first case included a large, multi-functional agency—Department of
Public Works. The Department of Public Works is the City's third largest
department. It is responsible for construction, renovation, and the operation of City
facilities and infrastructure. The various bureaus are responsible for maintaining
streets, sewers, storm drains, and trees. There are over 5500 employees in the
department. Directors of the department's six Bureaus report to the Board of Public
Works (BPW), whose five members oversee administration, operations, fiscal
systems, and contracts and agreements of the Department. BPW itself has a staff of
153, according the 2004/2005 city budget, with funding in the amount of
9
$18,100,000. The Board of Public Works is the only full-time, politically appointed
board of all city departments.
The six bureaus consist of: Contract Administration, Engineering, Financial
Management and Personnel Services, Sanitation, Street Lighting, and Street
Services. Participants in the project came from Sanitation and Street Services, as
well as officials from BPW. Bureau of Sanitation claims a budget of $219,300,000
and a staff of 2,762 as of 2004/2005. The bureau collects and disposes of household
trash, controls sewage discharge, storm drains, and other storm water channels.
The Bureau of Street Services claims a budget of $130,600,000 and a staff of
1,285. Workers are responsible for approximately 7,300 miles of public streets,
alleys and related structures. The bureau is also responsible for trimming and
maintaining street trees and landscaped median islands.
The second case included a medium-sized, multi-functional agency—
Department of Transportation. According to the city’s 2004/2005 budget, the
Department of Transportation had funding in the amount of $117,400,000 and a staff
of 743. The department is responsible for ground transportation plans and services.
Employees maintain traffic signs, signals, parking meters, street lines, and public
transit. The set of officials who participated in the project came from the operations
division, which focuses on traffic mitigation activities, such as speed bumps, street
signs, and parking regulations. Two other divisions did not participate, specifically
those focused on the transportation-planning/development linkage and those focused
on parking enforcement and public transit. The Board that oversees the Department
10
is not full time, as is the Board of Public Works, and they thus do not carry as much
political clout.
1.1.3 Preliminary Homework Before Meeting Face to Face
The third step in each case was for each party to the collaborative process—
neighborhood councils and department—to complete some homework. Specifically,
researchers asked each party to write down experiences with the other party and
general impressions about the other party. For instance, researchers tasked
department officials with writing down experiences working with all neighborhood
councils, not just those that were participating in the project, and considering their
valued impressions of such experience. These homework assignments led to a series
of professionally facilitated sessions, which constitute the fourth step.
1.1.4 Learning and Design Forum Process
In each case, the project hired a professional facilitator to guide the
participants in a set of three Learning and Design Forum (L&D) sessions (Kathi &
Cooper, 2005). The first session generally sought to break down communication and
knowledge barriers between participants. Participants put their assumptions about
other participants on the discussion table for purposes of correction or verification.
Development of personal familiarity and trust was to begin in this first session. The
second session sought to focus participant thinking and discussion on the needs of
each party. Participants discussed what they can expect from and do for each other
to enhance their working relationship. At the final session, the goal was to move
participants along to create an actionable, written agreement based on the dialogue in
11
the first two sessions. Each session was spaced about one month apart, and
researchers assigned homework between each session to prepare for the subsequent
session.
Presented here is a brief summary of the Learning and Design Forum process
in each case. (For a complete discussion of facilitation techniques and participant
assessment of the process see Bryer, Cooper, & Kuramoto, 2007). In the first case,
the first Learning and Design Forum session sought to develop personal familiarity
between participants. Ron Kuramoto, the hired professional facilitator, started the
session with introductions and asked participants to identify their expectations for the
process. Much of the remainder of the first session occurred in small groups formed
between department and neighborhood council officials. The group task was to
discuss priorities for public works services. At the closing of the first session,
Kuramoto asked participants to complete homework prior to the second session. He
asked participants to consider the question, “How can the department and
neighborhood councils work together to create a sustainable organization that is an
effective service provider?”
The second session began with this question and new introductions by
participants to each other. After introductions, small groups were created to consider
“different scenarios, action plans, and concrete deliverables.” Kuromoto offered a
recent motion proposed by City Councilman Greig Smith as a base from which to
have discussion about how the department and neighborhood councils might work
together. The motion would apportion 90% of public works funds to neighborhood
12
councils for their control in the public works arena, with the remaining 10% retained
by city council offices. Kuramoto instructed small groups to “pretend the motion is
law. Use this as a point of reference and come up with an action plan.” Homework
was given to participants at the close of this session as well. “What you’re being
asked to do for the next session is to provide a draft—the dynamics, problems,
aspects, and liabilities—of what you’d like to see in this agreement as a working
understanding. How can you effectively work together?” He asked the four councils
to work together to draft a plan, and he asked the department officials to do the same
on their side. These draft agreements would be brought to the third session.
The third session began with Kuramoto clearly stating the objectives for the
day: to put the draft agreements together into a single document. Small groups were
once again created to begin working through the drafts. Ultimately, participants
came close to finalizing a draft but required a bit more time than the Saturday
morning session allowed. Participants thus committed to finalizing an agreement by
the following month, which they did.
In the second case, the first Learning and Design Forum session sought to
develop personal familiarity between participants. Kuramoto opened the session
with an exercise. Each participant was instructed to walk around the room and spend
not more than thirty seconds with each other participant. In those thirty seconds,
they were asked to identify something they had in common. Once that commonality
was identified—such as growing up in the same neighborhood—they could not use
that commonality again with somebody else.
13
Much of the remainder of the first session occurred in small groups formed
between department and neighborhood council officials. The group task was to
discuss what success would mean for the CLP process. He instructed participants to
talk to one of their counterparts in the small group to understand their interpretation
of what success will be in this process. Each individual should then present to the
small group his/her counterpart’s interpretation of success. Each small group should
then discuss these interpretations and prepare to present them to the full group
It became clear at the first L&D session that some neighborhood council
participants were more interested in working with the Department of Planning than
the Department of Transportation, or at least working with both of them. One
department official recalled in an interview after the entire process that he
remembers that “we had different expectations regarding what we wanted to talk
about. The top options were management issues and development issues. This
divergence created different expectations.” Kuramoto attempted to settle this issue
by putting the question to a vote. He asked those who wished to invite officials from
the Department of Planning to the second L&D session to raise their hands.
Ultimately the decision was made to stick with the people who were in the room and
focus discussion at that level.
The second session began with new introductions. Each participant was
asked to recall anything they remembered about one of the other participants in the
process. Few people recalled much of anything. Kuramoto then invited a
14
department official to make a fifteen minute presentation on the activities and
jurisdiction of the department, followed by question and answer discussion.
Kuramoto then instructed: “We have learned about what [the department] can
do and cannot do. Now let me propose: What can [the department] and
neighborhood councils do together? What are the issues and problems? How can
we collaborate together to address common issues?” He formed four groups by
having participants number off one to four. He instructed each group to address the
question: What can neighborhood councils and the department do together?
Following this, the four groups merged to become two groups and the same
discussion occurred.
Following this discussion, Kuramoto suggested that a small drafting
committee consisting of representatives from each of the four neighborhood councils
and the department form to draft a memorandum of understanding. This occurred,
and the committee met briefly after the session to set a time to meet. The intention
was to bring a single draft agreement to the third session. Instead, the department
official split from the neighborhood council participants, and two different versions
of an agreement were introduced at the third session.
The third session began with the primary authors of each draft presenting
their work. Two small groups formed to consider each draft and propose a common
document. As the day approached an end, participants agreed to stay an additional
thirty minutes to finalize the agreement. They did, and the agreement was finalized.
It is attached in the appendix, along with the final agreement from the first case.
15
After the third session, three neighborhood council boards approved the
memorandum of understanding, and one neighborhood council voted against
approval of the agreement. Members of the research team were preparing for a
signing ceremony, much like they did for the first case, when an official from the
department called with notification of the mayor’s decision to not allow the
document to be signed. This incident is described further below.
For a few months following this, there was hope remaining that the
agreement might still be signed. However, this incident and other actions by the
mayor’s office and Department of Neighborhood Empowerment officials fed into a
feeling of paranoia regarding the new mayor’s intentions for neighborhood councils.
For instance, I sent an email to neighborhood council participants with an update on
the department’s ability to sign the agreement. It did not take more than a day or two
for that email to be published in City Watch, a newsletter for neighborhood council
activists and other interested parties. The editor of the newsletter added subtext to
my message: “If it smells like conspiracy and looks like conspiracy . . .” These
feelings of unease were consistent with the political climate of the time.
1.1.5 Implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding
At the end of the three sessions, an objective was for the councils and
department to have come to consensus on an actionable agreement or memorandum
of understanding, which participants might implement to enhance service delivery or
otherwise strengthen the working relationship between councils and the department
in ways that would be responsive to the neighborhood councils. Implementation of
16
this agreement is the fifth step in the model. Only in the first case was a final
agreement signed and implementation attempted. A review of the success of this
implementation is discussed in previous work (Bryer & Cooper, Forthcoming).
1.1.6 Political Context of Each Case
The political context differed across each case. In the first case, the context
might be described as experimental, meaning participants in the collaborative
learning process and other interested parties, such as elected officials, were still
learning how best to work with and through neighborhood councils. To contrast, the
context in the second case might be described as experiential, meaning participants
came to the process with more baggage and biases.
In the first case, the incumbent mayor was James Hahn. Mayor Hahn,
elected in 2002, was the first mayor to serve a full term with the neighborhood
council system in place. The new charter passed under the mayoralty of Richard
Riordan, and Mayor Riordan appointed the first general manager of the Department
of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE). However, it was Mayor Hahn who left
the first impressionable mark on the neighborhood council system.
Hahn appointed Greg Nelson to be general manager of DONE. Nelson was a
long-time advocate for grassroots citizen participation in city governance, dating
back to the early 1990s, when Nelson was a staff member of City Councilman Joel
Wachs. After several years of researching neighborhood council systems in other
cities and advocating in Los Angeles, Nelson approached his job with much passion.
His idea, with support form Mayor Hahn, was to grant neighborhood councils
17
maximum flexibility in how they organized, ran meetings, conducted elections, and
spent money. Nelson’s view of councils was that they should belong to
neighborhood stakeholders.
For Hahn’s part, he encouraged city agencies to interact with neighborhood
councils. He required all city agencies to establish liaisons to neighborhood councils
but did not provide funding to establish such positions. Only the Department of
Public Works at the time of this first case had figured out a funding mechanism to
pay the salary for such a position.
Hahn also created a governance system called “Teamwork LA.” This system
was intended to organize service delivery at the level of seven regional planning
areas. Department and agency directors were asked to participate in regular
community meetings at the regional level and to facilitate and coordinate service
delivery at this level.
With respect to neighborhood councils, Mayor Hahn supported efforts to
empower the stakeholders who participated. He created a participatory budget
process, culminating in the mayor’s “budget day.” On this day neighborhood council
representatives would come together to systematically express their priorities for
services, a process that the mayor used to inform his budgetary decisions.
Another example came after the completion of the first Collaborative
Learning Project case involving the Department of Public Works. After the
successful production of the neighborhood-specific infrastructure assessment reports
that were developed based on feedback from the CLP process, the mayor sought to
18
empower neighborhood councils to use the information contained in the reports. He
allocated $100,000 to each of the 87 neighborhood councils existing at that time to
spend on a street services project that they wished to have completed. Neighborhood
representatives could select the streets to be paved or otherwise maintained, within
the boundaries set by the $100,000 spending limitation. This initiative occurred soon
before Election Day when Mayor Hahn was up for re-election. He was not re-
elected.
City Councilman Greig Smith also proposed empowerment initiatives.
Before the second Learning and Design Forum session, Smith proposed a motion.
The motion would apportion 90% of public works funds to neighborhood councils
for their control in the public works arena, with the remaining 10% retained by city
council offices. Kuramoto, the CLP facilitator, used the motion to ground
deliberation between city agency and neighborhood council officials. Ultimately,
CLP participants determined that they could not support the motion, as neighborhood
council representatives did not have the expertise to make decisions about such a
large portion of funding. There was also concern about mandating interactions
between a city department and neighborhood councils, rather than voluntary
interactions as were occurring through the CLP. A letter from a CLP neighborhood
council participant to a staff member of Councilman Greig Smith addresses this
concern.
19
As we discussed, I’d like to request that Greg put his motion about
putting the [Department of Public Works budget] into the hands of the
[neighborhood councils] on hold. Although I agree 110% with the
intent of the motion, I, and along with a number of the other
[neighborhood council] folks who have been part of the
study/workshop at [the University of Southern California], have
serious concerns with it in its present form.
But rather than my request of Greg being just a big fat NO, please
consider that the work we are doing with the study/workshop at [the
University of Southern California] as an alternative that will result in
implementing the spirit of Greg’s motion. And in my mind, do a
better job of getting this done—or at least I sincerely believe this to be
the case. Should we be successful, the expectation is that the model
we create for how [Department of Public Works] will interact with the
[neighborhood councils], and vice versa, will be implemented
citywide.
Part of this [neighborhood council] thing, as its being implemented in
[Los Angeles], is that the [neighborhood councils] are independent,
i.e., not appointed, and therefore not beholden to someone(s) else.
This means that they are expected to do some striking out on their
own, and creating new paths.
Well, this is exactly what we’re doing. And I’m asking Greg to have a
little bit of faith, give us the benefit of the doubt, and allow us the
space to try to make this work.
NOW, should we be successful, the fall back position for Greg would
be to change the text of his motion into a resolution. This would allow
him to save face, while simultaneously putting a 15 to 0 vote on
record that this is what the Council wants. It would also do the job of
holding all of the Departments feet to the fire that the City means
business when it says they should work with the [neighborhood
councils].
A related issue is that if we’re successful in our goal of working
effectively with [Department of Public Works] (which I think we will
be), this will be a great example to show to the other Departments of
the value of fully engaging the [neighborhood councils], and the
benefits of doing so.
20
My feeling is that if this is done through inviting people to the dance
(as USC has done with us neighborhood councils and Department of
Public Works), rather than forcing them to the dance at gunpoint
(Greg’s motion), that the buy-in will occur faster, and better.
Ultimately the motion morphed into the $100,000 program that was initiated by
Mayor Hahn, according to an informant in the office Councilman Smith. The
councilman dropped his motion and supported the initiative of the mayor.
During the Collaborative Learning Project process, Mayor Hahn had a
representative of his office participate as an observer and occasional active
participant. Following the completion of the project and the signing of the
memorandum of understanding, Hahn convened a press conference at a Public
Works yard in North Hollywood. The press conference included representatives
from the four participating neighborhood councils, Councilman Tom LaBonge,
Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, officials from the Department and Board of Public
Works, and representatives from the Collaborative Learning Project research team.
Two city council members represented the bulk of territory covered by the
four participating neighborhood councils. They both sent representatives to observe
the Collaborative Learning Project process as well. After completion of the project
and signing of the memorandum of understanding, they convened a press conference
in city council chambers. This event was attended by the same participants as in the
mayor’s press conference, with the exception of the mayor.
The good-feelings generated by these press conferences, the mayor’s
empowerment initiatives, and the signing of the first-ever memorandum of
21
understanding between a city agency and neighborhood councils created a
momentum to keep pushing these kinds of initiatives. Members of the city council
advocated the establishment of memoranda of understanding between all city
agencies and neighborhood councils, an effort that generated a response from the
Collaborative Learning Project research team.
The CLP team urged caution, as it was not known at the time whether the
agreement reached with the Department of Public Works would be successfully
implemented. Further, enacting agreements without first undertaking a process of
deliberation and collaborative learning, researchers felt, would not generate the kinds
of success observed with the Public Works case. Other outcomes are associated with
participation in collaboration and deliberation; these outcomes were observed in the
first case with the Department of Public Works. They include the development of
trust, development of mutual understanding and education, and the creation of
potentially sustainable relationships (Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, Forthcoming).
Overall, the political environment surrounding the first CLP case might be
described as supportive of neighborhood councils. The environment might also be
described as experimental. All governance actors, from the mayor down to the
neighborhood council activists, were working to figure out the roles each other
played in governing Los Angeles. This is demonstrated by Councilman Smith’s
motion, the flexibility granted to councils in their emergence and development, and
the practice of celebrating small victories, such as the signing of a memorandum of
understanding between a city department and four neighborhood councils. The
22
Collaborative Learning Project itself was an experimental process, as researchers
sought to understand the challenges and opportunities associated with forging
relationships between neighborhood council representatives and city agencies.
Precisely how agency officials would respond was unclear.
Nearly three years passed between the end of the first case and the start of the
second case. In the intervening period, several events and developments occurred
that altered the political landscape. First, the neighborhood council system continued
to develop. At the time of the first case, there were a total of forty-six neighborhood
councils officially certified; by the time of the second case, there were a total of
eighty-six neighborhood councils around the city.
Second, the memorandum of understanding that was signed by participants in
the first case served as a foundation for similar written agreements. A group of
independent activists and individual neighborhood councils acted to forge a written
agreement with the City’s Department of Water and Power. This agreement was the
result of several months of dialogue, mostly between neighborhood council
representatives. The document creation process did not include active collaboration
between neighborhood council representatives and department officials, as did the
CLP process. The agreement with the Department of Public Works was further used
as a foundation for a draft agreement in another CLP case, which occurred in 2005.
Last, the agreement was used as a basis for another Water and Power-styled process
with the City’s Department of Planning.
23
Overall, the use of a memorandum of understanding as a tool to develop
relationships was taken outside the bounds of the original collaborative learning
process facilitated by the CLP. Efforts after the first case to reach agreement focused
more on a legally acceptable document, rather than a contract that is more relational
and focused on partnership (Lawther, 2002). A relational contract and partnership
model of working together is not legally binding and allows flexibility in a
relationship to deal with complex and emergent problems. After the first case, the
focus of neighborhood council activists was to create the document, rather than
develop the relationships. Neighborhood council participants in the second case
reported here were involved in these other agreement processes and brought that
experience to the table with them.
A third significant change in the political landscape was the defeat of the
incumbent mayor James Hahn and election of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. No
systematic study of the two mayor’s approaches to neighborhood councils has been
undertaken. However, the new mayor seemed to approach neighborhood councils
differently than did his predecessor. For instance, the $100,000 street services
allotment for each neighborhood council was eliminated in the new mayor’s first
budget. The orientation seemed to be more towards getting neighborhood councils
to help as information disseminators at the neighborhood level rather than as active
participants in the policy process. One exception to this is the continued
involvement of neighborhood councils—and other city stakeholders—in the mayor’s
budget process. A further difference is seen at the end of the CLP process. Whereas
24
Mayor Hahn celebrated the written agreement from the first case with a press
conference, Mayor Villaraigosa’s office directed the Department of Transportation to
not sign the drafted memorandum of understanding. The reason for this is not
known precisely. It may be based on the concern over other memorandum of
understanding efforts, such as with the Department of Planning, which were moving
aggressively without cooperation of the department or elected officials. The
Department of Transportation agreement was lumped with these non-collaborative
efforts and cast aside as threatening to sound governance.
Mayor Villaraigosa’s orientation might also be indicated by his choice of
person to lead the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, following the
retirement of Greg Nelson, who was the General Manager under Mayor Hahn. The
acting-General Manager was Lisa Sarno. Sarno adopted a rules and regulations-
approach to managing neighborhood councils, rather than the flexibility approach
Nelson employed to empower neighborhood councils. All communications from
Sarno to the neighborhood councils were shrouded in bureaucratic language. For
instance, she sent a memo to one neighborhood council regarding a challenge to
neighborhood council board election results. The letter stated that the matter would
be handled by the “Final Decision Maker.” There was nothing personal about the
letter, and it defined the relationship between the Department of Neighborhood
Empowerment and neighborhood councils as an authority-based relationship. After
much community criticism, the mayor undertook a search for a new general
manager. Dr. Carol Baker Tharp, formerly deputy director of the University of
25
Southern California Civic Engagement Initiative, was nominated in March 2007.
The direction she will take the organization is not yet clear, but her orientation
already defines a sharp difference with her predecessor. She will be undertaking a
“listening tour” of neighborhood councils as one of her first managerial actions.
In the three year period between the first and second cases reported here,
there were also some changes in the city council. Most city council members held
onto their seats and remained in office. One notable change was the election of
Councilman Bill Rosendahl to an open seat on the city’s Westside. Rosendahl was
elected with a proposal to change the definition of stakeholder in the neighborhood
council system. Rather than include anybody who lives, works, plays, or prays in a
neighborhood as a stakeholder who can run for a board seat and/or vote in an
election, Rosendahl wanted to restrict the definition to registered voters. He saw the
neighborhood councils as bodies that were no different than homeowners
associations, Kiwanis clubs, and other civil society organizations. Each would be
listened to if they have something to say, but he emphasized the need to see whether
there was a clear connection between the speakers and those whom they claimed to
represent.
As neighborhood councils developed, more concerns were heard about the
lack of democratic legitimacy in the system. Elected officials such as Ronsendahl
thought about the issue, as did city public administrators in the Department of
Transportation. Department officials described a long process in an interview prior
to the start of the L&D sessions where they asked any neighborhood council
26
representative, block club captain, neighborhood watch director, or homeowners’
association president who asked for a change in policy to prove that the full
neighborhood wanted the change. For instance, if a group of people requested a stop
sign or speed bump, department officials would ask those people to collected
signatures from neighborhood stakeholders that verified the genuine desire for a stop
sign or speed bump. Otherwise, department officials could not trust that the request
was based on self-interest of a few or a larger community interest. Research was
released prior to the launch of the second case reported here as well that found that
neighborhood councils were not descriptively nor substantively representative of
neighborhood stakeholders (Musso, Weare, & Cooper, 2004; Musso, Weare, Jun, &
Kitsuse, 2004). This means that on the whole, neighborhood council board members
neither looked like nor held the same concerns as their stakeholders.
A final contextual issue is the nature of the traffic problem in the City of Los
Angeles. The perception of the neighborhood council participants in the CLP was
that traffic problems grew out of new development. The inter-relation between the
issue of planning and traffic was clear, as, thus, was the desire among some of the
participants to collaborate with officials from both the Department of Transportation
and Department of Planning. The officials from Department of Transportation who
did participate did not have the authority to address traffic issues related to planning
and development. However, they were still greeted in the process with demands to
do something about that issue, or to determine a way for neighborhood councils and
Department of Transportation officials to work together on the issue of development
27
related traffic. As described above in the process summary, this issue never entirely
disappeared, and the orientation of at least some neighborhood council
representatives towards the department was antagonistic throughout the L&D
sessions.
Overall, the political climate in the first case was defined as experimental.
The climate in this second case might be described as experiential, aggressive, and
reactive. More people in the city had experiences with the neighborhood council
system. At the time of the first case, agency officials did not have much opportunity
to interact with neighborhood council bodies or representatives. Transportation
officials had a few years to gain some positive, negative, and neutral experience.
Neighborhood council representatives had also been given time to try new
approaches at influencing government, and some of them were very confident in
their actions and expectations. The department in this case was faced with reacting
to these neighborhood council officials with experience in getting what they wanted.
1.2 An Empirical Puzzle: Different Patterns of Administrator Responsiveness
In each case the extent and quality of administrator participation in the
collaborative learning process differed in substantial ways. The first case in 2003
involved four contiguous neighborhood councils near the beginning of neighborhood
council development in the city and the Department of Public Works. In this case
department management and other participants in the collaborative process were
highly interactive with neighborhood councils, devoted roughly 180 staff hours to
the collaboration, and sought to give neighborhood representatives a greater voice in
28
service delivery decisions affecting the neighborhoods. In all, approximately fifteen
administrators participated in the process, including mid- and top-level management
and regional supervisors.
Neighborhood council representatives reported that department officials were
“open and communicative,” “willing,” and “sitting as equals.” Department officials
described the process as an opportunity to push lower level staff “to confront their
fears of working with the public” and to learn how far they still have to go to adapt
to the needs of neighborhood councils. Top department officials signed a formal
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the four neighborhood councils to
memorialize the agreements made in the course of collaborative dialogue. Members
of the city council and the mayor recognized the agreement at a hearing of a city
council committee and in a press conference convened by Mayor James Hahn. Table
7 identifies positive statements made by neighborhood council representatives,
department officials, and elected official representatives.
Table 7 – Positive Statements about Case 1 Administrator Responsiveness
Neighborhood
Council Statements
“I was impressed at the number of employees there from the Department
of Public Works.”
“I was pleasantly surprised to find people at the department open and
communicative. I wished all people at public agencies could or would be
that responsive.”
“The interaction between the Department of Public Works and the
neighborhood councils represented seems lively and productive at the
same time. We have been open with each other and everyone appears to
be working hard toward the accomplishment of our mutual goals. I for
one am appreciative to the employees of the Department of Public Works
for their input and willingness to give up their time to make this all
successful.”
29
Table 7, Continued
Neighborhood Council
Statements, Continued
“The dedication of the Department of Public Works employees during
the process was a major factor in the success of the task. I must admit, I
did not think the city departments were going to be as willing to work
with the neighborhood councils as was the Department of Public Works.”
“Department of Public Works is about delivering services—and they do,
but I learned that they really want the ability to partner with the
community on some of this long term planning. I think the long term
benefits far outweigh the short term chaos.”
“I [liked] the fact the city department was sitting as equals with the
community.”
“The willingness of a city department to meet and work with
neighborhood councils [was significant].”
Department Statements “At times, I feel what more can I do to accommodate neighborhood
councils. The project is helping me work through those feelings by
problem solving together as a team through the exercises instead of
relying on the force of my personality to win converts. I can do both,
but, I prefer the former.”
Elected Official
Representative
Statements
“From the Department of Public Works side, I felt a willingness to play
the game, and to do something new now that the neighborhood councils
are part of the landscape. The fact that this represents a development was
best exemplified by the look of panic on the new faces on the Department
of Public Works side [at the second session] when they started hearing
what was going on.”
Note: Statements identified by author.
The second case in 2005/2006 involved four non-contiguous neighborhood
councils and the Department of Transportation. In this case department management
and other participants in the collaborative process showed up to all sessions of the
collaborative learning process, but substantive contribution was limited mostly to
two of the five department officials participating. An analysis of communication
patterns between participants at the Learning and Design Forum sessions shows that
communication was dominated by two officials on the department side (Bryer &
Cooper, 2006).
30
Participating officials included an assistant general manager and four senior
engineers each responsible for the neighborhoods from which the councils came.
Total number of staff hours devoted to the collaboration was approximately 60
hours. Neighborhood council representatives reported that department officials
seemed “bounded,” “reserved,” and “handcuffed.” Department officials
acknowledged such reservation and admitted to not doing or promising anything that
the department was not already doing with respect to interacting with neighborhood
councils. A written agreement drafted by the department and neighborhood
representatives did not establish any new mechanisms for community involvement or
empowerment. Participants also never signed the agreement due to influence from
the office of the City of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Overall,
perceptions of administrator responsiveness were positive, negative, and mixed.
These perceptions are reported in Table 8, 9, and 10.
Another indicator of the low levels of responsiveness by Transportation
officials is the response rate of agency officials to email surveys and interview
requests. Two of five officials declined to respond to post-process interviews, and
only one official responded a single time to a repeated email survey. These data are
discussed further in the third chapter.
31
Table 8 – Positive Statements about Case 2 Administrator Responsiveness
Neighborhood
Council Statements
“We met with the heads of the department. They were able to make
decisions during the process. They broke from their usual style of work
and were open. They seemed willing to help.”
“Good. I worked more with [name] and found him to be very open. All
were there trying to do a good job.”
“Your workshop has provided me the opportunity to interface with
[name] who seems to share many of my concerns.”
“I found the rapport between DOT reps and the neighborhood council
reps to be a big asset as we worked in small groups.”
Neighborhood Council
Statements, Continued
“I know the DOT has their hands full, and we really appreciate them
doing this Collaborative Learning Project with the neighborhood
councils.”
Department Statements “Although DOT has not committed additional resources, it prioritized
neighborhood councils as important.”
Note: Statements identified by author.
Table 9 – Negative Statements about Case 2 Administrator Responsiveness
Neighborhood
Council Statements
“I wish the people from DOT would have made more effort to get to
know the neighborhood councils. It was too obvious that they hated
being there, and that is just too sad. [There were two DOT participants]
who were the only people from DOT who opened up and talked and
stayed after the session was over. The rest of the DOT I couldn’t even
catch to say thank you to, that’s how fast they ran out the door. The DOT
seems to have seen these sessions as more work.”
“Mediocre. It felt like they were forced into this; they couldn’t wait to get
released.”
“Bounded. It was the same as if they came handcuffed. They were very
reserved and restrained.”
Department
Statements
[none]
Note: Statements identified by author.
32
Table 10 – Mixed Statements about Case 2 Administrator Responsiveness
Neighborhood
Council Statements
“They should have given more focus prior to the presentation at the second
session. [They were open to share information] after the second session.
[Names] were open once [name] gave his permission.”
“First of all, they were there. They were very friendly and gracious.
Unfortunately, they offered nothing. They had a very good attitude towards
the process, but nothing interesting came up from them. Moreover, they
did not know some problems of traffic and increasing density in our
neighborhood. They were not straight talking bureaucrats. They showed
lack of latitude and rigidness, which makes me think that the process is
useless. They did not show ability or willingness to change.”
“Mediocre. I could hear grumbling; it was a bureaucratic thing. It was
interesting to meet people. [Names]—they know what engineers know, but
they’re not allowed to do anything. [Name] seemed to speak his mind;
others grumble. They were under duress.”
“I was impressed. The people participating in the sessions were middle and
upper representatives. [Name] is one of the best [and] always talks to us.
[Name] was committed as well. [Names] were open to change but [names]
were not. For me, [name] is a rule abiding individual. He justifies
everything according to the rules.”
“Good. They were there. On the one hand, [names] were committed. On
the other hand, [names] were not committed. [Name] is a political animal.
He knows what to do.”
“They had to overcome their culture. It is something that is part of the
whole system. They should be more responsive and overcome the routine.
The newly appointed General Manager has a good attitude. They did not
have authority to be more engaged. It was a challenge for them. [They
were] 75% open to share information. They were open to learn. They were
open to change, but because of the lack of guidelines to act, it was difficult
for them to be more involved.”
“It seemed the DOT was coming from two completely different directions.
[Name] was working through the documents and [name] was opposed to
anything other than what they proposed.”
Department
Statements
“We were active. We tried to communicate. There was shyness in some of
our staff members. We tried to communicate our real role. There was one
point of view regarding our level of commitment. My staff was frustrated
because the creation of the neighborhood councils in Los Angeles implied
more expectations but not more support in terms of money and staff.”
“Some of us were open to share information. Some of us yes were open to
change but not all. The problem of not changing is not only a matter of
wanting but also of not being able to change because of lack of resources.”
Note: Statements identified by author.
33
How can we explain the patterns of administrator responsiveness observed in
each of the two cases? A causal explanation is not possible given the dynamic and
emergent character of the action research process, in which the different patterns of
response did not become entirely evident until the close of both cases. Further, the
environmental or contextual variation in each case is significant. Nearly three years
separated each case, during which time neighborhood councils continued to develop
and gain more power in the governance process, written agreements such as the one
reached in the first case were replicated outside of the action research program, and
there was a change in the mayor of Los Angeles. Whereas the dynamic and
contextual diversity make causal explanation impossible, such factors allow for a
rich exploratory explanation that incorporates all the dynamics and environmental
factors that might offer a glimpse into the behaviors of agency officials.
This is that kind of exploratory study conducted here, through an inductive
analysis of three sources of textual data. First, the next chapter will place this study
in the context of relevant literature, showing the study’s place in scholarship and
significance for theory and practice.
1.3 Endnotes
1
A third Collaborative Learning Project case was conducted between the two cases
examined in this study. The middle case is not included in the study due to its
unique characteristics. Whereas the two cases examined here consist of a larger city
agency along with four neighborhood councils, the excluded case dealt with a single
neighborhood council working with a small department, the Department of Cultural
Affairs. This is left out in order to examine the more comparable cases that are
studied here.
34
CHAPTER 2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
2.1 Introduction to the Study of Responsiveness
The goal of this chapter is to identify previous studies on bureaucratic
responsiveness, reflecting most on the determinants of responsiveness that have been
identified. This will place the current study in the context of other studies on
responsiveness and will place the findings of the study in the larger context of other,
possibly similar, findings. Through the review, it is observed that no studies have
explicitly studied responsiveness to citizens in a collaborative process. This is a gap
this study begins to fill. The study also begins to construct a bridge between
literature on responsiveness, collaborative public management, and deliberation.
These literatures are discussed briefly in the concluding section of the chapter.
Bureaucratic responsiveness has been a concept in public administration and
political science that is ill defined and measured in a multitude of ways. As such, the
factors that have explicitly or implicitly been found to affect the responsiveness of
public administrators are several and not tied together in any coherent or cohesive
way (Saltzstein, 1992a). This chapter will first review studies to understand
previously identified determinants of bureaucratic responsiveness. It will then bridge
to literature on collaboration to address specifically the question of responsiveness in
a collaborative process. For this, the chapter will call on some of my own previous
work (Bryer, Forthcoming).
35
2.2 Determinants of Responsiveness
Determinants of responsiveness can be isolated to several factors based on
previous studies. I have summarized and described some of these factors (Bryer,
2006, p. 561; Bryer & Cooper, Forthcoming). The factors include the following:
Representation roles (Dolan & Rosenbloom, 2003; Pitkin, 1967;
Selden, Brudney, & Kellough, 1998; Sowa & Selden, 2003)
External control (Chaney & Saltzstein, 1998; Cooper, Bryer, & Meek,
2006; Golden, 1992, 2000; Rourke, 1992)
Organizational culture (Golden, 1992, 2000; Greene, 1982; Vosburgh
& Hyman, 1973)
Organizational leadership (Rainey & Thompson, 2006; Vosburgh &
Hyman, 1973)
Organizational rules and structure (Getter & Schumaker, 1978; Jones,
Greenberg, Kaufman, & Drew, 1977; Mladenka, 1981; West, 2004)
Possible dependence on a stakeholder (Hill, 1991; Jones et al., 1977;
Mladenka, 1981; Rosener, 1982)
2.2.1 Responsiveness and Representation
The concept of representation as a component of responsiveness has been
applied in the bureaucratic setting. Representation assumes that public officials
should present the wishes of the public as if the public were making the decisions
themselves.
36
In the legislative arena, the association—at first glance—between the public
and an elected official is straightforward. Elected officials should represent and thus
be responsive to the people who elected them; they should at least have institutional
arrangements in place to be responsive when a response is necessary, thus potentially
responsive (Pitkin, 1967).
However, what part of the public should get preferential response is an open
question. For instance, should elected officials give politically weak constituents
with significant needs (e.g. single, working-poor mothers) preferential response than
politically strong constituents with unique needs of their own (e.g. senior citizens)?
This kind of responsiveness or representation decision is advanced by Schneider and
Ingram (1997), and it highlights a challenge in legislative representation of the
people. Namely, a single elected official will have great difficulty representing the
wishes of the full array of his or her constituents when it comes time for a final vote
on policy or resource allocation. However, as Pitkin (1967) observes, officials can
achieve better representation by presenting the views of multiple constituents in the
course of deliberation and debate. This effort would ensure that officials would hear
all or at least multiple perspectives before making a final decision.
A related representation question, based on the experience of Britain’s
Edmund Burke, is whether an elected official should act as a delegate or a trustee.
To be a delegate is to assume a role of presenting and acting upon the wishes of
voters; to be a trustee is to assume a role of advancing the interests of voters despite
any expressed wishes (Pitkin, 1967).
37
The role of delegate is not clear cut, however, for either the legislative role or
administrative role. Administrators have multiple bosses across levels of
government in the United States. At the least, administrators are agents to and
potential delegates of an elected executive and an elected legislature. Worse,
administrators are also agents to and potential delegates of an elected executive and
multiple independent legislators. In the City of Los Angeles, administrators
interviewed for this study describe fifteen fiefdoms to explain the fifteen unique
councilmanic districts. In such a system, administrators can be and are pulled in
multiple directions; they have no single boss, no natural protector in times of need,
and no consistent champion to shape policy or budget requests (Hill, 1991).
Even if elected officials were in complete agreement over the direction of the
bureaucracy and actions of administrators, there is reason to question whether the
direction provided to administrators actually serves to meet the needs of citizens,
particularly disenfranchised citizens. Pitkin (1967) discusses one type of
representation that certainly describes elected officials in the United States. Elected
officials are formal representatives; voters give them authority through elections to
act in the name of citizens, and voters hold them to account through subsequent
elections. As such, elected officials also serve as symbolic representatives, as they
are symbols of the state when they meet with citizens and are symbols of the United
States when they travel abroad.
Elected officials taken together are not, however, descriptive representatives;
they are not America in miniature as Benjamin Franklin thought a legislature should
38
be. America’s two-party and first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral system
virtually ensures that legislatures across the country at all levels of government will
never be descriptively representative, at least in demographic terms and potentially
in substantive terms as well (Disch, 2002; Rush & Engstrom, 2001). To be sure,
such a system has its benefits—such as stability in government—but the fifteen
members of the city council cannot descriptively represent the full population of the
City of Los Angeles in either demographic or substantive terms. The same applies to
the United States House of Representatives.
Such dynamics have led scholars, such as Rohr (1986), to suggest that public
administrators serve as representatives. Representation, in this way, has found its
way into bureaucratic responsiveness literature most directly in research on the
representative bureaucracy (Dolan & Rosenbloom, 2003; Selden et al., 1998; Sowa
& Selden, 2003). Passive representation is a demographically or descriptively
representative public administration, and this becomes responsive or active
representation once the demographically or passively representative administrators
start acting in the interests of the constituency they descriptively represent.
Certain preconditions may have to be met for passive representation to turn to
active representation. For instance, administrators may need to be descriptively
representative at multiple levels of government (Kim, 2003), they may need to
understand and accept their role as a descriptive representative of a particular
constituency (Selden et al., 1998), and administrators may need to perceive that they
have high levels of discretion (Sowa & Selden, 2003) in order for active
39
representation to meaningfully occur. These conditions suggest that descriptive or
passive representation does not automatically convert into active representation
(Dolan & Rosenbloom, 2003). To be a descriptive representative does not lead
naturally to action, and the kinds of action necessary to be considered a
representative are not clear when we examine the look of individuals alone (Pitkin,
1967).
2.2.2 Responsiveness and External Control
If administrators are to be said to represent a class of stakeholders, one group
of those stakeholders consists of elected officials. Neither responsiveness nor
representative bureaucracy literature have addressed the issue of external control in
these terms, however. Rather, attention has been given to the tools available for
control of administrators and the efficacy of those tools.
Rourke (1992) underscores how political leaders generally have tried to
control the bureaucracy and, failing, that, have looked elsewhere for either
supportive implementers of favored policies or neutral implementers of policy,
regardless of who was in office.
1
The possible sources of political influence come
from both elected executives and legislators. This multiple boss phenomenon can
make accountability challenging, but, as Smith (1988) observes, each party may have
different concerns with respect to the bureaucracy and thus may not conflict in their
directions or dictates to administrators. For instance, executives may be more
interested in efficient administration, whereas legislators may be interested in actual
40
service delivery to meet constituent needs. These two objectives need not conflict,
but they might.
The tools each class of elected official has in working with administrators
also vary. Some executives, including the mayor of Los Angeles in this study, have
the power of appointment of agency directors or managers, thus may be able to push
political influence down into the bureaucracy through strategic appointments. At the
federal level, President Nixon sought to gain more control over the bureaucracy by
increasing the number of such appointments (Rourke, 1992), culminating in the
administrative presidency (Nathan, 1975). Elected executives can give direction
through their political appointments, who manage the day-to-day activity of an
agency consistent with the policy objectives of the executive.
Legislators have the power of the purse (Smith, 1988). They can increase an
agency’s budget, decrease the budget, or they can choose to eliminate the budget.
The mayor or other elected executive may share this duty, as in the City of Los
Angeles. With the power of the purse, elected officials can influence bureaucratic
action with the stick of budget cuts (or elimination), the carrot of budget increases, or
the symbol of unfunded directives. In the latter case, an example is found in how no
additional money was provided to agencies to implement President Carter’s
directives to include citizens in rulemaking (Cooper, 1979; Cooper et al., 2006). The
administrative outcome is that administrators did not enthusiastically or fully
implement the directives; the political message is that elected officials did not care
enough about it to force any action or inaction through the budget. City of Los
41
Angeles officials observed numerous times in the course of the research the failure of
elected officials to provide money to agencies in Los Angeles for interaction with
neighborhood councils, suggesting the relevance of this concern in this study.
In other research on executive control, Golden (1992) finds that bureaucrats
in two federal agencies responded to orders and attempts at control in the Reagan
administration differently based on ideology, dominant profession in the agency, and
other such factors that together constitute the character and role orientation of the
bureaucrat. She concludes that bureaucrats can respond in one of four ways to direct
control. First, they can exit from the organization if the control attempted is
objectionable. Second, they can use voice to state how control attempted is
objectionable. Third, they can show loyalty to the President, regardless of the
control attempted. Fourth, they can show neglect by acting with a lack of
enthusiasm but in accordance with the attempted orders. In all, Golden demonstrates
the variety of possible responses to attempts at control.
Additionally legislators have the ability to hold hearings to scold, applaud or
otherwise highlight the actions of administrators. There was such an occurrence in
the first of the two cases in this study, in which the city council’s Education and
Neighborhoods Committee held a hearing to examine the actions of agency officials
and convened a press conference to celebrate the outcomes of the action.
Legislators also seek control through hardwiring (Moe, 1991) and the passage
of new administrative procedures (Balla, 1998).
1
Elected legislators in writing
legislation can fashion specific procedures that administrators need to follow in
42
implementing legislation. However, Balla (1998) shows in his study of the Health
Care Financing Administration that administrative procedures are not always
efficacious in generating a desired response by administrators. That is, not all forms
of procedures enacted by legislators exert political control, despite the intention to do
so. Similarly, Chaney and Saltzstein (1998) explore the relationship between direct
orders interpreted through state and local laws and police behavior in domestic
violence situations. Using a principal-agent model, they find that direct orders
sometimes shape bureaucratic behavior, but in other cases, bureaucratic discretion is
more important.
2.2.3 Responsiveness and Organizational Culture
In a review of consensus-based decision processes, Cooper, Bryer and Meek
(2006) observe that “fear and uncertainty about engaging in consensus-based rule-
making may be rooted in the general culture of administrative and rulemaking
agencies” (p. 83). For instance, Paolisso (2002) found that administrators in
Maryland environmental agencies did not trust the experiential knowledge of
watermen on the Chesapeake Bay over their expert knowledge.
Culture is seen as a determinant of, or motivation for, responsiveness in
studies by Vosburgh and Hyman (1973), Greene (1982), and Golden (2000). Schein
(1990) defines culture as the artifacts, values, and assumptions used in organizations.
One type of artifact is the language used by organizational members. For example,
Vosburgh and Hyman (1973) document a set of reforms in Pennsylvania that used
symbolic measures such as roles and titles as their foundation. Terminology that
43
implied a supervisory or hierarchical relationship was avoided. The term client,
which was felt to structure relationships adversely, was replaced with visitor. Office
personnel became representatives and the people to whom they reported were
coordinators. These symbolic reforms were compared to similar reforms that
occurred in Israel, where relations between the government and new immigrants
were suffering. As part of reform there, Israeli officials did not treat new immigrants
impersonally as clients but instead, the officials served more like teachers and
attempted to enable the immigrant to function within the system (Katz & Eisenstadt,
1960).
Culture can further be conceptualized in the administrative context as
citizens’ and bureaucrats’ perceptions of bureaucrats and bureaucracy, as well as
bureaucrats’ perceptions of citizens and citizenship (Henderson, 2004; Nachmias &
Rosenbloom, 1978). For example, Greene (1982) studies the receptivity of
administrators in New Jersey to contacts by citizens and elected officials. Most
administrators in his study responded that they preferred direct public contacts to
those initiated through an elected official. Direct contacts were less complicated and
provided a better understanding of service problems. However, most administrators
refused to compromise with citizens and felt that responding to citizen contacts
decreased agency effectiveness. They tended to rely heavily on standard
administrative procedures for decision making and to trust their professional
perspectives over community preferences. In Greene’s case, administrators’
44
responsiveness to citizen contacts appears to have been potentially limited by the
bureaucrats’ perceived role of bureaucrats and citizens.
Golden (2000) uncoveres similar role dynamics in her study of officials in the
Reagan administration. She found that a strong determinant of responsiveness was a
strong orientation to a sense of duty to comply with the directives of the President.
Individual factors such as professional orientation and organizational factors such as
culture and history influence role orientation and thus responsiveness to one
stakeholder over another.
2.2.4 Responsiveness and Leadership
Strong leadership can push individual administrators and whole agencies to
transform themselves, the relationships they have with others, and the nature of
outcomes that are achieved. Two examples are offered here in the context of
responsiveness, though many more no doubt can be found in the leadership
literature. First, the Governor’s Branch Offices in Pennsylvania (Vosburgh &
Hyman, 1973) suggest an example for how leadership can affect responsiveness. In
this case, the top leader was the Governor, who provided both the symbolic and
transformational leadership to change the culture of state government and the
instrumental and transactional leadership to get the resources necessary to institute
structural changes (Calder, 1977). The symbolic leadership is demonstrated in the
following statement made by the Governor to employees of the newly created
Governor’s Branch Offices: “You will no longer be part of (or therefore defender of)
the welfare system, or the employment security system, or any other system. You
45
are now an advocate for the person who comes into the Governor’s Branch Offices
with a problem” (Vosburgh & Hyman, 1973, p. 438).
Other examples of leadership influence can be found in the case of Charles
Rossotti, former commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (Rainey &
Thompson, 2006). Rossotti and his leadership team pushed an agency with a bad
public reputation to become more customer-oriented and responsive to individual
customer needs. Part of the strategy employed was to give administrators in the
agency more power to make recommendations and shape agency policy, thus
potentially giving them a greater stake in the outcomes achieved for the agency and
the public they served.
2.2.5 Responsiveness and Organizational Rules and Structure
Less behavioral and symbolic factors have also been shown to be important.
Specifically, the rules and organizational structures that guide the daily activities of
organizational members have the potential to shape responsiveness behavior. Such
dynamics are seen in the work of Mladenka (1981) as well as Getter and Schumaker
(1978).
Mladenka (1981) examines bureaucratic responsiveness in two urban areas:
Chicago, a machine government, and Houston, a reformed government. He found
that variations in responsiveness behavior are best understood by examining
administrative procedures established to process citizen demands, as well as by the
level of resources required to solve the problem. As such, Mladenka identifies three
objects of responsive behavior: powerful politicians, knowledgeable citizens, or
46
administrative procedures. The third object of response is a function of the
technical/rational application of rules and the structural characteristics of the agency
that drive use of such rules to make decisions. Getter and Schumaker (1978)
similarly find that a reform government structure, which consists of a council-
manager government, nonpartisan elections, and at-large representation, results in
greater responsiveness to group demands, as opposed to public opinion.
These structural and rule-based considerations of bureaucratic responsiveness
are based in neo-institutional political science, in which it is theorized that rules
shape behavior, and individuals shape the rules that constrain them to act in certain
ways (Scott, 2001). For instance, government agencies can be hardwired to behave
in certain ways; the rules of the agency can establish a path for behavior (Moe,
1997). Such hardwiring can be meant to make bureaucracies efficient and enable
individual administrators to make rational decisions about how to respond to a
particular request or situation within constraints established by the rules (March,
1978; March & Simon, 1993; Simon, 1997).
Administrators may be less responsive to a given situation or stakeholder if
the structures in place and rules do not offer readily available avenues for action.
Jones, Greenberg, Kaufman, and Drew (1977) offer that responses by public
administrators to citizen initiated contacts may vary if there is no general policy
giving their agency responsibility to address the need expressed through the contact.
Similarly, the formal procedures in place can shape the extent to which participation
by some stakeholders is encouraged and the related extent to which administrators
47
are procedurally able to be responsive to those stakeholders (West, 2004). Jones et
al. (1977) and Mladenka (1981) further observe that the nature of the contactor may
account for variation in response behaviors. This relates to possible dependence on,
or at least the perceived salience of, different stakeholders.
2.2.6 Responsiveness and Dependence
The need for a public agency to respond to its stakeholder or stakeholders is a
form of dependence (Mizruchi & Yoo, 2002). Dependence is a source of power for
the target of response, giving rise to behavior on the part of a public agency to regain
autonomy, lessen the degree of dependence, and exercise some power over its
stakeholder on its own.
In each of the examples below, the resource that is the source of dependence
is political support, which in the American governmental system may be particularly
needed by public administrators who have no natural champion to lobby for a higher
budget or changed policies (Hill, 1991). If a contactor or object of response has the
political capital and resources to bestow upon the agency greater political support,
political legitimacy, or material resources such as a higher budget, they may be more
likely to receive a better response.
Political capital is defined here as the extent to which administrators can tap
into associational activity that can influence policymakers who exercise authority
over agency policy, activity, and/or budget. This definition is drawn from two
previously offered definitions of the concept. Innes and Booher (1999) define
political capital as the extent to which administrators can work together with citizens
48
to achieve some identifiable goal. A further definition is offered by Booth and
Richard (1998). They define the concept as the extent to which associational activity
among citizens or other civil society actors fosters “attitudes and behaviors” (p. 782)
that might potentially influence the government or policymakers.
Dependence on stakeholders for political capital is implied as a determinant
of responsiveness in the work of Mladenka (1981), Rosener (1982), and Jones et al
(1977). In addition to responsiveness to administrative procedures, discussed above,
Mladenka (1981) observes that administrators can be responsive to either powerful
politicians due to loyalty, or knowledgeable citizens based largely on a class and
education bias. The central concern in either case can be contextualized as the
degree of dependence of administrators on either politicians or citizens. The more
each is perceived to be a salient stakeholder (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1987) and
thus capable of providing or taking away resources from the bureaucracy, the more
likely there may be a responsive relationship.
This idea is expressed as well by Jones et al. (1977), in which not only the
content of a citizen’s contact can determine responsiveness but the nature of the
contactor as well. Thus, even if there are rules in place to address a citizen concern,
the concern might not be addressed if the contactor is seen as illegitimate or the
claim not urgent (Mitchell et al., 1987). Biases based on socio-economic status
(Mladenka, 1981) or the neighborhood from which a contactor comes (Jones et al,
1977) can make dependence on some segments of the population less than on others.
Higher income neighborhoods may be more likely to get a response than lower-
49
income areas, based in part on preconceived notions of political power and resources
available to affect the agency’s own resource or activity base.
Similarly, Rosener’s (1982) study of differential impact of citizen
participation and staff recommendations on regulatory decisions by part-time
regulators suggests possible dependence concerns. Rosener’s analysis suggests that
citizen participation is generally low with the California Coastal Commission.
However, in cases of participation, the rate of denial of development permits was
increased, independent of staff recommendations. This may be tied to recognition
that the part-time regulators are dependent, to some extent, on the opinions of
interested citizens who may voice their concerns to higher level officials as well.
2.3 Negotiating Responsiveness in Collaboration
Any of the above factors identified above have the potential to influence
administrator behavior in a collaborative setting. Recognizing the diversity of
influencing factors in an administrator’s environment, in earlier work I sought to
descriptively “unpack” the notion of bureaucratic responsiveness (Bryer,
Forthcoming). The component parts are based on the set of potentially conflicting
obligations in an administrator’s environment and draw on the factors identified
above as possible determinants of responsive behavior.
Specifically, I break bureaucratic responsiveness into six variants, each
suggesting the target of response based on a set of obligations in an administrator’s
environment. The first variant is dictated responsiveness; here administrators are
responsive to the wishes and directives of elected officials, as in an executive
50
dominance model of governance or in terms of a principal-agent relationship with
legislators. This variant is consistent with formalistic models of representation, if
applied to the administrative role, in which elected officials authorize administrators
to act and hold them to account to ensure appropriate behavior (Pitkin, 1967). It is
also consistent with Hill’s (1991) image of bureaucracy as a weak actor in which
administrators are politically weak and unable to act outside the confines set by other
governance actors.
Next is constrained responsiveness, in which administrators are responsive,
perhaps with little choice in the matter, to the rules and structures of the organization
in which they work. They might also be responsive to the professional norms
established through their memberships and training.
Third is purposive responsiveness, which is responsiveness that helps
administrators achieve a personal or professional goal. Administrators will make
decisions based on their desire to achieve some outcome or deliver some output to a
particular constituency. Administrators may also act to empower citizens, as they
may have a commitment to values of citizenship in the manner discussed by Cooper
(1991; 2006).
The fourth variant of responsiveness is entrepreneurial responsiveness; here
administrators are responsive to the customers of government. The idea is grounded
in reinventing government and New Public Management literature, which places an
emphasis on treating the people served by government as customers (Osborne &
Gaebler, 1992). Representation theories may be relevant here, as well, as
51
administrators might view a subset of citizens making a demand both as citizens and
constituents but also as customers. To whom should administrators be held most
accountable? The answer from this perspective is to the administrator’s customer, or
the people to whom administrators are delivering services.
Fifth is collaborative responsiveness; here administrators’ decisions arise
from deliberative outcomes and collaboration with various stakeholders. However,
the possibility of including all relevant stakeholders in a collaborative process is
challenging, meaning that only a subset of possible constituents of administrators
will be involved in consensus building. Thus, administrators will still have choices
regarding to whom or what to devote their finite resources—those with whom they
are collaborating, their customers with whom they are not collaborating, elected
officials, or the achievement of some other goal (Bryer, Forthcoming). We can
consider representation here as dynamic in that administrators would actively seek
the ideas of their customers and other citizens but also provide to citizens the benefit
of their expert judgment, thus bridging the worlds of trustee and delegate (Pitkin,
1967).
Last, then, is negotiated responsiveness; this variant recognizes that multiple,
possibly conflicting demands based on the other five variants and perhaps then some
will confront an administrator. Thus, administrators need to negotiate between
responding to a demand in front of them at a given time and responding to any of the
other pre-existing obligations in an administrator’s environment. The variant also
captures the added complexity in applying representation theories to public
52
administration. Representation of citizens in an active way—meaning to actively
listen to and strive to meet the needs of various publics—might be achieved through
acting as the agents of elected officials, agents of the state, direct agents of the
citizenry, or perhaps through some other means, such as partners, not agents. From
the partnership perspective administrators would not have been defined as
representatives in the way defined by Pitkin (1967) until a final decision is made, at
which point administrators would be acting on behalf of citizens as both a delegate
and expert.
2.4 Where This Study Fits
We can find explanations for patterns of administrator response in
collaboration with citizens in multiple places, as evidenced by the numerous factors
identified in the review. However, the question of responsiveness to citizens in a
collaborative process has not been explored in literature on responsiveness or
collaboration. The responsiveness literature is reviewed above and has not
empirically touched on collaboration.
Collaboration literature has focused on cross- or inter-sectoral collaboration
and determinants of engaging in collaborative activity (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003).
Literature on collaboration has not focused on the role of the citizen or
responsiveness to citizens in collaboration, which is a unique stream of literature yet
to be fully developed that Cooper, Bryer, and Meek (2006) define as citizen-centered
collaborative public management. This contrasts with literature on collaborative
public management and network management, which is the focus of work by
53
Agranoff and McGuire (2003), Agranoff (2003), and other scholars who recently
published in a symposium on collaborative public management (O'Leary, Gerard, &
Bingham, 2006).
Further, literature on deliberation and consensus processes involving citizens
tends to treat the role of the public administrator as a technical expert to advise
citizens (Fishkin, n.d.; Lukensmeyer & Torres, 2006). Administrators, in
deliberative processes, are relegated to the role of expert and are not given a stake in
the process as both citizens and experts. Even in collaborative processes that involve
both citizens and expert administrators, these roles are kept separate. For instance,
the Centers for Disease Control conducted a deliberative process to help make
decisions about the allocation of influenza vaccine in the case of a shortage. The
process had separate “stakeholder” panels, which consisted representatives of
organized bodies and experts, and citizen panels. The panels never met (Bernier,
2006).
This study brings these streams of literature together. It considers
responsiveness to citizens in a collaborative learning process that includes
administrators as active participants. The study seeks to understand explanations for
differential patterns of observed responsiveness in two cases.
Based on the review above, numerous determinants of responsiveness have
been identified, such as leadership, culture, and external control. Pitkin (1967)
suggests forms or components of representation that imply possibly different role
orientations for administrators; Bryer (Forthcoming) suggests a set of potentially
54
conflicting obligations that might drive an administrator’s actions; Hill (1991)
suggests that administrators—in addition to or perhaps because of other
obligations—will take different actions to become more powerful and less dependent
players in the governance arena.
In a collaborative process with citizens, how do administrators negotiate
between these obligations and influences in their environment in order to make and
justify their decisions? Which of these factors, if any, can help explain the
differential patterns of responsiveness in each of the two Collaborative Learning
Project cases? The analysis described in the next chapter is an inductive analysis to
see what factors emerge from the words of CLP participants.
2.5 Endnotes
1
This section is taken in part from an earlier publication (Bryer, Forthcoming, p. 5).
For a full discussion of empirical work reviewed in support of each variant, the
reader should consult the full article.
55
CHAPTER 3 DATA AND ANALYSIS
3.1 Data Sources
This dissertation uses three data collection techniques and data sources. First
researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with project participants
approximately three months after the third Learning and Design Forum session in
each case. Questions were primarily geared toward assessing the collaborative
process and the quality of participation by each party.
Twenty total interviews were conducted in the first case out of a
potential thirty-seven subjects, a 54% response rate. Nine interviews
were conducted with neighborhood council representatives out of
twenty, a 45% response rate; nine interviews were conducted with
department participants out of fifteen, a 60% response rate; two
interviews were conducted with representatives from elected offices
who had participated as observers in the process out of a total of two.
Council respondents were drawn from each of the four neighborhood
councils.
Fifteen interviews were conducted in the second case out of a possible
twenty-three subjects, a 65% response rate. Twelve interviews were
conducted with neighborhood council representatives out of a
possible eighteen, a 67% response rate; three interviews were
conducted with department officials out of a possible five, a 60%
response rate; no observer from elected offices participated and thus
56
none were interviewed. Council respondents were drawn from each
of the four neighborhood councils.
In addition to these interviews, in the first case each party signed a written
agreement. Approximately one year following the signing of the agreement, a
second set of semi-structured interviews was conducted to assess primarily the state
and quality of agreement implementation. Fourteen total interviews were conducted
here, with five department respondents, seven neighborhood council respondents,
and two respondents from the politically appointed commission that exercises
supervision over the department. Respondents were purposively chosen from the
leadership of the four participating neighborhood councils, management of the
department, and members of the Board of Public Works.
One additional set of interviews was conducted but only in the second case.
Baseline or pre-collaborative process interviews were conducted with department
and neighborhood council participants as well as other managers and leaders from
each party. The purpose of these interviews was to determine various attitudes and
perceptions each party held of the other prior to the start of the process so that they
might be compared at the conclusion of the process. In all twenty-six of these
baseline interviews were conducted in the second case. Six interviews were
conducted with department officials, including with the five officials who
participated in the project, plus one additional Assistant General Manager. Twenty
interviews were with neighborhood representatives, including with seventeen council
representatives who participated in the project plus leadership from two of the four
57
neighborhood councils. Leadership from one of the councils participated in the
project and thus are counted in that number; leadership from the fourth council
declined to be interviewed.
Two members of the research team conducted all but a few interviews. One
researcher was charged primarily with asking the questions while the other was
primarily charged with taking notes. Interviews were not audio or video recorded. I
was present in one of these roles in all but four interviews conducted.
The second data collection technique used was open-ended email
questionnaires. Following each Learning and Design Forum session in each case
participants were sent an email asking that they respond to three questions: (1) What
were their expectations for the day? (2) Were their expectations met? (3) What
would they suggest be done differently?
Thirty-six email responses were received in the first case, out of a
possible 111 responses if each participant responded once after
each session. This is a response rate of less than 32%. Four
responses came from department officials, an 11% response rate;
twenty-eight responses came from neighborhood council
representatives, a 47% response rate; four responses came from
elected official representatives, a 67% response rate.
Fourteen emails were received in the second case, a 20% response
rate. One response came from a department official, a response
58
rate of less than 1%; thirteen responses came from neighborhood
council representatives, a 24% response rate.
The final data collection technique was participant-observation note-taking.
Members of the research team sat on the periphery of the room during each Learning
and Design Forum session. One team member had primary note-taking
responsibility, with each other member assisting the effort. Once notes were cleaned
up following each session, they were emailed to participants, and any changes
necessary were made based on participant feedback. In total, thirty-five pages of
notes were taken in the first case, and twenty-two pages of notes were taken in the
second case.
3.1.1 Strengths and Limitations of Data Collection
The first limitation of the data collection in terms of this dissertation is that
the data were not collected in order to understand explicitly the differential patterns
of bureaucratic response. The reason for this is that the different patterns of response
did not become entirely evident until after the conclusion of the second case. Three
unique data collection techniques are used to provide additional data, which can add
confidence in any conclusions drawn from the data. Session notes provide
statements from study participants in the course of the collaborative process;
interview data provide information from participants that are post-process and
reflective; email feedback was collected from participants to capture immediate
attitudes about the collaborative process. Each data source has its own unique
59
purpose; taken together they can more closely help reveal the full extent of
participant actions, attitudes, and reflections.
A second limitation of the data collection is specifically related to the
interview data. Relying on researcher notes taken during interviews might bias the
responses if notes were not taken word-for-word. To combat this limitation, one
interviewer was tasked as a primary note-taker, and the other was the primary
interviewer. The interviewer also took notes to ensure that notes taken were
comprehensive and unbiased. In cases where there was confusion or conflict in notes
taken, the two interviewers got together to talk through the difference. In all cases,
this action resolved conflict. In no case did it become necessary to contact the
interview respondent to clarify a response given.
A third limitation is in the number of respondents in each case. Those
participants who did not sit for an interview either did not return calls requesting an
interview, provided too many schedule conflicts to allow an interview to be
scheduled, or outright refused to be interviewed. Only in the second case did
participants outright refuse to be interviewed. A refusal came from one
neighborhood council representative who was not positively inclined towards the
collaborative process from the beginning and showed it by his refusal. The other two
refusals came from department representatives who felt they had given enough of
their time to the research project.
As suggested in the first chapter, the lower response rate in the second case is
another indicator of responsiveness in the collaborative learning process. Final
60
respondents were drawn, in both cases from a cross-section of the respondent pool,
and so there is no response bias. Further, in the second case, the two department
officials who refused an interview after the process did sit for a baseline interview.
The full diversity of views was also captured in the session notes taken.
Responses to the email questionnaires were lacking in a more extreme way,
as is seen by the response rates. A minority of participants bothered to respond and
those who did respond tended to do so after each session. Thus, the reported
numbers above are not responses from unique individuals but rather unique
responses with overlap in individuals responding. Most responses, additionally,
came from neighborhood council representatives and not from department officials
as reported above.
Lastly, the actions and statements of participants in each Learning and
Design Forum session, as captured in session notes, may have been artificially
constrained or altered based on participant awareness of being watched by
researchers. This “Hawthorne Effect” did not seem to be an issue as participants did
not act or talk in any uniform way across or within cases. The Hawthorne
experiments saw performance in a factory improve regardless of the changes to the
factory environment (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1946). With the different levels of
responsiveness across and within cases, it seems that few if any participants were
necessarily playing to the expectations of the researchers. Further work outside of
this project with a top manager in the department in the first case suggests the
61
observed highly responsive behavior in that case was genuine (Cooper & Bryer,
Forthcoming).
3.2 Data Analysis
The data analysis technique described here and that will be employed in this
dissertation is drawn from discussion by Ryan and Bernard (2003) and the work of
Arndt and Bigelow (2000). Arndt and Bigelow used a method similar to the one
outlined below to code statements from hospital annual reports to understand the
ways in which hospital management communicated the need for change to the
community. They took 37 annual reports and instructed two coders to cluster every
sentence, bullet point, and picture caption according to how similar statements were
with all other statements. The process is described as “iterative, going back and
forth between the words in each report and emerging categories” (Arndt & Bigelow,
2000, p. 502). Operationally, this means that coders were not tied to categories they
created early in the process; categories should emerge and reflect all new data. They
allowed for one statement to be categorized in more than one way. After the coders
agreed on the categories, a single coder went back and re-sorted all statements into
the categories. The final sorting was reviewed by the other coder.
This study follows a five step process to identify and extract statements,
define categories, and sort statements into categories. First, two coders extracted
statements from a single source to define initial groupings and categories. Second,
the coders met to work through differences in how they defined categories and
grouped statements. Third, each coder independently extracted statements from all
62
data sources and sorted them into the agreed on categories. This process generated a
finite list of statements, as opposed to the infinite statements possible from all data
sources taken as a whole. Fourth, each coder independently sorted the finite list of
statements into new groupings. Fifth, the coders met to work through differences in
sorting, define new categories, and conduct a final sort of the statements.
3.2.1 Defining Initial Categories
Two coders, both Ph.D. students, clustered statements from the session notes
data, as the most comprehensive set of data, according to how similar each is with all
others. A statement is any sentence or group of sentences that form a complete
thought. Statements are direct quotes from research participants as well as narrative
descriptions of behavior and quotes that are written by members of the research team
as part of the session notes. Statements can also include interactions between
participants as captured by researchers in the session notes if the interactions form a
complete thought. Each coder generated her own list of categories based on the
similarity grouping exercise. These categories are listed in table 11.
63
Table 11 – Independently Generated Categories
Coder 1 Categories Coder 2 Categories
1) Communication
-means (media)
-contact point
2) Service delivery process
-problem definition
-information sharing/ acknowledgement
-prioritization
3) Vision/ plan
-mission/ goal
-budget
-timeline
4) System sustainability
-quality control
-accountability
-education/ training
-outreach
1) learning/education/enlighten
2) communication/sharing
information/notification
3) action/proactive/reactive/lead
4) resources/funding/efficiency/
distribution/allocation
5) advocacy/voice
6) relationships/partnership/interaction
7) success/effectiveness
8) priorities/agenda
9) scale/micro/macro
10) accountability/evaluation/assessment/
legitimacy/roles/responsibilities/obligations
3.2.2 Clarifying Differences Between Coders
On February 13, 2007, the lead research assistant, acting as neutral facilitator,
met with the two coders to review their independently arrived at categories. This
discussion was audio recorded to maintain an accurate record of the discussion. The
goal of the session was to determine if the statements were interpreted in the same
way but categorized using different labels, or if the statements were interpreted
differently. Through discussion, it became clear to both coders that the statements
were interpreted in the same way and that they could arrive at a commonly labeled
set of categories based on their assessment.
The coders began by identifying six contexts in which statements were
made. After identifying these contexts, the coders identified categories based on
their assessment. The lead researcher asked the coders to articulate what each meant
64
in the identification of each category to ensure agreement in category definition.
Table 12 lists the contexts and each category.
Table 12 – Agreed To Contexts and Categories
Context Category
Neighborhood Council-Stakeholder
Relations
Communication – How?
Communication – What?
Roles/Responsibilities – (How and What?)
Evaluation/Assessment
Interaction – Current?
Interaction – Future?
Department-Stakeholder Relations Communication – How?
Communication – What?
Roles/Responsibilities – (How and What?)
Evaluation/Assessment
Interaction – Current?
Interaction – Future?
Service Delivery Priorities/Problem Definition
Funding/Budget/Resource Allocation/Constraint
Role of Elected Officials
Department-Neighborhood Council
Relations
Communication – How?
Communication – What?
Roles/Responsibilities – (How and What?)
Evaluation/Assessment
Interaction – Current?
Interaction – Future?
Department-Participating
Neighborhood Council Relations
Communication – How?
Communication – What?
Roles/Responsibilities – (How and What?)
Evaluation/Assessment
Interaction – Current?
Interaction – Future?
Collaborative Learning Project
process
Education/Learning
Priorities
Oversee/Oversight
Planning/Vision/Mission/Objectives/Scale
The first four context areas contain the same set of six categories.
Communication (How) is a category that addresses the processes participants used or
65
wanted to use to communicate across organizations, such as through computer-
mediated communication, public meetings, or liaisons. Communication (What) is a
category that addresses the content of communication across organizations, such as
specific kinds of information about service delivery. Roles/Responsibilities is a
category that addresses the ways in which participants discuss their own roles in
governance, or the roles of others. Evaluation/Assessment addresses participant
assessment of agency and neighborhood council performance in governance outside
of the Collaborative Learning Project process. Interaction (Current) addresses
descriptive statements about the experiences and interactions that participants had
leading up to and during the Collaborative Learning Project; Interaction (Future)
addresses descriptive statements about how participants would like to interact in the
future.
In the Collaborative Learning Project Process context area, there are four
categories. Each area addresses the process and goals of the process itself and not
larger relationships outside the process. Specifically, each area addresses statements
regarding the components of the written agreement. Education/Learning addresses
participant statements about the need or desire for learning to occur between them.
Priorities is a category that addresses statements regarding how priorities should be
sequenced. Oversee/Oversight addresses participant statements about the need for an
evaluation component of the written agreement. Planning/Vision/Mission/
Objectives addresses participant ideas regarding the overall goals of the written
agreement.
66
Service Delivery is a context area in which there are three categories.
Priorities/Problem Definition concerns participants’ thoughts about service delivery
problems. Funding/Budget/Resource Allocation/Constraint addresses the restrictions
placed on agency officials to act. Role of Elected Officials addresses the influence
of elected leaders on agency actions.
3.2.3 Sorting Statements into Categories
The next step was for coders to sort statements from all data sources into
these categories. One coder copied and pasted from electronic copies of the
documents into a separate document for each category. The second coder first
highlighted statements on a hard copy of the documents before copying and pasting
electronically. They noted the following information alongside each statement as
they copied it into the category documents.
o If a statement came from interview notes, they noted the
respondent’s organization and page number from the master
interview notes document from which the statement came.
o If a statement came from an email survey, they noted the
respondent’s organization and page number from the master email
response document from which the statement came.
o If a statement came from session notes, they noted the
participant’s organization and the page number from the master
document of session notes.
67
This information was used to trace the statement back to the primary source should
the source need to be consulted for context information.
The lead researcher held a separate meeting with each coder to review their
sorts. Separate meetings were held by circumstance, rather than by design. On the
date of the scheduled meeting, one of the two coders was too ill to participate, and so
the meeting went forward with a single coder on February 22, 2007. This meeting
was audio recorded to maintain an accurate record of discussion during this meeting
and to ensure that the same questions put to one coder also be put to the second
coder. Table 13 lists the contexts and categories, along with the number of
statements sorted into each by both coders.
The differences in number of statements can be accounted for in three ways.
First, the second coder broke up blocks of text more than did the first coder, thus
potentially accounting for more statements in any one category. Second, the first
coder freely placed statements into more than one category, whereas the second
coder never did, thus potentially accounting for the greater total number of
statements sorted by the first coder. Third, the second coder was more specific in her
interpretation of statements, looking for specific meaning, not just key words. The
first coder looked for key words, without full meaning attached to those words.
68
Table 13 – Number of Statements Sorted by Coders, Both Cases
Context Sub-Category Number of Statements
Coder 1 Coder 2
Neighborhood
Council-Stakeholder
Relations
Communication – How?
Communication – What?
Roles/Responsibilities – (How and What?)
Evaluation/Assessment
Interaction – Current?
Interaction – Future?
0 4
0 0
13 20
0 1
0 0
0 0
Department-
Stakeholder Relations
Communication – How?
Communication – What?
Roles/Responsibilities – (How and What?)
Evaluation/Assessment
Interaction – Current?
Interaction – Future?
2 2
0 1
14 10
23 0
0 0
0 0
Department-
Neighborhood Council
Relations
Communication – How?
Communication – What?
Roles/Responsibilities – (How and What?)
Evaluation/Assessment
Interaction – Current?
Interaction – Future?
27 4
12 0
55 11
3 0
28 2
30 1
Department-
Participating
Neighborhood Council
Relations
Communication – How?
Communication – What?
Roles/Responsibilities – (How and What?)
Evaluation/Assessment
Interaction – Current?
Interaction – Future?
24 39
22 6
31 32
5 8
161 80
16 4
Collaborative Learning
Project process
Education/Learning
Priorities
Oversee/Oversight
Planning/Vision/Mission/Objectives/Scale
120 42
20 3
3 0
41 41
Service Delivery Priorities/Problem Definition
Funding/Budget/Resource Allocation/
Constraint
Role of Elected Officials
21 17
43 39
44 31
3.2.4 Creating New Groupings
With the vast differences in number of statements identified by each coder, it
became necessary for the coders to operate from a common, finite set of statements
69
in order to ensure confidence in coder categories and ultimate study conclusions.
The total number of statements extracted by both coders, after removing duplicates
from a single coder and across coders, was 708. All statements were copied into an
excel spreadsheet and were sorted alphabetically to ensure that statements were not
grouped in the same order as the coders initially had them. After sorting all
statements into groups without a category label, the coders met once again to work
through their differences.
3.2.5 Creating New Categories and Final Sorting Piles
On April 17, 2007, the coders met with a neutral facilitator to review the
groupings and arrive at consensus about the categories they identified. The third
party facilitator was necessary at this point, as I, as the lead researcher, had begun to
form conclusions based on the categories and statements identified to this point. To
avoid facilitator bias, a third party was brought into the process. Ultimately, the
coders identified final categories through an iterative process of comparing statement
groupings and re-sorting based on new groupings. Table 14 lists the final categories.
Table 14 – Final Categories
Communication-How
Communication-What
Roles/Responsibilities
Current Interaction
Future Interaction
Service Delivery
Priorities/Problem Definition
Funding/Budget/Resource Allocation
Constraint
Role of Elected Officials
Collaborative Learning Project
Process
Education/Learning
Priorities
Oversee/Oversight
Planning/Vision/Mission/Objec
tives
Evaluation
70
The Collaborative Learning Project categories are separated from the other
categories. These categories address the collaborative learning process, assessment
of the process, and other related matters. They validate the evaluative statements
introduced in the first chapter in describing differential responsiveness between
cases. As such, they will be treated separately in the analyses presented in the next
two chapters, beginning with table 19.
At the end of this meeting, the coders had together read 316 statements and
agreed on how those statements grouped together. Each coder then independently
sorted the remaining statements, based on their shared lens for sorting. Inter-coder
reliability was calculated based on how they sorted the remaining statements. The
overall reliability score for the remaining statements taken alone was 39%. The
agreement score for the remaining statements plus the 316 statements that were re-
sorted following the meeting was 68%. The breakdown of statements across cases
and categories at this stage in the analysis are reported in the next chapter.
The coders and neutral facilitator met one final time on April 23, 2007. They
met remotely, using the free, Internet-based communication system, Skype. At this
meeting they clarified disagreements. According to the third party facilitator of the
discussion, most of the disagreement was based on the lack of context for each
statement. There was little disagreement in meaning. Once context was discussed
and verified, the coders came to complete agreement.
One final task remained for the coders. This was to sort statements in each
category into smaller groupings, if they saw groupings emerge at a more narrow
71
level. At the April 23 meeting, they discussed the sub-categories they saw emerge in
each category. They then divided the categories between them to sort the statements
further. Each coder reviewed the work of the other coder to ensure agreement with
the sorting process. This is consistent with the process undertaken by Arndt and
Bigelow (2000), in which the authors assigned a single coder the task of sorting
statements once the categories had been identified. A second coder reviewed the
sorts without independently going through the sorting process herself. This process
led to sub-categories in the following categories: roles/responsibilities,
communication-how, current interaction, and CLP evaluation.
72
CHAPTER 4 DESCRIPTIVE QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
4.1 Preface
This chapter reports the numbers of statements sorted into each category,
compared across both cases. This will show the distribution of statements by
category to show differences in each case by numbers alone. Chapter five will report
findings in terms of the actual statements made that fit within the categories.
4.2 Aggregate Number of Statements across Cases
Table 15 shows the total number of statements—708—divided between each
type of participant in each case. In the first case, with the Department of Public
Works, a total of 366 statements were identified by the coders. In the second case,
with the Department of Transportation, a total of 342 statements were identified.
Across both cases, more statements made by neighborhood council participants were
identified (26% and 27% of the total number of statements, respectively). The least
number of statements were made by department officials in the second case. Further,
the coders identified 3 statements made by the Learning and Design Forum sessions
facilitator in the first case, which constitute less than 1% of total statements.
73
Table 15 – Number of Statements per Case, by Type of Participant
Type of Participant Frequency Percent
Case One-Neighborhood Council
186 26.3
Case One-Department 177 25.0
Case Two-Neighborhood Council
193 27.3
Case Two-Department 149 21.0
Case One-CLP Facilitator 3 .4
Total 708 100.0
4.3 Penultimate Coder Agreement across Cases, Types of Participant, and
Categories
Reported below are agreement scores between coders across cases, types of
participants, and categories. These are penultimate scores, meaning they are based
on the sorting of statements heading into the coders’ final meeting on April 23, 2007.
The purpose of showing these tables is to reveal the common patterns of agreement
and disagreement across cases and categories. Overall, the tables reveal, with few
exceptions, that there is no systematic bias in the interpretation of statements related
to a particular case, nor related to a particular category. No categories are fraught
with disagreement. This adds confidence in the make-up of the final categories,
developed at the coders’ final meeting.
Table 16 brings together all statements, divided by case and type of
participant. Two things are evident in looking at the table. First, the same pattern of
less disagreement and more agreement holds across type of participant, except for
the CLP facilitator. In all other brackets, the coders agree in how the statements sort
74
more than they disagree. The second observation is that there is more disagreement
overall and as a proportion of total statements about the statements from the first
case. Differences in both cases were addressed by the coders at their final meeting,
once they had the opportunity to discuss the context of each statement and address
ambiguities in category definition.
Table 16 – Participant * Penultimate Agreement Between Coders Crosstab
Type of Participant Descriptive Statistic Agreement Between
Coders
Total
No Yes
Case One-Neighborhood
Council
Count
76 110 186
% within Respondent
40.9% 59.1% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
33.8% 22.8% 26.3%
Case One-Department Count 65 112 177
% within Respondent
36.7% 63.3% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
28.9% 23.2% 25.0%
Case Two-Neighborhood
Council
Count
45 148 193
% within Respondent
23.3% 76.7% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
20.0% 30.6% 27.3%
Case Two-Department Count 37 112 149
% within Respondent
24.8% 75.2% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
16.4% 23.2% 21.0%
CLP Facilitator Count 2 1 3
% within Respondent
66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
.9% .2% .4%
Total Count 225 483 708
% within Respondent
31.8% 68.2% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
75
Table 17 shows the penultimate agreement between coders across categories.
The sorting of a single, randomly chosen coder is used as a base for this table and as
a means to assess agreement. Of interest in this table is the extent of agreement in
order to show where the coders agreed most going into their final meeting to clarify
differences. The actual numbers of statements across categories are discussed in the
next section, when final categories and associated statements are presented.
Table 17 – Category * Penultimate Agreement between Coders Crosstab
Category Descriptive Statistic Agreement
Between Coders
Total
No Yes
Communication (How) Count 13 45 58
% within Category
22.4% 77.6% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
5.8% 9.3% 8.2%
Communication (What) Count 17 19 36
% within Category
47.2% 52.8% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
7.6% 3.9% 5.1%
Roles/Responsibilities Count 25 91 116
% within Category
21.6% 78.4% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
11.1% 18.8% 16.4%
Evaluation/Assessment Count 1 1 2
% within Category
50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
.4% .2% .3%
Current Interaction Count 33 49 82
% within Category
40.2% 59.8% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
14.7% 10.1% 11.6%
Future Interaction Count 14 9 23
% within Category
60.9% 39.1% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
6.2% 1.9% 3.2%
76
Table 17, Continued
Category Descriptive Statistic No Yes Total
CLP Process Count 8 15 23
% within Category
34.8% 65.2% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
3.6% 3.1% 3.2%
CLP Education/Learning Count 3 25 28
% within Category
10.7% 89.3% 100.0%
% within Agreement
Between Coders 1.3% 5.2% 4.0%
CLP Planning/Vision/
Mission/Objectives
Count 5 7 12
% within Category
41.7% 58.3% 100%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
2.2% 1.4%
1.7%
CLP Evaluation Count 17 111 128
% within Category
13.3% 86.7% 100%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
7.6% 23.0% 18.1%
Priorities/Problem
Definition
Count
8 20 28
% within Category
28.6% 71.4% 100%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
3.6% 4.1% 4.0%
Funding/Budget/Resource
Allocation
Count
9 23 32
% within Category
28.1% 71.9% 100%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
4.0% 4.8% 4.5%
Constraint Count 5 7 12
% within Category
41.7% 58.3% 100%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
2.2% 1.4% 1.7%
Planning Count 18 2 20
% within Category
90.0% 10.0% 100%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
8.0% .4% 2.8%
Role of Elected Officials Count 4 15 19
% within Category
21.1% 78.9% 100%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
1.8% 3.1% 2.7%
77
Table 17, Continued
Category Descriptive Statistic No Yes Total
Uncoded Count 45 44 89
% within Category
50.6% 49.4% 100%
% within Agreement
Between Coders
20.0% 9.1% 12.6%
Total Count 225 483 708
% within Category
31.8% 68.2% 100%
% within Agreement
100% 100% 100%
In focusing on extent of agreement, the extremes are of most interest, as they
show where there is most or least agreement. There are two categories in which
there is more disagreement than agreement between the coders. They are the
categories of Future Interaction and Planning. In the first case, the coders agreed on
39% of the statements placed into this category by the randomly chosen coder; in the
second case, the coders agreed on only 10%. This suggests that these categories are
the most ambiguous, or they have the most potential for overlap with other
categories. For instance, Future Interaction might overlap with Current Interaction,
in which there was 40% disagreement. This then might account for the high degree
of disagreement.
On the other side of the spectrum are eight categories in which agreement is
60% or more. The most agreement, as a proportion of statements sorted into the
category, is in the CLP Education and Learning category (89% agreement). This
category is followed by CLP Evaluation (87%), Role of Elected Officials (79%),
Roles/Responsibilities (78%), and Communication—How (78%). Below this but
still with high degrees of agreement are the categories of Funding/Budget/Resource
78
Allocation (72%), Priorities/Problem Definition (71%), and CLP Process (65%). All
other categories are more evenly spread in terms of percent of statements commonly
sorted into them.
One additional “category” is identified at the bottom of table 16, which is the
“un-coded” category. Eighty-nine statements were left un-coded by the coder. Of
these, approximately half were un-coded by both coders (signified by the 49%
agreement figure), and half were only un-coded by the one coder whose work was
randomly chosen to construct the table. The lack of context of the statements, once
extracted from the original data sources, made interpretation of these statements
difficult. After the coders had their final meeting, forty-five statements were un-
coded by both coders.
Overall, table 16 shows that out of fifteen categories, eight are relatively
strong in terms of percent agreement between coders, two are significantly weak, and
the rest are mildly weak. Importantly, the categories with the most number of
statements are relatively strong, including Roles/Responsibilities, Communication—
How, and CLP Evaluation. The weakest category of those with the most statements
is Current Interactions, with 60% agreement. In the next section, the relative size of
the categories across cases is examined.
4.4 Final Statement Distribution across Cases, Types of Participant, and
Categories
At the final meeting between the coders, they sought to clarify meaning of
statements and work through differences. As previously noted, much of the
79
disagreement was grounded in the lack of context associated with statements, once
they were isolated from the original data sources. Much of the discussion at the
meeting was on recovering that context. Full agreement about the final sorting
resulted after discussion. In the case of fifty-eight statements, the coders agreed to
sort statements into two separate categories.
Table 18 lists the categories and the aggregate number of statements sorted
into each. Two categories stand out as the largest. CLP evaluation consists of 132
or 19% of all statements, and the roles/responsibilities category consists of 125 or
18% of all statements. Following these categories, the next two biggest are
Communication—How with 74 (11%) of the statements, and Current Interaction
with 69 (10%) of the statements.
These figures show that participants made numerous statements about the
behavior and performance of either neighborhood council or city agency officials
engaged in collaboration. They also show that a good deal of attention was paid to
how participants perceived their role vis-à-vis each other and potentially outside
governance actors. An assessment of sub-categories in each of these areas, presented
below, paints more of a picture about the content of these areas, including the
Communication-How and Current Interaction categories.
80
Table 18 – Final Categories Aggregated across Cases
Category Number of Statements
CLP Evaluation 132
Roles/Responsibilities 125
Communication—How 74
Current Interaction 69
Two or More Categories 58
Un-Coded 45
CLP Education and Learning 35
Priorities/Problem Definition (Service Delivery) 28
Funding/Budget/Resource Allocation (Service
Delivery)
27
Communication—What 22
Role of Elected Officials (Service Delivery) 20
Planning/Vision/Mission/Objectives 20
CLP Process 19
Future Interaction 14
Constraint (Service Delivery) 14
Evaluation/Assessment 5
Planning (Service Delivery) 1
CLP Priorities 0
CLP Oversee/Oversight 0
TOTAL 708
All other categories, as in seen in table 18, consist of thirty-five or fewer
statements. When looked at across cases, however, the smaller categories reveal
potentially interesting dynamics. These are revealed in table 19.
81
Table 19 – Final Category * Participant Crosstab
Category Descriptive Statistic Case One-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
One-
Depart
ment
Case
Two-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
Two-
Depart
ment
Total
Communication
(How)
Count
28 26 13 7 74
% within Final
Category
37.8% 35.1% 17.6% 9.5% 100%
% within Participant
15.1% 14.7% 6.7% 4.7% 10.5%
Communication
(What)
Count
9 3 6 4 22
% within Final
Category
40.9% 13.6% 27.3% 18.2% 100%
% within Participant
4.8% 1.7% 3.1% 2.7% 3.1%
Roles/Responsib
ilities
Count
29 22 28 45 125
% within Final
Category
23.2% 17.6% 22.4% 36.0% 100%
% within Participant
15.6% 12.4% 14.5% 30.2% 17.7%
Evaluation/Asse
ssment
Count
2 0 3 0 5
% within Final
Category
40.0% .0% 60.0% .0% 100%
% within Participant
1.1% .0% 1.6% .0% .7%
Current
Interaction
Count
9 14 18 28 69
% within Final
Category
13.0% 20.3% 26.1% 40.6% 100%
% within Participant
4.8% 7.9% 9.3% 18.8% 9.7%
Future
Interaction
Count
4 5 3 2 14
% within Final
Category
28.6% 35.7% 21.4% 14.3% 100%
% within Participant
2.2% 2.8% 1.6% 1.3% 2.0%
Priorities/Proble
m Definition
Count
9 13 3 3 28
% within Final
Category
32.1% 46.4% 10.7% 10.7% 100%
% within Participant
4.8% 7.3% 1.6% 2.0% 4.0%
Funding/Budget
/Resource
Allocation
Count
5 14 3 5 27
% within Final
Category
18.5% 51.9% 11.1% 18.5% 100%
% within Participant 2.7% 7.9% 1.6% 3.4% 3.8%
82
Table 19,
Continued
Category Descriptive Statistic Case One-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
One-
Depart
ment
Case
Two-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
Two-
Depart
ment
Total
Role of Elected
Officials
Count
2 4 11 3 20
% within Final
Category
10.0% 20.0% 55.0% 15.0% 100%
% within Participant
1.1% 2.3% 5.7% 2.0% 2.8%
Un-coded Count 8 10 17 10 45
% within Final
Category
17.8% 22.2% 37.8% 22.2% 100%
% within Participant
4.3% 5.6% 8.8% 6.7% 6.4%
More Than One
Category
Count
22 19 10 7 58
% within Final
Category
37.9% 32.8% 17.2% 12.1% 100%
% within Participant
11.8% 10.7% 5.2% 4.7% 8.2%
Total Count 186 177 193 149 708
% within Final
Category
26.3% 25.0% 27.3% 21.0% 100%
% within Participant
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 19 shows how statements sort between cases, types of participants, and
categories. Three descriptive statistics are displayed. The first is a simple count of
statements for each type of participant in each category. Second is a percentage
indicating how statements divide across type of participant for each category. For
instance, look at the top category for case one neighborhood council participants.
The figure of 37.8% indicates that roughly 38% of all communication-how
statements were made by neighborhood council participants from the first case. The
next figure down in the same cell indicates that of all statements made by
neighborhood council participants in the first case, 15.1% of those statements were
made about communication-how.
83
Thus, with these two percentages, we can see how each case differs in terms
of the proportion of statements made in each category. We can also see any
differences in terms of how much focus each type of participant gave to a given
topic.
4.4.1 Distribution of Statements across Cases for Each Category
The distribution of statements across cases (the first percentage listed in each
cell) can be grouped into three patterns. First, there are those categories in which
there is an equal or near equal distribution of statements across cases. Second, there
are those categories in which a majority of statements in a given category were made
by participants in the first case. Third, the opposite of the previous, are those
categories in which a majority of statements in a category were made by participants
in the second case.
There are six categories in which there is an equal or near equal distribution
of statements across cases. These categories consist of the following:
communication-what, roles/responsibilities, evaluation/assessment, future
interaction, constraint, and planning. In the roles/responsibilities category, though
there is a near even distribution of statements, the plurality of statements was made
by department officials in the second case (36%). These role/responsibility
statements are broken down further in a later section through an analysis of sub-
categories identified by the coders.
Five categories contain a majority of statements made by participants in the
first case. These categories consist of the following: communication-how,
84
priorities/problem definition, funding/budget/resource allocation, future interaction,
and the umbrella category that indicates statements were sorted into more than one
category.
The biggest differences are found in the priorities/problem definition
category and funding/budget/resource allocation category. This finding is potentially
significant. It suggests that participants in the first case spoke more often about how
service delivery and associated issues should and can be prioritized; it further
suggests that case one participants were more open about the funding issues
confronting the department. Further implications of these findings will be discussed
once additional categories and sub-categories are introduced. Statements that were
sorted into more than one category are addressed further below.
In the second case there are three categories in which a majority of statements
come from case two. These categories consist of the following: current interaction,
role of elected officials, and the “category” of statements that were left un-
categorized. The majority of statements seen in the current interaction category are
due to the baseline interviews that were conducted with case two participants. In this
interview, respondents were asked to identify any experiences they had working with
neighborhood councils or city agencies, respectively.
Table 20 shows the breakdown of baseline interview questions across the
categories in which they appear. Although baseline interviews were not conducted
with participants in the first case, it is important to keep these data in the final
analysis. As seen the categories that would be altered most if the baseline interview
85
statements are not included in the final analysis are the roles/responsibilities and
current interactions categories. In the roles/responsibilities category, without the
baseline interview statements, we would lose insight into the role of the department
as service deliverer and expert, which are sub-categories discussed in more detail
below. These are important roles to consider in the orientation administrators had
concerning their role and working relationship with neighborhood councils. In the
current interactions category, the evaluation sub-category would be altered most.
Overall, these statements reveal the kinds of experiences Transportation officials had
with neighborhood councils prior to the start of the collaborative learning process.
Table 20 – Baseline Statement Distribution across Categories
Category
Sub-Category
Number of
Statements
Ratio of Case 1:Case
2 Statements
(Baseline Included)
Ratio of Case 1:Case 2
Statements (Baseline
Not Included)
CLP Evaluation
Attitude
Process
Relationship
3
1
1
1
61:70
24:28
11:15
9:12
61:67
24:27
11:14
9:11
Roles/Responsibilities
Service Delivery
Expert
Employee
Neighborhood Council
Information Gatherer
Bridge
Educator
Advocate for
Community
City Council
18
5
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
51:73
1:6
1:4
1:4
10:13
3:3
2:3
2:6
3:8
0:4
51:55
1:1
1:1
1:3
10:11
3:1
2:2
2:4
0:7
0:4
86
Table 20, Continued
Category
Sub-Category
Number of
Statements
Ratio of Case
1:Case 2 Statements
(Baseline Included)
Ratio of Case 1:Case 2
Statements (Baseline
Not Included)
Current Interactions
Evaluation
Feedback
Partnership
Regular Interaction
23
12
2
2
7
23:46
8:23
2:3
11:5
1:14
23:23
8:11
2:1
11:3
1:7
Communication-How
Formal
Communication
1
1
54:20
20:9
54:19
20:8
Role of Elected
Officials
2 6:14 6:12
Also interesting is the role of elected officials category. Case two
neighborhood council participants alone accounted for 55% of statements in this
category, whereas department officials in this case accounted for only 15% of
statements. This suggests that agency officials were not openly concerned with
elected officials and their influence on the agency. However, neighborhood council
participants did perceive relevance. Analysis in the next chapter of the actual
statements behind these numbers reveals the reason for the divide.
Last, a majority of statements that were left un-coded due to lack of context
and other ambiguity came from the second case. However, the proportion of
statements by each type of participant that were left un-coded, relative to statements
sorted into another category, was fairly evenly balanced across each type of
participant. This suggests, then, that there is no bias in the analysis of statements in
the second case due to an unusually high number of ambiguous statements. Each
type of participant made roughly the same proportion of statements that were not
decipherable for this analysis.
87
4.4.2 Distribution of Statements across Categories for Each Type of Participant
All four types of participants have a fairly high concentration of statements in
a small number of categories. The largest four categories for case one neighborhood
councils combine to account for approximately 63% of all statements made by these
participants. For case two neighborhood councils, the top four categories account for
56% of statements; for case one agency officials, the top four categories account for
52%, and 51% of statements are brought together in the top four categories for case
two agency officials.
Across the four types of participants, there are two common large categories.
This means that a common set of categories account for a high proportion of total
statements made by each type of participant.
The first common large category across type of participant is
roles/responsibilities. The proportion of statements in this category ranges from
12.4% for case one agency officials to 17.7% for case two agency officials. As
noted above, there is also seen a fairly equal distribution of roles/responsibilities
statements across categories. The prominence of these statements and equal
distribution across cases can be accounted for, in part, by interview questions that
sought to understand participants’ perceptions of the roles of various actors in Los
Angeles governance. The large number of statements in this category, however,
suggest role related statements were made often outside of the interview as well.
The second common large category is communication-how, though the range
across cases is quite large as well. This was indicated above in the observation that
88
the majority of communication-how statements came from the first case. The range
here, as a proportion of statements across categories for each type of participant, is
7% for case two neighborhood council participants to 15.1% for case one
neighborhood council participants.
Each type of participant in each case shares the fourth largest category in
common. For case one participants, the fourth largest is the umbrella category
containing statements that have been sorted into two or more categories. There are a
total of twenty-eight category combinations, most of which are populated by only a
single statement. The three largest category combinations, across cases, are the
following: communication-how and communication-what with thirteen statements,
constraint and funding/budget/resource allocation with eight statements, and
roles/responsibilities and future interaction with five statements. For case two
participants, the fourth largest is the current interactions category. These findings
are consistent with the findings above about distribution across cases.
4.4.3 Summary of Overall Statement Distribution
Both percentages looking across cases and categories suggest a few
categories that hold the most promise for uncovering differences between cases in
order to explain the differential patterns of agency responsiveness observed in the
first chapter. These categories are the ones in which there is the most unequal
distribution of statements between cases, as well as the categories that contain the
highest number of statements, despite the distribution. The categories with the
highest number of statements may reveal differences through the identification of
89
sub-categories. Given these criteria, the following categories are analyzed in depth
in the next chapter: roles/responsibilities, communication-how, current interaction,
priorities/problem definition, funding/budget/resource allocation, role of elected
officials, and future interaction.
4.5 Sub-Categories
Before turning to the fifth chapter and a more in depth look at the actual
statements behind the numbers, I present a few more quantitative descriptions of the
data. Specifically, I report on the sub-categories in four areas: roles/responsibilities,
communication-how, current interaction, and CLP evaluation. These are the largest
categories in terms of the simple number of statements contained within each of
them.
4.5.1 Roles/Responsibilities Sub-Categories
Roles/responsibilities is one of the categories identified above as holding
some potential to identify differences between cases, thus leading to explanations for
the observed differential patterns of administrator responsiveness. It was identified
due to the overall size of the category in terms of simple number of statements,
nearly equally distributed between cases. Table 21 shows the sub-categories,
revealing additional differences between the cases.
90
Table 21 - Role/Responsibility Sub-Category * Participant Crosstab
Sub-Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case One
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case Two
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Department Count 3 1 1 1 6
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100%
% within
Participant
10.0% 4.3% 4.2% 2.1% 4.8%
Department -
Service
Delivery
Count
0 1 1 5 7
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
.0% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 100%
% within
Participant
.0% 4.3% 4.2% 10.6% 5.6%
Department -
Expert
Count
0 1 0 4 5
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
.0% 20.0% .0% 80.0% 100%
% within
Participant
.0% 4.3% .0% 6.4% 4.0%
Department -
Employee
Count
1 0 2 2 5
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
20.0% .0% 40.0% 40.0% 100%
% within
Participant
3.3% .0% 8.3% 4.3% 4.0%
91
Table 21,
Continued
Sub-Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case One
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case Two
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Department -
Information
Provider
Count
1 0 0 5 6
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
16.7% .0% .0% 83.3% 100%
% within
Participant
3.3% .0% .0% 10.6% 4.8%
Neighborhood
Council
Count
8 2 4 9 23
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
34.8% 8.7% 17.4% 39.1% 100%
% within
Participant
26.7% 8.7% 16.7% 19.1% 18.4%
Neighborhood
Council -
Information
Gatherer
Count
3 0 1 2 6
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
50.0% .0% 16.7% 33.3% 100%
% within
Participant
10.0% .0% 4.2% 4.3% 4.8%
Neighborhood
Council -
Accountability
Count
1 1 1 0 3
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% .0% 100%
% within
Participant
3.3% 4.3% 4.2% .0% 2.4%
92
Table 21,
Continued
Sub-Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case One
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case Two
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Neighborhood
Council -
Bridge
Count
2 0 0 3 5
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
40.0% .0% .0% 60.0% 100%
% within
Participant
6.7% .0% .0% 6.4% 4.0%
Neighborhood
Council -
Partner
Count
6 8 0 0 14
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
42.9% 57.1% .0% .0% 100%
% within
Participant
20.0% 34.8% .0% .0% 11.2%
Neighborhood
Council -
Advisory
Count
1 2 6 1 10
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
10.0% 20.0% 60.0% 10.0% 100%
% within
Participant
3.3% 8.7% 25.0% 2.1% 8.0%
Neighborhood
Council -
Educator
Count
0 2 1 5 8
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
.0% 25.0% 12.5% 62.5% 100%
% within
Participant
.0% 8.7% 4.2% 10.6% 6.4%
93
Tables 21,
Continued
Sub-Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case One
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case Two
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Neighborhood
Council -
Advocate for
Department
Count
1 3 1 4 9
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 44.4% 100%
% within
Participant
3.3% 13.0% 4.2% 8.5% 7.2%
Neighborhood
Council -
Advocate for
Community
Count
3 0 2 6 11
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
27.3% .0% 18.2% 54.5% 100%
% within
Participant
10.0% .0% 8.3% 12.8% 8.8%
City Council Count 0 0 3 1 4
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
.0% .0% 75.0% 25.0% 100%
% within
Participant
.0% .0% 12.5% 2.1% 3.2%
Un-coded Count 0 1 1 0 2
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
.0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100%
% within
Participant
.0% 4.3% 4.2% .0% 1.6%
94
Tables 21,
Continued
Sub-Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case One
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case Two
-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Role of
Neighborhood
Council,
Agencies, and
Elected
Official
Count
0 1 0 0 1
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100%
% within
Participant
.0% 4.3% .0% .0% .8%
Total Count 30 23 24 47 125
% within
Role/Respon
sibility Sub-
Category
24.0% 18.4% 20.0% 37.6% 100%
% within
Participant
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Out of the seventeen sub-categories, nine stand out for further, in depth
examination in the next chapter. They stand out, like the main categories above, due
to the distribution of statements within each sub-category across cases. Seven sub-
categories contain statements that are distributed more towards the second case.
First is the role of the department primarily as a service delivery body. Here, we see
that out of seven statements, six come from the second case. Next is the role of
administrators in the department as experts, with four out of five statements coming
from the second case. Third is the role of administrators as employees, with four out
of five statements coming from the second case. Fourth is the role of administrators
in the department as information providers, with five out of six statements coming
95
from the second case. Though these sub-categories have a small number of
statements, they are potentially significant due to the distribution of that small
number.
The next three sub-categories have slightly more total statements, and they
deal with the role of neighborhood councils, rather than agencies. First is the role of
neighborhood councils as advisors; seven out of ten statements come from case two.
Second is the role of neighborhood councils as educators, with six out of eight
statements from case two. Last is the role of neighborhood councils as advocates for
the community, with eight out of eleven statements from the second case.
There is only one sub-category that skews to the first case in terms of number
of statements, and it is substantial. The role of neighborhood councils as partner
contains a total of fourteen statements, all of which come from the first case. This is
the second largest sub-category, following the broad sub-category of neighborhood
council. This largest sub-category contains statements broadly discussing the role
and responsibilities of neighborhood councils without any specific orientation about
what that role is or should be. Thus, the partnership role is that much more
significant as the largest, specific role identified through the statements; this further
suggests a significant difference between the cases in role orientation.
A final sub-category that is worth examining further stands next to the
neighborhood councils as advocates for the community. Rather than advocate for the
community, this sub-category suggests that councils advocate for the department.
There is a near equal distribution of statements between the cases. However, the
96
statements are examined in the next chapter to reveal other possible differences or to
suggest commonality in this advocacy role.
4.5.2 Communication-How Sub-Categories
The majority of statements made about communication-how come from
participants in the first case. Table 22 shows the sub-categories associated with the
category. In addition to showing the distributional differences between cases for
each sub-category, the data reveal the kinds of communication issues to which
participants in the first case devoted their attention.
Table 22 – Communication-How Sub-Categories * Participant Crosstab
Sub-Category Descriptive Statistic Case
One -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case
Two -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Facilitating
Comm.
Count
11 10 2 2 25
% within
Communication-How
Sub-Categories
44.0% 40.0% 8.0% 8.0% 100%
% within Participant
44.0% 35.7% 15.4% 25.0% 33.8%
Formal Comm. Count 10 10 5 4 29
% within
Communication-How
Sub-Categories
34.5% 34.5% 17.2% 13.8% 100%
% within Participant
40.0% 35.7% 38.5% 50.0% 39.2%
Hindering
Comm.
Count
2 3 2 1 8
% within
Communication-How
Sub-Categories
25.0% 37.5% 25.0% 12.5% 100%
% within Participant
8.0% 10.7% 15.4% 12.5% 10.8%
97
Table 22,
Continued
Sub-Category Descriptive Statistic Case
One -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case
Two -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Informal
Comm.
Count
2 2 4 1 9
% within
Communication-How
Sub-Categories
22.2% 22.2% 44.4% 11.1% 100%
% within Participant
8.0% 7.1% 30.8% 12.5% 12.2%
The Power of
Comm.
Count
0 3 0 0 3
% within
Communication-How
Sub-Categories
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100%
% within Participant
.0% 10.7% .0% .0% 4.1%
Total Count 25 28 13 8 74
% within
Communication-How
Sub-Categories
33.8% 37.8% 17.6% 10.8% 100%
% within Participant
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Participants in the first case—both neighborhood council participants and
agency officials—spoke about how to facilitate communication between them, as
well as what formal mechanisms are in place or can be put in place to facilitate
communication. Both sets of participants in the first case clearly placed a good deal
of focus on communication between them, which contrasts with participants in the
second case. In the facilitating communication sub-category, participants in case two
made four statements compared to the twenty-one statements from the first case.
Likewise, case two participants made nine statements compared to the twenty in the
formal communication sub-category.
98
There is less difference between the cases in the hindering and informal
communication categories. The other big difference is in the power of
communication sub-category; here only agency officials in the first case made
statements that recognized the power of—or potential benefit that can come
through—open communication with neighborhood councils.
4.5.3 Current Interaction Sub-Categories
Table 23 shows the sub-categories for the current interactions category. The
majority of statements in this category came from the second case, possibly due to
the baseline interviews that were conducted in that case only. The distribution of
statements seen in the table supports this possibility.
Table 23 – Current Interactions Sub-Categories * Participant Crosstab
Sub-Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case
One -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case
Two -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Evaluation Count 4 4 9 14 31
% within
Current
Interactions
Sub-
Categories
12.9% 12.9% 29.0% 45.2% 100%
% within
Participant
44.4% 28.6% 52.9% 48.3% 44.9%
Feedback Count 1 1 1 2 5
% within
Current
Interactions
Sub-
Categories
20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 100%
% within
Participant
11.1% 7.1% 5.9% 6.9% 7.2%
99
Table 23,
Continued
Sub-Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case
One -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case
Two -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Partnership Count 3 8 2 3 16
% within
Current
Interactions
Sub-
Categories
18.8% 50.0% 12.5% 18.8% 100%
% within
Participant
33.3% 57.1% 11.8% 10.3% 23.2%
Regular
Interaction
Count
1 0 4 10 15
% within
Current
Interactions
Sub-
Categories
6.7% .0% 26.7% 66.7% 100%
% within
Participant
11.1% .0% 23.5% 34.5% 21.7%
Un-Coded Count 0 1 1 0 2
% within
Current
Interactions
Sub-
Categories
.0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100%
% within
Participant
.0% 7.1% 5.9% .0% 2.9%
Total Count 9 14 17 29 69
% within
Current
Interactions
Sub-
Categories
13.0% 20.3% 24.6% 42.0% 100%
% within
Participant
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Out of the four sub-categories, three show a clear skew in distribution of
statements towards one of the cases. The two sub-categories that skew towards the
second case suggest that the baseline interview responses facilitated the distribution.
100
In the evaluation sub-category, in which participants assess the interactions they had
or are having with each other, twenty-three out of thirty-one statements come from
the second case. In the regular interactions sub-category, fourteen out of fifteen
statements come from case two. Both of these sub-categories are potential homes for
participants who described in a baseline interview the experiences and interactions
they had with each other.
The other sub-category that stands out is that of partnership. This sub-
category is the same, in name at least, to the partnership sub-category identified in
the roles/responsibilities category. Like the roles/responsibilities sub-category, the
majority of statements here come from the first case. Eleven out of sixteen
statements in the partnership sub-category were made by participants in the first
case—three by neighborhood council participants and eight by agency officials.
This finding adds to the potential significance of the partnership role orientation and
further suggests an important distinction between cases.
In addition to the sub-categories identified by the coders, the statements in
the CLP evaluation category can be examined in terms of their tone. Individually, I
coded the statements in the category as either positive, negative, mixed positive-
negative, or neutral in their expressions about the people involved in the process or
the process itself. Table 24 shows the breakdown of statements across type of
participant. Specifically, the table shows statements from the first case are mostly
neutral, with a small number of positive statements. Statements from the second
case are also mostly neutral, though there are also a small number of mixed and
101
positive statements. The precise content of these statements is examined in the next
chapter.
Table 24 -- Current Interactions Statement Tone
Case One –
Neighborhood
Council
Case One –
Department
Case Two –
Neighborhood
Council
Case Two –
Department
Total
Number of
Positive
Statements
2 2 3 0 7
Number of
Negative
Statements
0 0 0 0 0
Number of
Mixed
Statements
0 0 2 0 2
Number of
Neutral
Statements
7 12 13 28 60
Total 9 14 18 28 (23 from
baseline
interviews)
69
4.6 Collaborative Learning Project Categories
In addition to the categories identified above, additional categories were
identified that deal explicitly with the Collaborative Learning Project (CLP)
participants and process. Table 25 shows the set of CLP categories across type of
participant in each case.
102
Table 25 -- CLP Category * Participant Crosstab
Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case One-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
One-
Depart
ment
Case
Two-
Neighbor
hood
Council
Case
Two-
Depart
ment
Total
CLP Process Count 4 2 9 3 19
% within Final
Category
21.1% 10.5% 47.4% 15.8% 100%
% within
Participant
2.2% 1.1% 4.7% 2.0% 2.7%
CLP
Education/Learning
Count
9 12 8 6 35
% within Final
Category
25.7% 34.3% 22.9% 17.1% 100%
% within
Participant
4.8% 6.8% 4.1% 4.0% 4.9%
CLP
Planning/Vision/
Mission/Objectives
Count
6 4 8 2 20
% within Final
Category
30.0% 20.0% 40.0% 10.0% 100%
% within
Participant
3.2% 2.3% 4.1% 1.3% 2.8%
CLP Evaluation Count 36 25 49 21 132
% within Final
Category
27.3% 18.9% 37.1% 15.9% 100%
% within
Participant
19.4% 14.1% 25.4% 14.1% 18.6%
In the CLP evaluation category, the overall distribution is close except for the
case two neighborhood council participants, who accounted for 37% of total CLP
evaluation statements. This anomaly is accounted for by the baseline interviews as
well, as seen in table 20. This category, as the largest of the CLP categories, is
examined further below.
4.6.1 CLP Evaluation Sub-Categories
The CLP evaluation category contains the most number of statements, and
they are fairly evenly distributed between cases, though the second case claims a
103
slight majority. There are a total of five sub-categories, plus one statement that is
sorted into two of the five. Table 26 shows these sub-categories, divided by type of
participant.
Table 26 – CLP Evaluation Sub-Categories * Participant Crosstab
Sub-Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case
One -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case
Two -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Attitude Count 13 11 23 5 52
% within CLP
Evaluation Sub-
Categories
25.0% 21.2% 44.2% 9.6% 100%
% within
Participant
37.1% 39.3% 46.9% 26.3% 39.4%
Cooperation/
Partnership
Count
5 7 5 4 22
% within CLP
Evaluation Sub-
Categories
22.7% 31.8% 22.7% 18.2% 100%
% within
Participant
14.3% 25.0% 10.2% 21.1% 16.7%
Process Count 5 6 11 4 26
% within CLP
Evaluation Sub-
Categories
19.2% 23.1% 42.3% 15.4% 100%
% within
Participant 14.3% 21.4% 22.4% 21.1% 19.7%
Relationship Count 8 1 9 3 21
% within CLP
Evaluation Sub-
Categories
38.1% 4.8% 42.9% 14.3% 100%
% within
Participant
22.9% 3.6% 18.4% 15.8% 15.9%
Trust Count 4 3 1 2 10
% within CLP
Evaluation Sub-
Categories
40.0% 30.0% 10.0% 20.0% 100%
% within
Participant
11.4% 10.7% 2.0% 10.5% 7.6%
104
Table 26,
Continued
Sub-Category Descriptive
Statistic
Case
One -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
One -
Depart
ment
Case
Two -
Neighbo
rhood
Council
Case
Two -
Depart
ment
Total
Attitude and
Cooperation/
Assessment
Count
0 0 0 1 1
% within CLP
Evaluation Sub-
Categories
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100%
% within
Participant
.0% .0% .0% 5.3% .8%
Total Count 35 28 49 19 132
% within CLP
Evaluation Sub-
Categories
26.5% 21.2% 37.1% 14.4% 100%
% within
Participant
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
The sub-categories reveal the topics that were the subject of assessment by
participants across both cases. Participants assessed the attitudes of themselves and
their counterparts in the collaborative learning process, the cooperative nature of
their relationship with each other, the collaborative learning process itself,
relationships broadly speaking, and the degree of trust between parties. Statements
are fairly evenly distributed across cases for each sub-category. To a small degree,
participants from case two seem to have made more statements related to
relationships, the collaborative learning process itself, and attitudes, but not by much.
Likewise, case one participants seem to have spoken a bit more about trust, but not
by much. These sub-categories are explored in more depth in the next chapter,
through the presentation of the actual statements behind the numbers.
105
In addition to the sub-categories identified by the coders, the statements in
the CLP evaluation category can be examined in terms of their tone. Individually, I
coded the statements in the category as either positive, negative, mixed positive-
negative, or neutral in their expressions about the people involved in the process or
the process itself. Table 27 shows the breakdown of statements across type of
participant. Specifically, the table shows statements from the first case are mostly
positive, with only a small number of negative or mixed statements. In contrast,
statements from the second case are positive, as well as mixed to a great extent, and
negative.
Table 27 -- CLP Evaluation Statement Tone
Case One –
Neighborhood
Council
Case One –
Department
Case Two –
Neighborhood
Council
Case Two –
Department
Total
Number of
Positive
Statements
20 11 18 6 55
Number of
Negative
Statements
1 1 8 3 13
Number of
Mixed
Statements
2 0 15 4 21
Number of
Neutral
Statements
13 14 8 8 43
Total 36 26 49 21 (3 from
baseline
interviews)
132
The findings are consistent with the statements offered in the first chapter,
which were identified prior to the coders beginning their work. Thus, there is
106
confirmation for the differential patterns of responsiveness, though the precise
content of these statements is examined in the next chapter for further confirmation.
4.7 Summary of Descriptive Quantitative Findings
This chapter has presented the overall distribution of statements across
categories and cases. From this presentation, some clear differences emerged. First,
several of the main categories stood out due to the skewed distribution of statements
between the cases. This was seen in the priorities/problem definition and
funding/budget/resource allocation categories, which contain a majority of
statements from case one participants. This finding suggests a greater focus in the
first case on issues of prioritizing as a process, as well as a wider recognition of the
funding issues confronting the agency.
A majority of statements in the current interactions category came from the
second case, but a significant finding from the sub-categories is a concern for
partnership in the first case. This concern is consistent with the partnership sub-
category in the roles/responsibilities category. Also in the roles/responsibilities
category, several sub-categories emerged that are more unique to the second case,
such as department as expert and service provider, as well as neighborhood councils
as advisors and community advocates.
Last, we saw a focus in the first case on communication issues, specifically
statements regarding how agency officials and neighborhood council participants
should and do communicate with each other. This focus was not as visible in the
second case.
107
These are some of the key findings from this chapter. The next chapter will
take an in-depth look at these areas by reporting the actual statements behind the
numbers.
108
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS IN THE WORDS OF PARTICIPANTS
5.1 Preface
This chapter will report the content of statements behind the numbers
reported in the previous chapter. Doing so will give substance to the numerical
distribution of statements. The following categories are analyzed in depth in this
chapter: communication-how, roles/responsibilities, current interaction,
priorities/problem definition, funding/budget/resource allocation, role of elected
officials, and future interaction. These categories were revealed as most significant
due to either the numerical distribution of statements across cases or the overall size
of the categories in terms of the number of statements. The larger categories are
further broken into sub-categories, which also reveal potentially significant
distributions of statements across cases. The CLP evaluation category is also
discussed, as the largest category among the CLP categories. Sample statements are
reproduced in this chapter; all statements in these categories are listed in the
appendix.
5.2 Roles/Responsibilities
The largest category, after CLP evaluation, in terms of number of statements
is the roles/responsibility category. Though there is a near equal distribution of
statements across cases in the whole category, important differences emerge in
looking at the distribution of statements across sub-categories. The statements in
nine sub-categories are reviewed below to further examine differences between
cases. For the role of the department and agency officials, these sub-categories
109
consist of the following: service delivery, expert, employee, and information
provider. For the role of the neighborhood council and neighborhood council
members, these sub-categories consist of the following: advisor, educator, advocate
for the community, advocate for the department, and partner.
5.2.1 Department/Agency Official as Service Deliverer
Agency officials in the second case defined themselves as service providers
more than officials in the first case. An agency official in the second case considered
the department’s role as one “to improve the quality of life of the city residents,
identify deficiencies, and respond to public concerns.” Another official thought the
department’s role was to “provide safe and efficient transportation services for Los
Angeles residents and work with all: city council, neighborhood councils, and
mayor’s office.” These statements focus on the mission of the agency.
Other officials spoke more broadly about their service role. “We’re service
organizations. We serve elected officials, citizens, neighborhood groups,
government agencies, trying to operate the transportation system.” Another official
observed that the “basic function of the departments is to provide services to the
public. The departments’ role with regards to neighborhood councils is to provide
information about our services and enhance our services through interaction with
neighborhood councils.”
5.2.2 Department/Agency Official as Expert
Agency officials also spoke about their role as expert. Only one statement
from the first case reflects this role. An agency official in the second case described
110
how “we should provide services, as well as expertise and education. Sometimes
neighborhood councils don’t know the consequences of their requests, if we fulfilled
them.” Another official described how the “city depends on our specialized expertise
to relieve congestion and secure traffic safety.”
Other officials described how they see their relationship with neighborhood
councils and citizens. “In an ideal world, agencies are open to meeting with the
community. What can we do to solve their problems? We try to avoid situations
where it’s ‘For your own good . . .’ We’d like to recognize the good and then educate
you.” Another official defined the relationship as a doctor-patient relationship.
“Department of Transportation provides professional service based on expertise: we
diagnose the problem, and provide the best remedy based on availability of
resources. The patients can’t demand specific service without having expertise and
knowledge of details of the problem. Thus we also try to teach ‘soft no’ as opposed
to abrupt response to citizens.”
5.2.3 Department/Agency Official as Employee
Participants in the second case also defined their role as an employee of the
city. Agency officials in the first case did not identify this possible role for
themselves. However, one neighborhood council participant in the first case did
observe that “public employees’ main objective is to protect their ass. Bureaucracies
act out of self-preservation.” A neighborhood council participant in the second case
echoed this impression. “Bureaucrats want to protect their jobs. If they are not
111
forced [to do something], they won’t.” After all, another participant suggested,
administrators “work for the mayor.”
Two agency officials in the second case echoed these sentiments.
“Sometimes if we don’t have pressure from an elected official we don’t do
something. We understand there is a balance of power here. Neighborhood councils
advise council members. That is a very politically ambiguous power sharing.
Council members want to have neighborhood councils in check.” Ultimately, another
official suggested, “our role is to help—and protect—the city council members. If
somebody’s to be blamed, it’s Department of Transportation.”
5.2.4 Department/Agency Official as Information Provider
Agency officials in the second case also spoke more about their role as
information provider than did officials in the first case. The one statement from a
Public Works official was restricted to this individual’s personal job description, not
to the role of agency officials more broadly. Transportation officials spoke about the
information provider role in broader terms. “Our role is to make information
available to you. When we issue a report, it’s public.” Another Transportation
official observed that “the department’s role with regards to neighborhood councils
is to provide information about our services and enhance our services through
interaction with neighborhood councils.” A different official defined their role as
“information gatherers. All we can offer is that we get you the information that you
need.” An official cautioned that anything besides providing information is a policy
matter. “We’re not on the policy or populist side. That’s your role.”
112
5.2.5 Neighborhood Councils as Partner
All statements that defined neighborhood councils as partners came from
participants in the first case. Both neighborhood council participants and agency
officials discussed this role for neighborhood councils. One council participant
suggested that “we have to stop saying ‘we need’ and start thinking how we can help
them in their job. For example, citizens generally have prejudices—they are cynical
about the government agencies and presume that they waste tax moneys. That is
why neighborhood councils need to help Department of Pubic Works to spread their
message out to citizens and build a supportive environment for them.” Another
neighborhood council participant discussed more broadly how “neighborhood
councils are not enemies of the city but rather work in partnership to get a maximum
number of ideas on what needs improvement.” A third participant began to
operationalize precisely what a partnership might look like. “We need to be treated
equally. We need a regular update, or we’ll call on you [at Department of Public
Works]. We need to break down old barriers and come to an agreement.”
The partnership theme was echoed by several agency officials, as was also
seen in the cooperation/partnership sub-category in the CLP evaluation category.
“Department of Public Works can work in concert with neighborhood councils to
give them access to how and when we provide service,” one official said. Another
offered that neighborhood councils are “a partner to me, to our department, and we
need to discuss the capabilities we have.” Continuing the theme, another official
discussed how “we try to impress the notion to all neighborhood councils that we are
113
looking for a partnership.” With this partnership orientation, another official
recognized that “we now have the opportunity to go through a more detailed review
of stakeholder needs and conditions of the community to reflect better neighborhood
needs.”
Two agency officials elevated the partnership role beyond department-
neighborhood council relations. “Now we have a mayor, a council, and a
Department of Public Works committed to giving neighborhood councils a
partnership role with the department, the mayor, and the city council.” Ultimately,
another official opined that “we need to convince all other departments that
neighborhood councils are here to stay and should be given a place at the table.”
5.2.6 Neighborhood Councils as Educator
All other sub-categories concerning the role of neighborhood councils
contained statements that were either nearly equally distributed between cases or
were skewed to the second case. One such sub-category is that of educator. For
instance, an agency official from the second case described why neighborhood
councils are “better for disseminating information.” If they sought to be more active
in policymaking, this official would be wary. “I am cautious of accepting voices
from individual members of neighborhood councils as the voice of the entire
community, and I try to assess those voices in context.” Along these lines, another
official suggested that the neighborhood council system “is another formalized
mechanism for us to get our message out to the public. I see neighborhood councils
114
as a localized but not unified voice of the citizens. My current expectations of the
neighborhood councils are not as high as when they were formed.”
In this education or information dissemination role, another official observed
that “neighborhood councils are generally receptive—they try to disseminate
information to their members. Few individuals in neighborhood councils tend to be
rather negative by challenging our recommendations and claiming that we did not
hear them. It was easier to work with the neighborhood councils with traffic
committees . . .”
5.2.7 Neighborhood Councils as Advisor
More than any other role sub-category, neighborhood council participants in
the second case saw their role as advisory, which contrasts with the perceptions of
Transportation officials, which are reflected in the sub-categories above. This
apparent lack of observed agreement on the perception of the neighborhood council
role also contrasts with the observed agreement between neighborhood council
participants and agency officials in the first case, and their common recognition of
the partnership role.
In describing the advisory role of neighborhood councils, participants in the
second case referred mostly to their legal standing. “The law says neighborhood
councils are advisory bodies.” However, neighborhood council participants
recognized that not everybody wants advice. One participant spoke about how
neighborhood councils have the ability to influence policy, but the Department of
115
Transportation “does not recognize this potential.” Another participant observed that
many city council members “are not interested in policy advice.”
5.2.8 Neighborhood Councils as Advocate for the Community
The perception that Transportation officials do not recognize the potential of
neighborhood councils to influence policy is reflected in agency officials’ statements
relating to the role of councils as advocates for their communities. However, the
description from officials is not that they do not recognize the potential; it is that they
recognize the potential, but neighborhood councils have not delivered. “They are the
voice of citizens. They are a grassroots movement. They exert some influence. We
have tried to get endorsement in some projects, but they shy away from controversial
projects. In some cases, they just don’t want to exert that influence.” Another
official reflected that neighborhood councils “could have been more important if
they could secure one voice of the community.” Along these lines, another official
expressed concern about whether advice from neighborhood council members is
based on “community priorities” or “specific individuals’ needs.”
Nonetheless, agency officials see the potential in this area. “The role of
neighborhood councils is to provide opportunity for citizens to have access to City
Hall and government and help citizens’ voices to be heard in shaping policy.”
Another official opined that he looks to “neighborhood councils to be representative
of neighborhoods, to speak for the neighborhood about their issues.”
116
5.2.9 Neighborhood Councils as Advocate for the Department
Participants in both cases discussed how neighborhood councils can be an
advocate for the department. Officials in the first case expressed this role in
proactive terms, as opposed to Transportation officials who might be characterized
as not seeing the potential, to use the phrase from a neighborhood council participant
above. Public Works officials described how “people from the neighborhood
councils are now acting as spokespeople to other neighborhood groups on behalf of
the department.” This statement reflects an advocacy for the department with the
community. A neighborhood council participant in the first case echoed this notion.
“When the department does something good, neighborhood councils need to support
them. Don’t just grumble. Our job as community leaders is to get attention and
support for the department when they deserve it.”
Another Public Works official defined neighborhood councils as advocates
for the department with elected officials, rather than the community. “Neighborhood
councils are terrific public works advocates to get us the funding for infrastructure.”
This statement is perhaps similar to some of the partnership statements identified
previously. For instance, one official exclaimed during a Learning and Design
Forum session how the department “really needs your support, your voices!”
Transportation officials also described how neighborhood councils can be an
advocate for the department with the community. “They can meet with us, then go
back to the community and explain what we can’t do: ‘We asked Department of
Transportation, and here’s why not…’ That they can help us spread the word. We’re
117
not able to say yes to everything.” Another official offered that “we hope they can
pressure for more budget for us,” which is consistent with the statements above by
Public Works officials. However, officials were not ready to be as proactive in
defining these roles as were Public Works officials. For instance, an official
described during a Learning and Design Forum session how he doesn’t “have a
problem with you being an advocate, we don’t have many. If you decide you want
to initiate that, fine, but we can’t . . .”
5.2.10 Summary of Roles/Responsibilities
Across the roles/responsibilities sub-categories, some differences between
cases are evident. Most dramatically in terms of number of statements, content of
statements, and distribution of statements across cases is the focus on partnership.
This role bridges to a sub-category in the CLP evaluation category, suggesting the
greater prominence of this perspective. This partnership perspective is only seen
among statements made by participants in the first case. To contrast, participants in
the second case defined the role of neighborhood councils more as advisors and
educators, suggesting less of an intense interactive relationship between the
department and councils. Officials in both cases saw potential for neighborhood
councils as advocates—both for the community and department. However, officials
in the second case suggested some hesitation with respect to the ability of
neighborhood councils to perform that role, and if they could, at least one official
was not willing to be assertive in asking them to do so.
118
Department officials were not given a clear role orientation by officials in the
first case, though the statements suggest that partnership is intended not just for
neighborhood councils but for agency officials as well. Officials in the second case
spoke about their role as service providers, experts, employees, and information
providers. These roles, like the roles defined for neighborhood council participants,
suggest a less intense and interactive relationship between agency officials and
neighborhood councils. Rather, they suggest unidirectional service delivery and
judgment based on expertise.
If neighborhood council members sought to give advice, officials expressed
the need for caution with respect to whether the advice was based on community
priorities or individual preference. It would seem, thus, that for at least some of the
Transportation officials, they were more comfortable as expert service providers than
partners who sought community feedback.
5.3 Communication-How
The communication-how category consists mostly of statements from
participants in the first case. This shows a particular point of focus and discussion in
the first case—communication, means of communication, and reasons for
communication. Specific sub-categories consist of facilitating communication,
formal communication, hindering communication, informal communication, and the
power of communication. Each is described briefly.
119
5.3.1 Facilitating Communication
Participants in the first case spoke a good bit about how to facilitate
communication between them. In the Learning and Design Forum sessions, the
question of how they should communicate with each other occupied a substantial
amount of work and time. A small group in a session framed the communication
focus in metaphorical terms. “[The process] is a little like dating—do you like the
other person? How do you tell a story to each other? In other words, how do you
get the communication started?” Participants went on to discuss various ways to
facilitate communication between them, such the use of Internet technology, the
telephone, and face-to-face community meetings.
Ultimately, both parties were in agreement. “[A] process for the
neighborhood councils and the city agencies to understand each other needs to be
developed, [said an agency official]. [A neighborhood council participant then said
that] some form of middle ground where both neighborhood councils and city
agencies can interact needs to be developed.”
The same interest in communication during the collaborative learning
sessions was also seen at the close of the process. One neighborhood council
participant observed that “we need communication, to keep listening to each other,
resolving difficulties with the same spirit.” Another offered that they need “ongoing
dialogue, or we will slip into the place we were before.”
Statements from participants in the second case also suggested a couple of
tools for facilitating communication; they also suggested problems in facilitating
120
communication. In the first instance, a neighborhood council participant suggested
that “departments should participate in meetings, sharing information. With the
Internet, they have a better ability to share information.” Accepting this possible
function, an agency official considered a condition for participation in meetings.
“[Neighborhood councils], especially those with transportation committees, are more
well-informed and easier to work with; they are better communicators with their
boards and constituents.”
5.3.2 Formal Communication
Statements in the formal communication sub-category continue the same
themes as those in the facilitating communication sub-category. Participants in the
first case spoke about specific tools that can be used in communication between the
departments and neighborhood councils. For instance, they discussed public service
announcements, creating liaison positions, appointing neighborhood block captains,
posting updates in newspapers, developing a neighborhood council committee
system based on the jurisdiction of departments, and holding regular community
meetings.
Participants in the second case discussed other formal tools for
communications. For instance, agency officials discussed the TIPS guide, which is a
how-to guide for navigating the Department of Transportation and its service areas.
Participants also discussed liaison positions between parties and the general interest
in standardizing communication.
121
5.3.3 Hindering Communication
The basis for improving communication is found in a few statements about
communication that was broken. For instance, a neighborhood council participant in
the first case described how information received via email “is too long, too
technical, and too confusing. We need to have things done in plain English . . . most
of it is way over our head.” Participants also discussed in the course of the
collaborative learning sessions what difficulties might arise if they were too
dependent on the Internet for communication. Access was a concern, as was the idea
of information over-load.
Participants in the second case perceived the lack of open communication
from the department. “They were clearly not used to doing it . . .” The
communication challenge an agency official recognized concerned the city council,
not neighborhood councils. “Some city council members prefer not talking to us.”
5.3.4 Informal Communication
Participants from both cases spoke about informal communication, which is
communication without formal structure or tools of the kind suggested previously.
Participants in the second case focused attention on the informal communication
necessary to successfully implement the spirit of the memorandum of understanding
that was left unsigned, though agreed to in principle. “Department of Transportation
can do what they said. They said they will take our phone calls and meet us
personally, so we will get what we are asking for; it just won’t be blessed with a
signature.” Another participant offered that the way to move the agreement forward
122
was through “making friends. [Also] by using several communication means, as
City Watch or blogs (grassroots movements). There are several examples of the
Mayor and City of Los Angeles not interested in these topics.”
5.3.5 The Power of Communication
Public Works officials were the only ones to speak about the potential power
of or benefits from open communication. “We are trying to embrace the notion that
our success is based on working with the community.” Another official offered that
“communication is fundamental, and we are using it as a tool now to get things
done.” Reflecting on the power of communication in a Learning and Design Forum
session, an agency official offered that “we got a lot off our chest, and now we can
get more focused.”
5.3.6 Summary of Communication-How
The simple number of communication statements from the first case
outweighed those from the second case, thus suggesting an important difference
between cases. However, the content of those statements paints a further wedge
between cases. Participants in both cases discussed formal means for
communication, but the discussion in the first case was more expansive and
considered more communication tools. These tools are seen in the facilitating and
formal communication sub-categories. Participants in the first case also recognized
the power of communication, more-so than those participants in the second case who
sought standardization without much justification for that standardization, at least as
seen in these statements.
123
5.4 Current Interactions
There are four sub-categories associated with current interactions. The first
sub-category, evaluation, contains statements similar to the statements in the CLP
Evaluation category. A difference is that they specifically address interactions
between agency officials and neighborhood councils. The second is feedback, which
contains only a few statements that concern how feedback is given and received
between parties. Third is the sub-category of partnership, which like the partnership
sub-categories in the CLP evaluation and roles/responsibilities categories, contains
statements mostly from the first case. Last is the sub-category of regular interaction,
which consists of statements mostly from the second case. These statements address
the frequency and type of interaction officials had prior to working with
neighborhood councils in the collaborative learning process. All but the feedback
sub-categories are reviewed below.
5.4.1 Evaluation
Neighborhood council participants in the first case reported on the
interactions with agency officials in terms related to the collaborative learning
process, as well as more abstractly. For instance, one participant offered that
“departments would feel less besieged if they had somebody to attend to
neighborhood councils.” In terms of the interaction in the collaborative learning
project process, a participant offered that “we have been open with each other, and
everyone appears to be working hard toward the accomplishment of our mutual
124
goals.” An agency official reflected how he has “a lot of respect for the depth and
breadth of the neighborhood council representatives we worked with.”
Neighborhood council participants in the second case also spoke abstractly
and about collaborative learning project interactions. In the first case, a participant
offered simply that “departments should go to neighborhood council meetings. They
should be more visible for the community.” This is a similar sentiment to the one
expressed above about departments feeling less besieged through attendance at
meetings.
In terms of the assessment of process interactions, council participants
offered both positive and mixed impressions as they did in the CLP evaluation
statements. One participant described agency officials as “extremely open.” Another
offered that officials “broke from their usual style of work and were open.”
Consistent with the idea of breaking from their usual style, another participant
thought that officials “had to overcome their culture. It is something that is part of
the whole system.” A more mixed statement is offered by another participant. “First
of all, they were there. They were friendly and gracious. Unfortunately, they
offered nothing. They had a very good attitude towards the process, but nothing
interesting came up from them.”
In this sub-category, Transportation officials offered impressions of their
experiences with neighborhood councils prior to the collaborative learning process.
One official discussed his impression that “every neighborhood council is different.
Sometimes I don’t look forward to attending the meetings of the neighborhood
125
councils where personal interests tend to dominate. Other neighborhood councils,
especially those with transportation committees, are more well-informed and easier
to work with.” Another described how he had “attended a few meeting of
neighborhood councils in the Harbor area. At one meeting we observed an awkward
situation where the neighborhood council president pressed for the traffic calming
measures on the road that runs next to his home. Sometimes we have to be cautious
of [those types of] individuals.” A third official considered how the “more we
interact, the more we have trust. However our interaction is sometimes hindered by
the vested interests who lobby neighborhood councils to push us for certain
measures.”
These statements call to mind the discussion in the first chapter about
political context. There I suggested the political context in the first case was more
experiential than experimental, as it was in the first case. Agency officials had
opportunities to interact with neighborhood council prior to the collaborative
learning process, and they describe those mixed experiences here.
5.4.2 Regular Interactions
The experiences of Transportation officials with neighborhood councils prior
to the collaborative learning process are also captured in the regular interactions sub-
category. Officials described the frequency with which they attended meetings—“I
attended three meetings . . .” They also described the kinds of people with whom
they met—“So far my experience of neighborhood councils was on the person-to-
person basis, as opposed to working with the neighborhood council at large.” The
126
collaborative learning process participants reported working mostly with committees
or individuals. They also reported that people lower down in the organization spent
more time attending meetings. One official reported that they are not proactive in
going to meetings. “Our management leaders encourage us to have a lot of
interaction—to the extent that neighborhood councils invite us in.”
5.4.3 Partnership
This partnership sub-category is consistent with the sub-categories of the
same name reported in the CLP evaluation and roles/responsibilities categories. Like
those categories, the majority of statements here come from the first case.
A neighborhood council participant, for instance, noted that the Department
of Public Works “has a better appreciation for us. It is recognized that we are not
against them, and they are not against us.” Further, a participant described how
neighborhood councils could help explain to their stakeholders about why and when
the department delivers particular services. “If we are able to explain away enough,
then we can take away 20% of your [workload].”
Agency officials’ statements are similar to those reported in the other
partnership sub-categories. “There will be no greater alliance than between Public
Works and neighborhood councils.” Another official offered that his first impression
revealed that “we could do something for them and them for us.”
Transportation officials offered some hint of partnership. “We are here to
work for them. We are willing to offer up whatever we can to help their cause.” This
expression, however, is tempered by the words of another official. “We often don’t
127
get opportunity to interact with the public due to shortage of resources, but we need
to understand that public relations [are an] important part of our work.”
5.4.4 Summary of Current Interactions
Statements in the current interaction category show three things. First, they
further confirm the evaluative statements reported in the first chapter about the
differential patterns of responsiveness in each case. Second, they reveal the array of
experiences Transportation administrators had in working with neighborhood
councils prior to the CLP process. This contrasts with the lack of such experiences
by officials in the first case. Third, they reveal the continued focus on partnership by
participants in the first case, as contrasted with the second case.
5.5 Priorities/Problem Definition
The vast majority of statements about priorities and problem definition come
from the first case. This alone suggests an important difference in that Public Works
officials sought to include neighborhood councils in discussions about prioritizing
services. Such intent to include neighborhood councils is not seen in the second
case.
For example, an agency official readily recognized the nature of the problems
faced by the Department of Transportation. “The transportation issues in the city are
complicated, and we, engineers, feel helpless and only can put band-aids such as
speed bumps and stop signs. However those band-aids are not sufficient to address
the long-term problems, but aggravate them as frustration and traffic volume grows.”
128
Neighborhood council participants tried to offer statements, suggesting they
wanted to be involved in solving these transportation problems. One participant
implied a desire for involvement. “They are effective in their tasks; their selection of
tasks is wrong.” Another participant offered that the department should “prioritize
service requests through the neighborhood council.” Still another suggested that the
department should mark requests from neighborhood councils as priority “so they’re
not just thrown into the pot.”
Despite these entreaties, agency officials did not seem to budge or be
proactive in making an invitation to include neighborhood councils. For instance, a
neighborhood council participant asked about traffic mitigation around Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD) school locations. The agency official responded.
“Department of Transportation cannot enforce traffic violations on its own, therefore
it needs the consent of the school before it can enforce. The larger problem is that in
the past LAUSD used to consult [us] before it picked school locations. Now with
more than 100 new schools proposed, the LAUSD is also under pressure to build
quickly so it is not consulting [us]. They pick the site and just inform Department of
Transportation. So the new schools do not have adequate traffic mitigation plans.”
The problem was left at that. There were no requests for assistance, nor were there
offers to help resolve the situation.
Officials and neighborhood council participants in the first case sought more
actively to work together to solve problems. A neighborhood council participant
summarized. “Understanding the department process and how they determine their
129
priorities is important to the quality of interactive dialogue which will be given by
neighborhood councils. Without such an understanding a lot of ‘unrealistic’ requests
in a micro direction instead of macro [will be made].” Another participant offered
that “when we educate one another, priorities become more attainable.”
Public Works officials, like Transportation officials, readily acknowledged
the problems they face. “100 miles of failed streets—this expression we have
conveys that there are many problems/needs, but we have to prioritize them and
deliver our services most efficiently.” Another characterized the problem in another
way. “Every year we assess the streets. You may have 700 miles which need
improvement equally, but you’ve got only 70 miles [allowance for repaving]. You
are going to have to make your priorities.”
Officials also saw a role for neighborhood councils in dealing with the
problem. “We are not going to have money to get everything done. There is always
going to be a prioritization process. Now neighborhood councils will have their
voices heard in that process, just as when the mayor’s voice is at the table.” Another
official made a similar observation. “Who gets priority [depended on councils taking
the reigns. We think outside the box—we stretch it to deliver services and develop
partnerships to change the way the city does business, but it’s time for the
neighborhoods to take control. When you prioritize your needs based on available
funding you get things done. We’ll see you calling the shots.”
130
5.5.1 Summary of Priorities/Problem Definition
Both Transportation and Public Works officials recognized problems. A
difference is seen in how they address those problems in their relationship with
neighborhood councils. Public Works officials actively seek to include them in the
prioritization and problem-solving process. Statements suggest that neighborhood
councils are recognized as legitimate and credible policy actors. Transportation
officials, despite apparent entreaties by neighborhood council participants, did not
extend offers of a role in the problem-solving process.
5.6 Funding/Budget/Resource Allocation
Participants in the first case, as in the communication category, spoke more
about funding and money issues. An agency official summarized: “Budget is the
bottom line.” Agency officials in the first case treat funding restrictions as a hurdle to
be worked around. They challenge elected officials to rise to the challenge and
provide more funding (“put money where the mouth is”), and they invite
neighborhood councils to participate in the funding allocation process.
For instance, an agency official observed that “money is the major hurdle.
We can still run the race, but the budget it tight.” Thus, they sought to work around
hurdles. “I have my constraints, and we bend the rules every single day to get your
services [in spite of constraints].”
Given the tight budget, the framing of the discussion recalled earlier ideas
about partnership. The primary note taker during the Learning and Design Forum
sessions captured the dynamic. “Given the reality of a state budget deficit and
131
declining local funding for infrastructure, the need for partnership characterized the
approach of both neighborhood councils and the Public Works Department.” An
agency official reflected this observation. “The next step will be when we actually
meet and say ‘here is the funding allocation, how are you going to impact that?’” A
neighborhood council participant also raised the partnership themed issue. “Unless
there’s a bigger budget, we may be fighting an uphill battle [for improved services].
But if everybody on my block heard you guys, they would have a changed opinion.
Then we wouldn’t just be frustrated taxpayers.” Another agency official invited
neighborhood councils to think beyond their borders. He raised the issue of the
Sunshine Canyon Landfill, which would cost at least $140 million to move. If the
community wants it moved, neighborhood councils around the city, the official
suggested, need to help make the allocation decisions to make it happen.
In contrast, participants in the second case treated funding restrictions not as
hurdles to work around as much as reasons for not meeting requests. “We are doing
all we can to meet their needs. It does not mean we are meeting all their
expectations. But we are doing all we can with our resources to meet their needs.”
Another agency official suggested that “if we have more resources, we can provide
people to go to their neighborhoods and work with them. We require more resources
and directions.” This theme was continued by another agency official. “Staff could
participate in greater frequency with neighborhood councils if we have more
resources. With current staff, we are barely meeting current demands of
neighborhood councils.” A final official offered that the agency needs to follow
132
specific rules and regulations, given the tight budget. “We are charged with
distributing resources where we see it is most necessary. Rules, policies,
regulations—they may seem cumbersome to the layperson, but by and large, they are
there for a good reason. How else would we regulate resource distribution?”
One Transportation official did suggest that neighborhood councils can play a
role, in a manner repeated several times by Public Works officials. “Neighborhood
councils can help by influencing elected officials in terms of resources, but there is a
limit to how much.” In pursuing this question during an interview, the respondent
observed that neighborhood councils probably cannot make much of a difference for
the department’s shortage of resources.
5.6.1 Summary of Funding/Budget/Resource Allocation
Agency officials in both cases recognized funding restrictions that prohibit
their ability to act in ways potentially desired by neighborhood councils. However,
the approach to dealing with those restrictions seems to differ. Participants in the
first case made statements suggesting that they will try to work around funding
issues to continue delivering services and meeting with neighborhood councils.
They spoke about involving neighborhood councils in the decision-process, words
that once again raised the partnership theme that has been so prominent thus far. An
agency official even spoke about bending rules to continue delivering services.
In the second case, funding restrictions led one official to offer justification
for staying within the bounds of rules and regulations. Officials did not offer to
involve neighborhood councils in the decision-making process, but they used the
133
lack of resources as reason why they are not engaging with neighborhood councils
more.
5.7 Role of Elected Officials
Statements in this category reflect the different political environments in
which each case occurred. For instance, a neighborhood council participant in the
first case commented on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding
signed between the parties. “There’s plenty of political will from the mayor and city
council to make this thing work out.”
Contrast this statement with several from participants in the second case. “I
think the mayor is too powerful. He wants to control things. Mayor’s office should
facilitate instead of deciding anything.” Another participant offered that the mayor’s
office should have been more involved, perhaps in the manner they were in the first
case. Still another participant stated his impression that City Hall doesn’t want
“input from quasi experts,” meaning neighborhood council participants. Another
participant summarized the state of affairs with respect to signing and implementing
the memorandum of understanding with the Department of Transportation. “The
mayor might not proscribe this, and [the department] might say they cannot act
without his endorsement. OR they can just do it.” Overall these statements reflect
the differential political climates noted in the first chapter.
5.8 Future Interaction
Participants in both cases spoke about what they thought needed to happen to
make their relationship successful in the period following the collaborative learning
134
process. The different perceptions reflect the state in which the relationship was left
at the end of the process, with a signed memorandum of understanding in the first
case and an agreement that the agency was prohibited from signing in the second
case.
Participants in the first case spoke optimistically about what the future was to
hold. For instance, a neighborhood council participant offered the following
reflection. “My personal observation is that if we continue down this path, we'll end
up putting into operation the spirit of [City Councilman] Greig [Smith]'s motion—
and probably better—because it'll be on mutually negotiated and agreed upon terms.
As by formulating our approach to this very same issue—as a partnership between
the NCs and DPW—it will engender a far greater buy-in by the parties involved, and
therefore far better implementation.”
Public Works officials continued to speak about the prospects for partnership.
“Now we need to balance the needs of both City Councils and Neighborhood
Councils. We try to impress the notion to all neighborhood councils that we are
looking for a partnership.” Another agency official looked forward to creating a
partnership so that the city and the Neighborhood councils “understand each other’s
needs and come together for common goals.”
Participants in the second case were more restrained in their future visions.
“We have to wait and see what happens. We have to see how things are going. We
have to see things to be settled. Once things are better, we can push the MOU or
other initiative forward. Maybe things that were included in the MOU could be
135
presented in a different way, not necessarily on a MOU. It should be a win-win
situation.” An agency official recognized the frustration inherent in the state of
affairs. “I understand their frustration. I want to be more in tune with their needs. I
want to do a good job.”
Overall the statements from the first case in the category are consistent with
statements in other categories, with a focus on partnership. The one statement about
the Smith motion is even a bit celebratory. This contrasts with the wait and see
message offered by a neighborhood council participant in the second case.
5.9 Collaborative Learning Project Evaluation
The statements in the CLP evaluation category are consistent with the
statements I identified in the first chapter as differentiating the responsiveness of
administrators in each case. Though the coders did not sort them according to
negative, positive, and mixed perceptions, as I did in the first chapter, they did
identify assessments of participant attitudes, cooperative relationships, the process,
relationship development, and trust. In looking at the actual statements, the
positive/negative/mixed breakdown still applies, as a clear difference in the content
of statements is seen between cases.
5.9.1 Attitude Assessment
Neighborhood council participants in the first case described only positive
statements about the attitudes of agency officials. The only negative assessments
were about other neighborhood council participants. In the latter case, a participant
describes one of his colleagues as “terribly combative.” Otherwise, the overall
136
environment of the process was captured by one participant who frankly offered that
the parties were exactly where they wanted to be. “We didn’t throw each other
under the bus.” Another two participants described how there no longer was a “they-
us” split after the process and that an agency official was correct in saying how
everyone is now part of the same team.
Participants from the neighborhood councils also expressed their appreciation
for Department of Public Works officials. One participant observed that she was
“appreciative to the employees of the Department of Public Works for their input and
willingness to give up their time to make this all successful.” Another participant
expressed how she was “pleasantly surprised to find people at the Department of
Public Works open and communicative. I wished all people at public agencies could
or would be that responsive.”
Agency officials in this case expressed similar sentiments. Overall, officials
described how attitudes changed in a positive direction during the collaborative
learning process. “The overall atmosphere seemed pretty divisive when we began.
There was clearly two sides—theirs and ours.” Another official observed how “each
group became visibly sympathetic to the needs of the other group.” One agency
official reflected on how there was a change among neighborhood council
participants. “They came in cynical and left hopeful,” in contrast to agency officials
who “came in hopeful.” Overall, an official summarized, “we were all comfortable
with each other. Nobody was dominating.”
137
To contrast with these positive assessments in the first case, participants in
the second case were mixed. Some participants expressed positive assessments of
administrators. “The people from the Department of Transportation were very
receptive and open to all of our ideas and discussion.” Another participant offered
that agency officials showed “good participation.”
Other participants, however, were more mixed, seeing some officials as open
and responsive and others as completely the opposite. “I wish the people from
Department of Transportation would have made more effort to get to know the
neighborhood councils. It was too obvious that they hated being there, and that is
just too sad. [There were two department participants] who were the only people
from Department of Transportation who opened up and talked and stayed after the
session was over. The rest . . . I couldn’t even catch to say thank you to, that’s how
fast they ran out the door.” Other participants described officials as “kind of
reserved,” “bounded,” and “restrained.” A participant observed how two officials
were committed but two others were not. This participant made no mention of the
fifth. Despite these somewhat negative perspectives, another participant summarized
that “the real contention was not between the neighborhood councils and Department
of Transportation but between the individual neighborhood councils.”
Statements from agency officials reflect this last observation. Officials took
note of strong personalities among some neighborhood council participants, which
may have created fissures between neighborhood councils. For instance, one official
observed how some neighborhood council participants “tend to be dominant, and
138
sometimes you don’t know whether they are speaking for them or for their
neighborhood councils.”
5.9.2 Cooperation/Partnership
Statements were made by participants in both cases about cooperation and
partnership. However, a difference emerges in looking at the content of those
statements. In the first case, cooperation was discussed in positive terms; in the
second case, cooperation was described as lacking or in non-specific ways regarding
an interest in cooperation.
Neighborhood council participants in the first case described how the “seeds
have been set for improvement, but we’re not there yet.” Another participant offered
a positive reflection. “The cooperation between Department of Public Works and the
neighborhood councils was much more than I would have expected. Each side
worked very hard toward the mutual goal. The dedication of the Department of
Public Works’ employees during the process was a major factor in the success of the
task. I must admit I did not think the city departments were going to be as willing to
work with the neighborhood councils as was the Department of Public Works.”
Confirming this observation, another participant saw cooperation from both sides.
“The interaction between the Department of Public Works and the neighborhood
councils represented seems lively and productive at the same time. We have been
open with each other, and everyone appears to be working hard toward the
accomplishment of our mutual goals.”
139
Agency officials in this case expressed similar sentiments. One official
described the situation before the collaborative learning process. “We didn’t have
any specific prior relationship. Before the . . . project we had a relationship with no
definition. We knew that there were councils that wanted to participate and interact.
Now they can; they know how.” Another official expressed how he “enjoyed the
opportunity to work together to create a formidable partnership.”
The exact nature of the partnership was vocalized by an agency official
during a Learning and Design Forum session. The official saw the process as “an
opportunity for a partnership to educate neighborhood councils as to what we do and
to support councils as to what you need—and for you to support us as to the
resources [necessary to do the job]. We really need your support, your voices!” Also
reflecting this future looking idea of partnership, another official thought about
“what more can I do to accommodate the neighborhood councils. The project is
helping me work through those feelings by problem solving together as a team
through the exercises instead of relying on the force of my personality to win
converts. I can do both, but I prefer the former.”
The same sentiments regarding cooperation and partnership are not seen in
the statements by participants in the second case. One exception is from a
neighborhood council participant who observed that “we managed to find a common
ground with [department] representatives.” Otherwise, a neighborhood council
participant thought that department officials seemed to “have seen these sessions as
more work,” whereas she saw them “as an improvement in the system that everyone
140
will benefit from in the future.” Another participant observed that he “expected the
tension between the neighborhood councils and Department of Transportation to be a
little more balanced in terms of defining a relationship and a process for working
together.” Agency officials were non-specific about cooperation. For instance, one
official observed simply that the collaborative learning process will be potentially
useful “in defining the relationship between City Hall and neighborhood councils.”
5.9.3 Other Sub-Categories and Summary of CLP Evaluation
The three other sub-categories contain similar kinds of statements as those
reported above, with the same content divisions. Overall, statements in this category
confirm the observations offered in the first chapter about the differential patterns of
responsiveness among agency officials in each case. They also show complementary
observations about what was learned in the process and how relationships changed.
Participants in the first case were much more positive in discussing the
responsiveness of agency officials in the collaborative learning process; both
neighborhood council participants and agency officials spoke about evolving
partnerships between them.
Participants—both neighborhood council and agency—in the second case
were more mixed in the overall assessment of administrator responsiveness, and the
evolving relationship was similarly defined in mixed terms.
5.10 Summary of Findings in the Words of Participants
Beyond the differences between cases observed in the fourth chapter, we see
additional wedges between them emerge here. Statements confirm some of the
141
information presented in the first chapter. For instance, the differential patterns of
responsiveness are reflected in CLP evaluation category statements; the different
political contexts are observed through the role of elected officials category
statements; last, the experiential versus experimental conditions are reflected in the
kinds of interactions described by Transportation officials.
Additionally, the role differentiation is given more substance as seen through
actual statements. A partnership theme is clearly evident across multiple categories,
and this relates mostly—if not exclusively—to the first case. To contrast, officials
with Transportation observe roles for themselves and neighborhood councils that are
not as interactive and interdependent.
In terms of resource restrictions and priorities/problem definitions, these roles
are enacted to a degree. Public Works officials sought to include neighborhood
councils in working through and around resource restrictions and solving problems
and prioritization issues. Transportation officials did not. Instead, they called upon
the rules of their organization to guide their behavior given resource restrictions and
focused on how they deliver service and, importantly, why they cannot at times
deliver desired service. There was little mention of involving neighborhood councils
in those processes. If they were mentioned, the role was questioned due to concerns
about self-interest versus community preference and capacity. These issues are
considered again in the next and final chapter, as propositions are offered for future,
more systematic study about bureaucratic responsiveness in collaborative processes.
142
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND PROPOSITIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
6.1 Preface
The main purpose of this chapter is to suggest propositions for future, more
systematic study of bureaucratic responsiveness to citizens in a collaborative process.
Propositions are grounded in the findings from the study, according to the
differences that emerged between the cases.
Differences in administrator responsiveness across the two cases were
confirmed in the analysis. Additional differences also emerged, which
independently and together, suggest possible explanations for the divergent
responsiveness behaviors of administrators in each case.
The second chapter contains a discussion of factors that have been identified
in research as possible determinants of bureaucratic responsiveness across several
different contexts. These factors include representation roles of administrators,
external control placed on administrators, organizational culture, organizational
leadership, organizational rules and structure, and possible dependence on a
stakeholder. Additionally, the chapter outlines five unique variants of
responsiveness (Bryer, Forthcoming). None of these factors has ever been tested in
answering the question of what determines responsiveness to citizens in a
collaborative process.
Some of these factors emerged as possibly relevant through the inductive
analytic process employed in this study. Table 28 lists the factors, along with the
number of statements that might fit with each, and a couple of sample statements
143
from each case as appropriate. This coding was conducted individually without
assistance from independent coders and is intended to tie back to previously cited
literature, rather than to base final conclusions and interpretations of the data.
For instance, the culture of the organization—defined as the ways in which
administrators see their role and the role of citizens (Henderson, 2004; Nachmias &
Rosenbloom, 1978)—seems to be important as we saw differences emerge over the
role of partner versus expert, advisor, service deliverer, and educator. We can look
to all the statements addressing the role of agency officials and neighborhood council
participants as potentially relevant indicators of the organizational and administrative
culture in which the administrators work.
Table 28 – Agency Official Statements Relating to Previously Identified
Determinants of Bureaucratic Responsiveness
Determinant of
Responsiveness
Number of
Statements—
Case One
Number of
Statements—
Case Two
Sample Statements
Representation
Roles
0 0 [none]
External Control 3 1 Public Works: “If we hear things from
the city council it is powerful. A lot of
things happen at the City Council level
that we don’t have control over.”
“[Elected officials] are the X factor, if
not the X, Y, and Z factors in this
equation. DPW can work in concert
with NCs to give them access to how
and when we provide service, but
elected officials are in charge of
appropriating the funds that ultimately
determine how much and what kinds of
services are provided.”
Transportation: “Sometimes if we don’t
have a pressure from an elected official
we don’t do something.”
144
Table 28, Continued
Determinant of
Responsiveness
Number of
Statements—
Case One
Number of
Statements—
Case Two
Sample Statements
Organizational
Culture
22 45 (27 without
baseline)
Public Works: “[Neighborhood]
councils are a partner to me, to our
department, and we need to discuss the
capabilities we have.”
Transportation: “We encourage doctor-
patient relationships—DOT provides
professional service based on expertise:
we diagnose the problem, and provide
the best remedy based on availability of
resources. The patients can’t demand
specific service without have
expertise…”
“Our role is to help—and protect—the
City Council members. If somebody’s
to be blamed, it’s DOT.”
Organizational
Leadership
1 2 Public Works: “I encourage
transparency and communication.”
Transportation: “We are generally
encouraged to work with NCs, but the
department leadership has to show
more attention to the importance of
public relations.”
“We encourage our employees to
interact with NCs positively and how
‘can-do’ attitude.”
Organizational
Rules and
Structure
5 5 Public Works: “Until we ‘government’
decide that we are going to assign full
time positions to work with the
neighborhood councils it will continue
to be a challenge.”
“The mayor has directed every
department to have executive liaisons
to neighborhood councils. No money
has been allocated for these positions.”
145
Table 28, Continued
Determinant of
Responsiveness
Number of
Statements—
Case One
Number of
Statements—
Case Two
Sample Statements
Organizational
Rules and
Structure,
Continued
5 5 Transportation: “Initially in early stages
of NCs formation, DOT has instituted
NC ambassadors to work as liaison
with NCs and DOT, but this idea
withered away.”
Possible
Dependence on a
Stakeholder
3 3 Public Works: “NCs are terrific public
works advocates to get us the funding
for infrastructure.”
“I can help tell other people what to tell
other people to tell the mayor.”
Transportation: “They can meet with
us, then go back to the community and
explain what we can’t do. ‘We asked
DOT, and here’s why not . . .’
Organizational
Rules and
Structure
5 5 Public Works: “Until we ‘government’
decide that we are going to assign full
time positions to work with the
neighborhood councils it will continue
to be a challenge.”
“The mayor has directed every
department to have executive liaisons
to neighborhood councils. No money
has been allocated for these positions.”
Transportation: “Initially in early stages
of NCs formation, DOT has instituted
NC ambassadors to work as liaison
with NCs and DOT, but this idea
withered away.”
The rules and structure of the agency did not receive much attention by
participants, but their use was justified by a Transportation official. This contrasts
with a Public Works official who acknowledged his willingness to bend the rules a
bit to deliver services that were expected. Otherwise, statements that might be tied
to the rules and structure of the organization consider the processes in place to work
146
with neighborhood councils. Administrators, it might be suggested, will be
responsive to citizens if they have the structures and processes in place to directly
engage with them. This is based on studies by Jones, Greenberg, Kaufman, and
Drew (1977) and West (2004), who find that without procedures in place to deal with
citizen concerns, administrators may not have the means to respond, despite any
desire to do so.
Possible dependence on the neighborhood councils might be seen through the
advancement of the advocacy role that was discussed and as is seen in the sample
statements. However, the mechanics of how dependence and the desire for an
advocate relate is not made clear by the data alone. This issue is explored further in
introducing propositions for future study. Specifically, I consider the instrumental
needs of agency officials and how they seek to meet those needs through the
management of relationships. The work of Hill (1991) is used to describe how
administrators might use citizens to reduce their dependence on elected officials.
External control was not discussed explicitly in terms of how elected officials
influenced administrator participation in the collaborative learning process.
However, participants did suggest awareness of the power of elected officials, and
the political climate and participation in the collaborative learning process by elected
officials differentiated the cases. The visibility of elected officials in the first case
during the collaborative learning process is taken up in introducing propositions for
future study. However, based on the statements, there is no strong evidence
147
suggesting that elected officials applied pressure to be more or less responsive in the
collaborative learning process.
The representation aspects of responsiveness were not addressed by
participants, at least in terms of the representative bureaucracy. One might infer that
Transportation officials saw their role more as a trustee (Pitkin, 1967) based on how
they defined their role and relationship with neighborhood councils. However, the
issue is not raised explicitly.
Last, leadership was not given much attention. Managers in each agency
offered a couple of comments about the kind of engagement with citizens they
encourage. One Transportation official considered how agency leadership needs to
do more to prepare staff to interact with citizens. This, however, is the extent to
which leadership is actively considered by participants.
However, this study would not be complete without acknowledging
leadership roles. Top managers from both departments participated in the Learning
and Design Forum sessions, and it might be suggested that they set the tone. In the
Transportation case, it was the person at the top of the hierarchy among those
officials participating who was most vocal during the sessions (Bryer & Cooper,
2006). A top manager in the Public Works case was later profiled as an exemplary
public administrator by Cooper and Bryer (Forthcoming). This individual has made
a commitment to himself and his colleagues to change the culture of the department
and make it more open to citizens. The leadership in the first case stated explicitly
that they were using the process as a means to mentor lower level staff and strike
148
from them the fear of working with the public. In all, leadership or specific leaders
were not mentioned in the statements analyzed here. However, the influence of
those leaders outside of the sessions seems likely to have filtered into the process
itself.
Similar conclusions are drawn in looking at the variants of responsiveness
(Bryer, Forthcoming) introduced in the second chapter. Table 29 lists the factors,
along with the number of statements that might fit with each, and a couple of sample
statements from each case as appropriate. This coding was conducted individually
without assistance from independent coders and is intended to tie back to previously
cited literature, rather than to base final conclusions and interpretations of the data.
The dictated responsiveness variant is consistent with the external control
determinant discussed above, and the statements are the same as applied there.
Purposive and entrepreneurial variants do not have any related statements.
Participants did not explicitly discuss their personal goals for neighborhood councils,
for instance, nor did they use language of customer-satisfaction, which is implied by
the entrepreneurial variant.
Otherwise, the two variants that stand out are those of constrained and
collaborative. Agency officials in both cases spoke much about resource constraints
or restraints facing them. As is discussed further below in introducing the first
proposition, the difference that emerged between cases, despite constraints facing
administrators in both agencies, was the attitude of administrators towards the
constraints.
149
Public Works officials sought to work around them, to challenge elected
officials to loosen them with designated funding, and to bring neighborhood councils
into the decision process to help mitigate existing constraints. Officials also spoke
about bending rules to work with neighborhood councils and deliver services they
expect. Transportation officials, on the other hand, were bound by constraints and
did not actively seek assistance in breaking out of them.
Table 29 – Agency Official Statements Relating to Variants of Responsiveness
Variant of
Responsiveness
Number of
Statements—
Case One
Number of
Statements—
Case Two
Sample Statements
Dictated 3 1 Public Works: “If we hear things from the
city council it is powerful. A lot of things
happen at the City Council level that we
don’t have control over.”
“[Elected officials] are the X factor, if not
the X, Y, and Z factors in this equation.
DPW can work in concert with NCs to
give them access to how and when we
provide service, but elected officials are
in charge of appropriating the funds that
ultimately determine how much and what
kinds of services are provided.”
Transportation: “Sometimes if we don’t
have a pressure from an elected official
we don’t do something.”
150
Table 29, Continued
Variant of
Responsiveness
Number of
Statements—
Case One
Number of
Statements—
Case Two
Sample Statements
Constrained 7 5 Public Works: “Budget is the bottom
line.”
“Money is the major hurdle. We can still
run the race, but the budget is tight.”
Transportation: “We are doing all we can
to meet their needs. It does not mean we
are meeting all their expectations. But we
are doing all we can with our resources to
meet their needs.”
“Staff could participate in greater
frequency with neighborhood councils if
we have more resources. With current
staff, we are barely meeting current
demands of neighborhood councils. If the
MOU were to be expanded to all
neighborhood councils, that might be a
problem, because of resources.”
Purposive 0 0 [none]
Entrepreneurial 0 0 [none]
Collaborative 11 0 Public Works: “[Neighborhood] councils
are a partner to me, to our department,
and we need to discuss the capabilities we
have.”
“I think of the role of NCs as a partner.
We now have the opportunity to go
through a more detailed review of
stakeholder needs and conditions of the
community to reflect better neighborhood
needs.”
“Part of the mission is to educate the
people about the services we provide to
the best of our ability.”
The collaborative responsiveness variant suggests that administrators will
work through their responsiveness to neighborhood councils in partnership with
neighborhood council representatives and other stakeholders. This partnership focus
151
is dominant across several categories in the first case, as administrators in the agency
seem genuinely interested in joint decision making and action with neighborhood
council members. The statements identified as relating to the collaborative
responsiveness variant explicitly address administrators’ interest in partnering with
neighborhood councils to accomplish certain tasks or solve problems. Other
partnership statements address more broadly the benefits of partnership, goals of
partnership, and general attributes of partnership without explicitly stating how they
want to partner. Most if not all partnership statements, however, with their general
tenor of goodwill and cooperation, could be placed in this variant category as well.
In bridging literatures on collaboration and bureaucratic responsiveness, a
new question can be asked. Are these responsiveness determinants and variants that
have been found to be important in other settings also important in the unique
collaboration context? If not, what other determinants are likely most significant in
the collaboration context? The discussion that follows offers some answers to these
questions through the introduction of propositions for future study.
6.2 Determinants of Responsiveness in Collaboration: Propositions for Future
Study
Propositions are formulated below based on the findings from each case and
across cases. Each proposition is framed, to be consistent with the action research
methodology, in terms of recommended questions that might be asked by
collaboration participants prior to engaging in collaborative activity. First I suggest
questions citizen-stakeholders might ask about a city agency with whom they might
152
collaborate. Second I suggest questions city agency officials might ask about a
group of citizen-stakeholders with whom they might collaborate. Third I suggest
questions that city agency officials and citizen-stakeholders might ask about each
other. Questions are based on the case findings and lead to propositions to validate
the importance of these questions through future study. Table 30 provides the full
list of questions and propositions that are discussed below.
Table 30 -- Questions and Propositions for Future Study
Question about/for Participants Proposition: Administrators will be more
responsive to citizens in a collaborative
process…
Do agency officials have discretion? P1: The more administrators perceive
themselves as having discretion.
Do agency officials rely on their expertise for
decision-making?
P2: The less administrators perceive
themselves as trustees.
Are agency officials open to partnerships? P3: The more administrators are interested
in long-term relational commitments with
citizens.
P4: The more administrators trust citizens.
P5: The more administrators share the same
goals with citizens.
P6: The more administrators are interested
in learning from the experiential knowledge
of citizens.
P7: The more administrators are willing to
accept the decisions of a group.
P8: The less administrators are cross-
pressured by political leaders.
What’s in it for administrators? P9: The more administrators feel they need
political support and that citizens have the
power to provide that support.
Do citizen-stakeholders have common concerns? P10: The more agreement there is among
citizens in a collaborative process.
Will elected officials support citizen-
stakeholders?
P11: The more visible elected officials are in
the course of a collaborative process.
What kinds of issues should we discuss? P12: When administrator-citizen
collaboration begins with a focus on process
and relationship issues.
What is the political climate in which we will
collaborate?
P13: The more administrators feel the
political climate is supportive of citizen
empowerment.
153
6.2.1 Questions and Propositions Directed Toward City Agencies
Based on the findings from the two cases there are five questions citizen-
stakeholders might ask about city agency officials prior to entering into collaboration
with them. Each question suggests a factor that might determine how responsive
agency officials are in a collaborative process with citizens.
Do agency officials have discretion? Sowa and Selden (2003) suggest that in
order for administrators to actively represent stakeholders with whom they claim a
particular affinity, they need to perceive themselves as having discretion. Though
this finding applies specifically to the representative bureaucracy, an implication is
that administrators who want to pursue a particular course of action need to think
they have the means to do it. In the two cases, there was no test for perceived
discretion. However, it might be assumed to exist based on the resource restrictions
identified in each case and the manner in which those restrictions were managed.
Department of Public Works officials recognized resource restraints that influence
their ability to meet the needs and wishes of citizens. They turned to the
neighborhood council participants, however, to enlist their help in working around
those restraints and perhaps even to help lessen them.
On the other hand, Department of Transportation officials recognized
resource restraints in the same manner. They discussed those restraints as impeding
their ability to meet and interact with neighborhood councils, and they left it at that.
In summary, Transportation officials faced resource restraints and actively
used those restraints to justify what neighborhood council participants felt were
154
lower levels of responsiveness in the L&D sessions. Public Works officials faced
resource restraints and used them as tools to transform neighborhood council
participants into active participants in decision-making processes, partners, and, as
seen in a few statements, advocates.
It might be suggested that Transportation officials did not feel they could
wiggle out of the room that was defined by their lack of resources; they may have
felt that they did not have the ability or discretion to do so. On the other hand,
Public Works officials were bound in the same manner, but they saw an opportunity
to introduce a new player into the governance process with the limited resources they
possessed.
Visually, picture one official chained to a wall, exclaiming: “I can’t help you.
I do not have the resources, nor do I have the ability to act.” This image might
represent Transportation officials. Next picture another official chained to a wall,
exclaiming: “I can’t help you. I do not have the resources. But you are not chained
like me. Come closer to me; I will walk as close to you as I can, given these chains.
Loosen my chains, and then go get some help to remove the chains completely.”
This image might represent the Public Works official.
Based on these findings, the first proposition regarding factors that might
influence the responsiveness of public administrators in collaborative processes can
be identified.
155
Proposition One: The more administrators perceive themselves as
having discretion, the more responsive they will be to citizens in a
collaborative process.
Do agency officials rely on their expertise for decision-making? Trustees
rely on their expert judgment to make decisions they know to be good for the people
they serve (Pitkin, 1967). Expert judgment housed in an insulated bureaucracy is
characteristic of the administrative state (Cooper & Lui, 1990; Painter, 2005; Waldo,
1948). Waldo thought it important for public administrators to reach outside their
boundaries, an orientation that Ingraham (2006) considers to be consistent with
recent trends in privatization and inter-sectoral governance.
It was the closed-style, expert-based structures of American bureaucracy that
led to reinvention reform efforts (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). Bureaucracies were
indicted as not being customer friendly, results oriented, or mission driven. Instead,
they were rule bound, process oriented, and without clear mission.
Nonetheless, the expert administration that came into being in the 1920s and
1930s (Svara, 1998) has persisted. Progressive reforms created a meritocracy and
technocracy to stand separate and apart from the democracy, which created a
relationship between elected officials and citizens. The meritocracy and technocracy
was grounded partially in work principles of scientific management (Taylor, 1967),
as well structural principles of bureaucracy (Weber, 1978). Weber’s fear of the iron
cage—principles of bureaucracy—taking over society came to fruition as,
156
particularly, public bureaucracies emerged as insulated bodies housing bastions of
expertise.
In the second case, Department of Transportation officials defined their roles
as experts. They further defined their role as service providers and information
providers. Recall the doctor-patient relationship metaphor that was used by one
agency official. Public Works officials, on the other hand, did not define their role in
such a manner. This might account for the lack of perceived and observed
responsiveness on the part of Transportation officials in the second case. They were
comfortable in their role as experts and service providers and thought that to be their
primary function and service—trustees versus delegates to use terms of
representation literature (Pitkin, 1967). Based on these findings, a second
proposition can be suggested.
Proposition Two: The more administrators perceive themselves as
trustees, the less responsive they will be to citizens in a collaborative
process.
Are agency officials open to partnerships? A partnership has been defined
based on seven relationship components (Lawther, 2002, p. 7). First, they must be
based on an expectation of a long-term commitment. Two organizations or groups
of stakeholder can get together on a short-term basis to address a single problem, but
a partnership relationship expects that relationships can span problems and that on-
going communication can be mutually beneficial. Public Works officials spoke
about continuing partnerships outside of the Learning and Design Forum sessions,
157
thus implying long-term commitments. The signing of an agreement suggests a
long-term commitment as well. This is one aspect of partnership but analyzable as a
distinct variable
Proposition Three: The more administrators are interested in long-
term relational commitments with citizens, the more responsive they
will be to citizens in a collaborative process.
Second, partnerships must be based on genuine cost-sharing. This is not
relevant for the cases described here entirely, though it might be. For instance,
Public Works officials have devised cost-sharing arrangement in which they will
split the cost of sidewalk repair with neighborhood councils, though this occurred
outside of the Learning and Design Forum process.
Third, partnerships must be based on a high degree of trust. In order for
long-term commitments to be sustainable, actors must trust each other to follow
through on relevant commitments. Other research on the Learning and Design
Forum sessions and outcomes achieved through the sessions suggest that trust
improved among participants in the first case for some participants (Cooper et al.,
Forthcoming). For other participants, trust started to develop, but more time was
necessary to determine how interactions progressed over time and in different
situations. This long-term view of trust development is consistent with Lewicki’s
(2006) conception of how trust evolves from a calculus-based trust to trust based on
interpersonal interactions and more personal relationships. Calculus-based trust is
based on an individual’s self-interest and expectations for whether self-interest can
158
be met or harmed in a relationship with another actor. With time and experience
interacting, this trust evolves to enhanced sharing, understanding, and joint interest
decision-making. Trust was not suggested as an important differentiating factor
between cases in this analysis. However related work on these cases (Cooper et al.,
Forthcoming) and other research on the link between administrator trust in citizens
and willingness to engage with citizens in citizen participation efforts (Yang, 2005)
suggests a fourth proposition for future research.
Proposition Four: The more administrators trust citizens, the more
responsive they will be to citizens in a collaborative process.
Fourth, a partnership must be based on a high degree of coordination. In the
Public Works case, officials identified the role partner. In looking at the statements,
partnership was explicitly defined through mutual education, joint action, and
coordinated action, such as in assisting the agency acquire new resources.
Coordination is also implied by the focus on communication by all participants in the
first case. There was genuine interest in sharing information and mutual education.
Considerations of coordinated activity or information sharing were not actively
considered by Transportation officials beyond what they were already doing. The
status-quo was a state of affairs that neighborhood council participants perceived to
be inadequate. Coordination is one step in developing longer-term relations that
include other dimensions of partnership already identified, such as sharing resources
and trust. It is an integral component, however (Cigler, 1999).
159
Fifth, a partnership must be based on a commitment to higher quality service.
Consensus around a goal such as high quality service is necessary for collaboration
to succeed (Margerum, 2002). Without a shared goal, a partnership will lack
direction and buy-in. Both the neighborhood council participants and agency
officials in the first case focused their discussions on how to structure their
relationship through various communication mechanisms to make services delivered
in the neighborhoods more aligned with actual needs of neighborhood stakeholders.
This shared goal seemed to exist.
Proposition Five: The more administrators share the same goals with
citizens, the more responsive they will be to citizens in a collaborative
process.
Sixth, a partnership must be based on commitment to educate each other.
Lawther (2002) discusses this component in terms of public-private sector
partnerships and how the private partners need to educate their public partners.
What is observed in the Public Works case is a desire for mutual education, advising
the neighborhoods on one hand, and informing the agency of neighborhood needs on
the other. Transportation officials, on the other hand, seemed less interested in
learning from neighborhood council participants as they were in instructing them on
the work of the agency and why then can and cannon deliver certain services.
Proposition Six: The more administrators are interested in learning
from the experiential knowledge of citizens, the more responsive they
will be to citizens in a collaborative process.
160
Last, a partnership must be based on flexibility and innovation in service
delivery. Public Works officials showed flexibility in their willingness to adapt their
processes to work with neighborhood councils in prioritizing services. This was the
essence behind the signed memorandum of understanding. On the other hand,
officials in the second case admitted to promising or doing nothing that they were
not already doing. This was acknowledged by at least one neighborhood council
participant as well, which to him made implementation of the spirit of the unsigned
agreement fairly straightforward. This partnership criterion—to be flexible—is
consistent with the idea of discretion reported above, thus giving additional support
for the first proposition.
An added component of partnerships is suggested by research on whether
administrators are willing to abide by group decisions in a consensus process. They
cannot be fearful of committing to a course of action decided, potentially outside of
or despite their areas of expertise, as were regulators studied by Harter (1997).
Officials in the first case showed a willingness to commit to group decisions in the
form of the memorandum of understanding. To contrast, Transportation officials
entered the process expressing that they were not willing to do much beyond what
they were already doing, which right away took a range of possible outcomes off the
table. Officials attributed this to the lack of resources and inability to commit to
something for which resources might not be available; Public Works officials did not
have this concern, and actually agreed to a process in the memorandum of
161
understanding that required that additional resources be spent or existing resources
re-allocated.
Proposition Seven: The more administrators are willing to accept the
decisions of a group, the more responsive they will be to citizens in a
collaborative process.
The willingness of Public Works officials to accept the decisions of the group
was evident. Also evident, though, was a lack of alternative courses of action
presented by actors outside of the group. Specifically, elected leaders did not
suggest conflicting courses of action that would require the attention and resources
of agency officials. It might thus be suggested that in addition to the willingness to
accept a group’s decision, there needs to be limited or no cross-pressure from other
sources, particularly elected leaders.
Proposition Eight: The less administrators are cross-pressured by
political leaders, the more responsive they will be to citizens in a
collaborative process.
In addition to the various components of partnership (Lawther, 2002), what
seems to be at the heart of the attitudes of Public Works officials is a genuine respect
for the citizen. Future work on one top manager in the department suggests that this
respect grounds at least part of his outgoing interest in active engagement with the
citizenry of the City of Los Angeles (Cooper & Bryer, Forthcoming). Statements
collected as part of this study do not specifically address this idea of respect, and so
no proposition is offered reflecting the idea. However, it is worth noting the
162
apparent role of the citizen-administrator (Cooper, 1991) that seems to pervade the
department, as exemplified so vividly by one of the agency’s top managers (Cooper
& Bryer, Forthcoming).
Will elected officials influence agency officials? The concept of dictated
responsiveness (Bryer, Forthcoming) suggests that administrators will be responsive
according to the directives of their political bosses. This idea is consistent with
Hill’s (1991) image of bureaucracy as a weak actor. In neither case is there evidence
suggesting that elected officials directed the participation or lack of participation in
the L&D sessions. One exception came at the end of the second case when the
mayor’s office instructed department management to not sign the memorandum of
understanding. This, however, was the first any participant had heard from the
mayor’s office to that point regarding the collaborative learning process.
Elected leaders were recognized as powerful actors in the first case according
to a couple of statements by agency officials, but officials gave no indication that
elected leaders pressured the department’s participation in any way. That said,
elected leaders did maintain a visible presence in the process, an issue that is taken
up in the next section, and one that distinguishes the two cases.
What’s in it for them? What do they expect from us? The first of this pair of
questions is one of the questions suggested by Klitgaard and Treverton (2003) for
assessing the success of partnerships. It is consistent with the organizational success
criteria for assessing network performance proposed by Provan and Milward (2001).
From the evaluation standpoint, the question is important to know whether one
163
member of a network or one party in a partnership is actually benefiting from
participation in the network or partnership.
From the input standpoint, the self-interest question and its companion of
how they will meet their self-interest (what do they expect from us?) are embedded
in Hill’s (1991) bureaucratic-centered image of governance perspective. From this
perspective there are multiple powerful and relevant actors in an administrator’s
environment, and the administrator will enter into and manage relationships to secure
some benefit.
The benefit Hill (1991) suggests that can be forthcoming to government
agencies is a higher budget or some changed policy. He suggests that in the
American system especially, administrators will have no single or natural champion
to turn to when there is a need for policy change or additional funding. Neither the
elected executive nor the legislative branch will serve as advocates for the
department all the time, if ever. Indeed, research suggests that bureaucrats are often
at the receiving end of criticism and bashing, which can negatively influence the
overall performance of administrators (Garrett, Thurber, Fritschler, & Rosenbloom,
2006). This role as a figurative punching bag seemed to be readily accepted by a
participant from the second case. “Our role is to help—and protect—the city council
members. If somebody’s to be blamed, it’s Department of Transportation.”
Within this environment, Hill suggests that administrators will be “dependent
upon finding political support among politicians, clients, groups, and the public”
(Hill, 1991, p. 274). Resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) posits
164
that in order for a dependence relationship to exist, three conditions need to be met.
First, the resource—political support in this case—needs to be scarce with no
substitutes available. Second, the resource needs to be possessed by and under the
control of a small number of other actors. Third, the resource must be needed by the
focal organization—the department in this case—for survival. The second and third
criteria seem to be met in terms of an agency-citizen group relationship. However,
the second criterion may not hold. Political support is not a resource like water.
More support can be cultivated among a diverse set of actors. Thus, it seems that
Hill’s dependence formulation might not be correct, at least in terms of the
Department of Public Works case.
In the first case, department officials recognize the decision-making power of
elected officials. They seem to recognize a dependence on elected officials for their
budget and policy guidance. In this case, there are limited or no other sources of
funding; the government budget is in fact controlled by a select few individuals; and,
funding is vital for the organization to survive and provide the services they are
committed to provide and that citizens expect to receive.
In resource dependence terms, to suggest that administrators are dependent
on the public for political support is not correct. Cultivating political support in an
instrumental fashion is a strategy to reduce dependence on elected officials. The
need for funding does not disappear, nor necessarily does the source of that funding,
but by transforming members of the public into partners and advocates for the
department with elected officials, the source of the funding request shifts. Now,
165
elected officials would need to respond to the public on whom they are dependent for
staying in office, rather than agency requests.
Officials with the Department of Public Works seemed to proceed in just this
fashion. One of the roles they identified for neighborhood council participants was
the role of advocate for the department with elected officials. They vocalized this
role not only in private interviews but in the course of the Learning and Design
Forum sessions as well. A later policy innovation of Mayor Hahn’s that they
supported even shifted the source of funding. The mayor allocated an additional set
of funds to the Bureau of Street Services, but it was placed under the control of
neighborhood councils.
The evidence from the first case leads to the ninth proposition. It is not
enough however to suggest that administrators will be more responsive if they feel
the need for more funding or political support to receive that funding. Department of
Transportation officials also discussed the need for resources, but they were not as
responsive in the collaborative process. The difference, according to the evidence,
seems to be the perception among agency officials that neighborhood council
participants can actually provide political support. Transportation officials stated
that they did not think this was possible, in any substantial way. Public Works
officials, on the other hand, spoke about the power that neighborhood councils do,
can, or will have in time.
166
Proposition Nine: The more administrators feel they need political
support and that citizens have the power to provide that support, the
more responsive they will be to citizens in a collaborative process.
6.2.2 Questions and Propositions Directed Toward Citizens
Based on the findings from the two cases there are two questions agency
officials might ask about citizen-stakeholders prior to entering into collaboration
with them. Each question suggests a factor that might determine how responsive
agency officials are in a collaborative process with citizens.
Do citizen-stakeholders have common concerns? Neighborhood council
participants in each case differed in the extent to which they agreed with each other.
In the first case, a neighborhood council participant stated that all shared common
big picture concerns, whereas participants in the second case were perceived to have
less in common with each other than with the participating agency officials. One
neighborhood council participant reported how he found it interesting how the
greatest differences existed not between council participants and agency officials but
between council participants.
The explanation for the differences might be found in the geographic makeup
of the neighborhood council participants. The first case consisted of four
geographically contiguous neighborhood councils; the second case consisted of four
geographically dispersed councils. However, the difference might also be grounded
in the nature of the issues discussed. Participants in the first case, as evidenced by
the statements analyzed, focused attention on issues of communication and
167
prioritization, and how the neighborhood councils can engage in decision-making
processes. This kind of process discussion was not evident in the second case.
Instead, there seemed to be more of a focus on technical service delivery issues.
This kind of focus was most evident in the second of three Learning and Design
Forum sessions, which started with a presentation by an agency official about the
jurisdiction of the department and the nature of services they deliver.
This finding that responsiveness was perceived to be better in the first case,
in which council participants seemed to have more agreement with each other, is
consistent with previous research on bureaucratic responsiveness. For instance,
Gormley, Hoadley, and Williams (1983) find that administrators were more
responsive to those stakeholders who presented a uniform demand, rather than to
those who were diverse in the nature of their requests.
From the administrator’s perspective, the possible logic behind this finding
and what appears to be a potential explanatory factor in the two cases presented here,
is found in the perceived salience of a group of stakeholders. The more cohesive—
or less divisive (Kearns & Forrest, 2000)—a group of citizens, the more they may be
seen to possess the ability to give political support.
The logic of action might also be considered from the perspective of costs of
coordination (Thompson, 1967). According to Thompson, organizational actors will
seek to minimize costs of coordinating with their external environment. Costs of
coordinating are low when there is no interdependent action, but costs increase as
autonomy declines, as in a collaborative relationship. Aligning organizational actors
168
to match a shifting-heterogeneous environment would cost more than aligning with a
stable or shifting-homogenous environment.
In the second case, neighborhood council participants presented a more
heterogeneous set of concerns than did participants in the first case. Some
participants were interested in issues of development related traffic, some in parking,
some in traffic calming on residential streets, and some in bicycle traffic. Further,
the discussion did not bring these different substantive concerns together with a
focus on communication, for instance, which was the focus in the first case. This
may account for the “shared big picture” concerns observed in the first case and the
divergent interests observed among neighborhood council participants in the second
case.
Based on findings from the cases and the theory available to understand the
findings, a tenth proposition can be introduced.
Proposition Ten: The more agreement there is among citizens in a
collaborative process, the more responsive administrators will be to
those citizens.
Though it was not evident in the statements analyzed for this study, it is
possible for agreement among citizens to emerge in the course of collaborative
discourse. Thus, the tenth proposition might be thought about not in static terms,
basing citizen agreement on a single point of time. Rather, agreement can be
emergent, as can administrator responsiveness to citizens in the course of a
collaborative process.
169
Will elected officials support citizen-stakeholders? Elected officials in the
first case maintained a highly visible presence throughout the Learning and Design
Forum sessions and afterwards to commemorate the signing of the agreement. This
question is similar to the one asked previously regarding the influence elected
officials might have on agency officials. Influence, in this case is not in the form of
explicit pressure. The logic as above applies in terms of dictated responsiveness.
Additionally, though, agency officials might be more responsive if they believe there
can be political gain based on the interest of elected officials, thus consist with the
instrumental relationships described above. Based on the findings from the two
cases, an eleventh proposition can be offered.
Proposition Eleven: The more visible elected officials are in the
course of a collaborative process, the more responsive administrators
will be to citizens.
6.2.3 Questions and Propositions Directed Toward All Parties
Based on the findings there are two questions citizen-stakeholders and
agency officials might ask about each other prior to entering into collaboration with
them. Each question suggests a factor that might determine how responsive agency
officials are in a collaborative process with citizens.
What kinds of issues should we discuss? Are the prioritization and
communication issues that were the focus of the first case better for administrator-
citizen collaboration than technical service delivery issues to ensure administrator
responsiveness in the process? Research on and practice of deliberation involving
170
citizens suggests that citizens have the capacity and willingness to engage with
highly complex issues. This is seen in the Twenty-First Century Town Hall
meetings created by AmericaSpeaks (Lukensmeyer & Torres, 2006), Deliberative
Polling projects (Fishkin, n.d.), and other forms of deliberative democracy (Gastil &
Levine, 2005).
Indeed, neighborhood council participants in the second case showed that
they either had the knowledge to discuss technical transportation policy issues or
were fast learners to engage in technical discussion. They also brought experiential
knowledge of working within transportation systems to balance the technical
discourse. Is it possible, then, that the greater focus on technical rather than process
issues in the second case contributed to the perceived lower levels of
responsiveness?
Cigler (1999) suggests that groups move through two stages of interaction
before they effectively can collaborate with each other. First, they need to share
information and resources, perhaps organizing an event together. Small steps are
taken in which group members become more familiar with each other. Second, they
need to share more resources, pool resources, and engage in more depth discussions
with each other on more complex issues. Finally, they reach the stage of
collaboration.
To expect groups to be able to collaborate right away at the deepest level
with high levels of interpersonal trust is perhaps not a realistic expectation.
Addressing technical issues in a collaborative fashion quickly in the Learning and
171
Design Forum sessions may have impeded early trust development. Technical issues
are potentially more contentious and prone to position taking, rather than a
consideration of mutual needs and interests (Fisher & Ury, 1981). The Learning and
Design Forum model might be best suited to deal with process and relationship
issues, to set the relationship framework that would facilitate future more
collaborative activity. This finding and speculation lead to an twelfth proposition.
Proposition Twelve: Administrator-citizen collaboration that begins
with a focus on process and relationship issues will lead to more
responsive administrators.
What is the political climate in which we will collaborate? The two cases
occurred under different political climates. Previous propositions each address a
factor that can, to an extent, be controlled and altered by agency officials or citizens.
The political climate is not something directly under the control of a set of actors.
However, it may be important in shaping administrator responsiveness. The top
leader—the mayor in this case—sets the tone for city government. If he is
supportive of neighborhood councils, this support may trickle down to the agencies.
On the other hand, a mayor who is not visibly supportive of citizen empowerment
may limit the extent to which agencies wish to stretch their resources to work
collaboratively with citizens. Political climate or culture also includes the general
orientations of elected officials and citizens towards citizen engagement, the role of
bureaucracy, and the interaction between citizens and government (Elazar, 1994).
172
Evidence presented from each case confirms the differential political contexts
surrounding each case. Most starkly, this is seen in the statement by a neighborhood
council participant in the first case that the mayor and city council are basically pre-
disposed to see the partnership established succeed. This statement contrasts with
the observation from several participants in the second case that elected leaders were
not interested in developing relationships between administrators and neighborhood
council leaders.
Proposition Thirteen: The more administrators feel the political
climate is supportive of citizen empowerment, the more responsive to
citizens they will be in a collaborative process.
6.3 Influence of the Researchers
One final question needs to be asked, considering the active role of the
researchers throughout the collaborative learning process in each case. Did we, as
researchers, determine the level of responsiveness in each case?
The first place to begin examination of this question is with the selection of
neighborhood councils to participate. As discussed in the first chapter, the initial
plan for the first case was to select a single neighborhood council. However, that
one council had previous working relationships with three other councils—or
councils in-formation—and requested that they be included. The selection was not
issue based; rather it was based on an existing shared relationship between a set of
councils and council leaders.
173
This contrasts with the selection of councils in the second case. Here,
researchers conducted an informal survey of neighborhood council minutes and
meeting agendas to determine what set of councils shared similar issue concerns.
Four councils were ultimately selected explicitly to vary the geographic proximity
we had in the first case.
An unintended consequence of this selection seems to have been a set of
councils that were issue-focused, rather than relationship focused. Thus, the
variation, as it has emerged in this study, was not geographic proximity but
substantive interest. With respect to the neighborhood council select process, then,
yes, researchers may have had an influence. However, the consequence of the
selection has led to a potentially interesting and testable proposition about
administrator responsiveness to citizens in a collaborative process.
In both cases, the same basic Learning and Design Forum model remained
consistent. Both cases consisted of three sessions, spaced approximately one month
apart, and convened at the same location on the University of Southern California
campus. The professional facilitator was also the same in both cases.
Elsewhere, I examine the different facilitation techniques used by the
facilitator in each case (Bryer et al., 2007). There was some variation in the social
tools (Schuman, 1996) he used. Social tools are used to vary with whom, how, and
when participants in a group process interact with each other. For instance, initial
introductions of the participants to each other occurred in a large group in the first
case, with participants stating their name and expectations for the process. In the
174
second case, participants were given a short period of time to walk around the room,
meet everybody else, and learn something they shared in common with each person.
The trick of the introduction process was that they could never identify the same
commonality twice.
There were also differences in the cognitive tools (Schuman, 1996) used.
Cognitive tools are different mental models or discussion framing questions that help
participants think about issues before them. In the first case, the facilitator
introduced the idea of political intelligence, which means knowing who needs to be
involved and how to accomplish specific goals. This concept was never introduced
in the second case, thus potentially keeping focus away from issues of process and
prioritization. In the first case as well, the facilitator used an active city council
motion to give participants an exercise around which they could make decisions
about their future interactions. The availability of the motion was a happy
coincidence that gave the participants a useful tool to use; however, there was no
such equivalent motion introduced during the second case.
In the work describing the facilitation techniques (Bryer et al., 2007), I
conclude that it is not possible to determine if the facilitator caused a given set of
outcomes with the variation in techniques. The main reason for this is due to the
limited number of cases and the wide extent of variation in facilitation techniques
across those cases.
What can be said is that the facilitator did introduce variation into each case,
and that variation may have contributed to the differences observed between the two
175
cases in this study. These differences, in turn, have generated propositions for future
study.
6.4 Implications for Public Administration
Findings from both cases suggest implications for how we might think about
several issues regarding public administrators and their role in governance processes.
Four issues are addressed here. First, I consider implications of the findings for how
public administrators interact with citizens. Second, I consider implications of the
findings for how administrators interact with elected officials. Third, I consider what
the findings suggest for the role of administrators as representatives. Last, I consider
the issue of politics and power in the bureaucracy.
6.4.1 Administrator-Citizen Interaction
We saw two different means of how administrators responded to citizens in a
collaborative process. At the heart of the differential responsiveness were two ways
of interacting, as defined by the roles and responsibilities of administrators and
neighborhood councils. The first involved mutual and reciprocal interaction,
espoused through discussion of partnership, open communication, and citizen
involvement in decision-making. In the second case, we saw asymmetric
unidirectional interaction, meaning administrators acted as expert and service
providers, which was then followed by citizen action as advocates for the community
and advisors.
Figure 2 depicts three variations of how administrators might interact with
citizens. These depictions are drawn from some of my own previous work (Bryer,
176
2003). The first is labeled as a partnership/citizen participatory approach. It aligns
with scholarly literature that describes the New Public Service as a unique approach
to governance for public administrators (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000). This
approach is seen in the actions and statements of participants in the first case with the
Department of Public Works. Findings from this study suggest that the outcomes of
the New Public Service approach might be superior to those achieved under different
approaches to governance. Specifically, trust developed between administrators and
citizens, mutual learning occurred, and an agreement was signed that empowered
citizens to participate in service delivery and quality of life issues (Cooper et al.,
Forthcoming).
Figure 2 -- ADMINISTRATOR-CITIZEN INTERACTION
Administrator
Administrator
Citizen
Citizen
Partnership/Citizen
Participatory Approach
Reinvention/Customer
Response Approach
Traditional/Client Service
Approach
Administrator
Citizen
177
The second and third approaches showing in figure 2 exemplify the
approaches taken by officials with the Department of Transportation. In the middle
of the figure is an approach labeled reinvention/customer response. It is grounded in
literature on reinventing government (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). Further the
approach is one that that exemplifies how Vigoda (2002) thinks about
responsiveness, which is primarily as a unidirectional response to a request or
complaint of a customer or other stakeholder. The final approach is labeled
traditional/client serving. This approach is grounded in traditional views of public
administration, in which technical experts—faceless bureaucrats—deliver service to
an amorphous public, without direct interaction or much consultation (Moe, 1994).
Transportation officials bridge these approaches. They defined themselves as
expert service deliverers and information providers, consistent with the client serving
approach. However, they also saw a role for neighborhood council members as
advisors and advocates for their communities. Though administrators did not
describe neighborhood council members as customers, they did allow for members
to share concerns with them. However, they did not promise to respond to those
concerns directly, rather defaulting to the role of expert. This pattern is exemplified
by the doctor-patient metaphor used by one agency official. The patient, according
to the official, is unable to request specific services, because he does not have the
needed information and expertise.
Overall, the implications of the study findings for administrator citizen
interactions raise more questions for further research pursuits. Specifically, with the
178
different patterns of interactions supported by administrators in each case, are there
actually differential outcomes in terms of quality of life, service delivery speed, or
service delivery quality? With the first case, there seems to be non-tangible
outcomes achieved, such as trust and empowered citizens. However, more study is
needed to consider whether more tangible outcomes on quality of life issues are also
achieved in a better way through the partnership approach as opposed to one of the
other approaches.
Such future study would help fill a gap in literature that differentiates these
different approaches. As it stands now, much of the literature on New Public
Management, New Public Service, and other approaches to public administration in
governance rest on normative underpinnings (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000; King &
Stivers, 1998; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). There is little in the way of empirical
support for differential, tangible results associated with each approach in a
comparative framework.
6.4.2 Administrator-Elected Official Interaction
Figure 3 depicts approaches to interaction between administrators, elected
officials, and citizens. The approaches build on those described in figure 2. There
are, though, added relationships and thus more visible complexity in the governance
process.
179
Figure 3 -- ELECTED OFFICIAL-ADMINISTRATOR-CITIZEN INTERACTION
Administrator Administrator
Citizen Citizen
Partnership/Citizen
Participatory Approach
Reinvention/Customer
Response Approach
Traditional/Client Service
Approach
Administrator
Citizen
Elected Official Elected Official Elected Official
The first shows mutual, symmetric arrows between each pair of actors,
reflecting the partnership between all. The added arrow from the middle of
administrator-citizen interaction to the elected official is an attempt to show how
Department of Public Works officials used their relationship with neighborhood
council members to communicate with elected officials. Agency officials spoke not
only of partnership. They spoke about how neighborhood council members can
lobby on their behalf to get more funding and resources, which would allow them to
deliver more services to neighborhoods. Officials, thus, used their mutual, trust-
based relationship with citizens to gain concessions from elected officials. This kind
of relationship fits what Hill (1991) describes when he considered how
administrators are dependent on citizens to get additional resources.
180
Officials in the second case fit more in the third approach in figure 3, which
is the traditional way one thinks about governance relationships. It is the loop model
of democracy (Box, 2004; Fox & Miller, 1995). In this loop, elected officials dictate
to administrators what services to deliver, and administrators dispassionately deliver
those services. If citizens do not like the service they receive, they can complain to
their elected official or vote against him come election time.
An added component of this approach is how administrators stand between
elected officials and citizens. This position allows elected officials to cast blame on
administrators when citizen expectations are not met. Besides being a dominant
theme in many campaigns for elected office (Garrett et al., 2006), administrators in
the Department of Transportation seemed ready to accept this role. One official
spoke about how his role is to protect the elected officials; if somebody is meant to
be blamed, it is the department.
The same questions asked above with respect to administrator-citizen
interaction apply here. Specifically, future research can examine the extent to which
tangible outcomes vary under different approaches to managing or arranging
relationships between elected officials and administrators. Conducting such a study
in a comparative framework can shed light on best practices for meeting societal
needs.
Research can also focus on less tangible outcomes, such as trust in
government. Is trust higher when citizens are instrumentally used to lobby elected
officials on behalf of a department, or when citizens have free reign to complain to
181
elected officials, who then apply pressure to administrators to deliver service? This
study does not reveal the answer to this question, but it raises the possibility that
outcomes might be different according to the approach used to arrange relationships
between governance actors.
6.4.3 Administrators and Representation
The concept of representation, at its core, means to have views or behaviors
presented by some on behalf of many. To represent means to act for, vote for, or
speak for other individuals who are not present or otherwise able to act, vote, or
speak (Hummel & Stivers, 1998; Pitkin, 1967). In governance, the role of
representative is typically discussed in terms of elected officials and less often in
terms of unelected officials, or public administrators (Denzau & Munger, 1986;
Fiorina, 1970; Mansbridge, 2003; Pitkin, 1967).
However, the concept has been applied to public administrators in some
cases. Most directly, the concept is found in literature on the representative
bureaucracy (Dolan & Rosenbloom, 2003). Rohr (1986) suggests that public
administrators should serve as representatives, particularly since elected branches of
government do not represent—descriptively at least—the vast diversity of people
existing in the United States. He considers this lack of elected representation of the
people a deficiency in the Constitutional design of the United States, a deficiency
that public administrators could correct.
The question of whether and how public administrators should represent is a
question unsettled in scholarly literature. It is not a question I will seek to settle in
182
these few pages. However, the findings from the cases suggest some implications
for the role of public administrators as representatives.
First, it is suggested that Transportation officials acted as if they were
trustees, a Burkean concept of representation (Pitkin, 1967). The idea behind the
role of a trustee is that representatives have the specialized knowledge or at least
time to focus on a single problem in depth. Thus, the decisions they make and
actions they take should be based on their good judgment, rather than direct orders,
complaints, or requests from others. The doctor-patient relationship described by
one Transportation official fits this way of thinking. Administrators are acting for
citizens given their specialized knowledge and experience.
On the opposite side of the trustee role for representatives is the role of
delegate. In this case, the representative acts for others, but he bases the action on
the orders or requests of those people whom he claims to represent (Pitkin, 1967).
The delegate role is complicated in that there are multiple possible stakeholders for
whom a representative can act. These stakeholders include interest groups,
individual citizens, groups of citizens, and countless others. With the multitude of
interests, it is likely that a single person cannot adequately represent all of them, or
even perhaps most of them (Follett, 1998).
Such difficulty has led scholars to consider hybrid forms of representation
that combine elements of the delegate and trustee roles. Pitkin (1967, p. 209)
describes such a hybrid approach.
183
Representing here means acting in the interest of the represented, in a
manner responsive to them. The representative must act
independently; his action must involve discretion and judgment; he
must be the one who acts. The represented must also be (conceived
as) capable of independent action and judgment, not merely being
taken care of. And, despite the resulting potential for conflict
between representative and represented about what is to be done, that
conflict must not normally take place. The representative must act in
such a way that there is no conflict, or if it occurs an explanation is
called for. He must not be found persistently at odds with the wishes
of the represented without good reason in terms of the interest,
without a good explanation of why their wishes are not in accord with
their interest.
In public administration literature, Stivers (1994) considers what might be
thought of as a hybrid approach to representation. She describes a listening
bureaucrat, who actively listens to perspectives from multiple stakeholders before
making a final decision and taking final action.
Hybrid approaches such as these might characterize the actions of words of
officials from the Department of Public Works. They are, at the end of the day,
experts in maintaining and fixing the infrastructure of the city. However, they
actively listen to citizens, for whom they will be acting in their efforts to maintain
public works infrastructure. In another study, an agency manager describes how he
works with citizens to restore technical efficiency to the operations of the
department, thus removing service delivery from the uncertain (and inefficient)
winds of political decision making. This official uses the political process to remove
politics from service delivery, while also using the political process to maximize
resources available for service delivery (Cooper & Bryer, Forthcoming).
184
Further explorations of how and why administrators adopt representative
roles is important for future study. Practically, studies can look to the outcomes
discussed above in terms of administrator interactions with citizens and elected
officials. The question of representation is certainly related to forms of interaction.
The issue is also of normative importance. Is there a best way for administrators to
act and perceive their role in a democracy? Beyond any public service motivation
that might exist among public administrators, should administrators also possess
certain orientations about their role in democracy and relationship with citizens, such
as that of a citizen administrator (Cooper, 1991)? These are questions that can be
explored through later action research case studies.
6.4.4 Power and Responsiveness
The relationships that emerged in each of the two cases can be examined
through the lens of power. Power can be defined as one actor influencing the actions
and thoughts of another actor. Lukes (1974) summarizes his conception of power.
“[Actor] A may exercise power over [actor] B by getting him to do what he does not
want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or
determining his very wants. Indeed, is it not the supreme exercise of power to get
another or others to have the desires you want them to have—that is, to secure their
compliance by controlling their thoughts and desires?” (p. 23).
Officials in the Department of Public Works demonstrated the use of power.
Through their words and personalities, they convinced neighborhood council
members to partner with them and to serve as their advocates in the political process.
185
In so doing, they also empowered the neighborhood council members in their
relationship with elected officials. They gave citizens the knowledge tools they
needed to convince elected officials to increase the resources of the department.
This process indirectly demonstrated the power administrators have over
elected officials. Whereas elected officials have power through authority to control
the actions of administrators, agency officials used citizens to convince elected
officials to share in their desires with them. The power of elected officials is
coercive; the power of administrators can be thought of as manipulative (Cooper &
Bryer, Forthcoming). They manipulated citizens and the governance process to win
concessions from elected officials.
In this first case, the source of the power for administrators is the desire by
citizens for more service, thus a changed resource allocation under the control of
elected officials. Without this perceived need by citizens, administrators in the
Department of Public Works would likely lose their leverage and ability to influence.
Transportation officials seemed not to take similar steps, as they expressed
reservations that neighborhood council members had any influence over elected
officials. They also expressed reservations that neighborhood council members were
legitimacy holders of such power, if they had it, due to the perception that self-
interest dominated over community interest.
Both cases show how power can be used or not used to generate desired
outcomes. If Transportation officials worked with—perhaps used—citizens as did
Public Works officials, they might have received some benefit as did officials with
186
the Department of Public Works. Should they have? This question and others are
taken up in the next section, in which I present a few recommendations for citizens
and public administrators based on the findings from the study.
6.5 Recommendations for Citizens and Public Administrators
A number of recommendations for both citizens and administrators can be
identified based on the findings of this study. Some have already been considered
and disseminated to officials in the City of Los Angeles (Cooper & Bryer, 2007).
Further, the propositions outlined above are based on a set of questions that
administrators and citizens might ask about each other prior to initiating or joining a
collaborative process with each other. As such, those questions constitute a set of
recommendations for citizens and administrators.
Recommendations discussed below address a different level of concern for
administrators and citizens. Specifically, they address the question: knowing what
we know now, should citizens and administrators bother to collaborate with each
other if conditions are not right to achieve success? The conditions are the set of
factors discussed in the propositional statements. Like the propositions, however,
any recommendations are based on available evidence and need further empirical
verification. Therefore, adoption of these recommendations by any individual
should be made with caution.
To begin, I return to the question that closed the previous section. Should
agency officials attempt to exercise power by, one, influencing the desires and
actions of citizens, and two, indirectly influencing the decisions of elected officials?
187
If they do, the use of resources—as demonstrated by Public Works officials—can
generate positive outcomes for the agency. The ranking of the Department of Public
Works on citizen budget surveys has risen in recent years, which agency officials
credit to their interactions with citizens. However, if they exercise power, do they
compromise their objective, expert, stance in the governance process? Ultimately, I
suggest that administrators base their decision on what they want to achieve and if
they feel the manipulation of citizens to achieve a greater good is consistent with
their own operating procedures and professional norms. Whatever decision they
make, they will need to be prepared to explain why they did what they did. Public
Works officials are comfortable in doing this.
If conditions are not right for successful collaboration, should citizens bother
to approach an agency and use valuable resources to derive some benefit? More
specifically, for example, if agency officials are known and seen to behave primarily
as experts without any history of interactive discourse with citizens, is it worth the
effort to bring them to the table?
Public Works officials demonstrated that their internal culture is more
powerful than political context. Despite the change in mayoral administration, the
leadership of the Department of Public Works maintained their apparent respect for
the citizenry, or otherwise, their desire to partner with citizens. Such consistency is
documented in the profile of one of the agency’s managers as an exemplary public
administrator (Cooper & Bryer, Forthcoming). A strong organizational culture can
be tough to change and would likely require sustained efforts by citizens interested in
188
a democratized bureaucracy. Thus, it is suggested that if conditions do not appear to
be favorable, citizens should prepare for a long-term process, not just a three-session
affair as was used in this study. Further, citizens should seek the assistance of
elected leaders, whom study findings also suggest are important actors.
Even in the case of the Department of Public Works, sustained effort is likely
necessary to ensure desired outcomes are achieved. Though the orientation of
agency officials towards citizens has not changed with time and across mayoral
administrations, the lack of continuity of relationships developed in the Learning and
Design Forum process has made sustainability of outcomes difficult (Cooper &
Bryer, 2007; Cooper et al., Forthcoming).
The same question can be put to administrators. If they want to experience a
successful collaborative process, is it necessary, for example, that participating
citizens share common concerns? If they don’t, should they try to collaborate, or
should they specifically seek to work with more cohesive groups of citizens?
One of the recommendations made in another report (Cooper & Bryer, 2007,
p. 3) was: “Contiguous groups of neighborhood councils should join together with
diverse stakeholder representation in their approaches to City agencies.” This
recommendation is intended for neighborhood council members; if they want a
successful experience, it is best that they enter a process with a clear and shared idea
of what they want to accomplish. The importance of consensus was not only
demonstrated in the cases from this study; consensus is emphasized in other studies
of collaboration as necessary for success (Margerum, 2002).
189
From the administrator’s perspective, though, dealing with heterogeneous
citizens can be more costly than dealing with homogenous citizens. Thus, it is
suggested that administrators take the step of working with groups that stand a better
chance of either entering with agreement or forming agreement with time about what
they want to accomplish. This might mean working with geographically proximate
groups, as in the first case.
These are only a few recommendations that might be suggested. As noted,
other recommendations are made in introducing the series of thirteen propositions
above. Further, recommendations are suggested in an earlier report (Cooper &
Bryer, 2007), each of which I continue to support based on the findings from this
study.
6.6 Summary and Contributions
To say that administrators are operating in an environment in which they
have to negotiate their responsiveness (Bryer, Forthcoming) among multiple,
potentially competing obligations is to assign to them a unique responsibility. They
must maintain or, indeed, grow, the level of trust citizens have in government; they
must continue to meet the service needs of their stakeholders; they must remain
accountable to their elected bosses, and they must be open to change according to
learning with and feedback from citizens.
The two cases presented here with the Departments of Public Works and
Transportation reflect challenges and opportunities in the collaborative environment.
Public Works officials showed themselves to be politically adept at working with
190
neighborhood council representatives to achieve material gain in the city’s budget
process. According to one agency official, the department’s ranking in budget
surveys sponsored by the mayor’s office has risen each year since the Learning and
Design Forum process, as agency officials have continued to learn how to work with
active citizens in the councils. However, the same official reported that he is not co-
opting or manipulating citizens against their will or for a reason that will not benefit
them. So long as citizens demand more services from his department, he will work
with them to find both technical and political solutions to deliver that service
(Cooper & Bryer, Forthcoming).
Transportation officials did not recognize the same potential for
neighborhood councils to give political support as did Public Works officials.
Without suggesting that they are wrong or right, a key difference that emerged
between cases is a lack of willingness to try. Transportation officials spoke in
interviews and in the Learning and Design Forum sessions as experts and service
providers first, a view that rarely came up among Public Works officials, except in
an anecdote about how they used to operate. These and other findings suggest
implications for public administration and the role of public administrators.
Three contributions come from this study, overall. First, I offer a set of
measurable propositions for future study on the determinants of administrator
responsiveness to citizens in a collaborative process. These propositions can be
tested in future case research or in large-scale surveys given an adequate sample and
population from which to draw respondents. Determinants of bureaucratic
191
responsiveness, broadly speaking, have been the subject of much previous research;
there is increasing research on the outcomes and process of collaboration and
collaborative public management. The propositions offered here allow more study
on the administrative role in collaboration and factors that facilitate or impede the
exercise of that role.
Second, I offer a unique data analysis method, adapted from inductive
analyses of other authors (Arndt & Bigelow, 2000), to answer a question not
addressed specifically in any data collection process. By using three data sources,
substantial amounts of raw data, and two independent data coders, I was able to
identify a set of emergent themes and categories to address the research question.
Overall, the analysis method is one that might be used in future research that is
confronted with a vast quantity of raw data and no natural starting place to analyze
the data.
Third, I offer a new way to think about the role of public administrators in an
environment in which they need to negotiate their responsiveness between multiple,
potentially competing obligations. I draw my thinking from my own previous work
(Bryer, Forthcoming), as well as the work of Pitkin (1967), Hill (1991), and scholars
who have written on the democratic challenges of citizen-centered collaboration
(Cooper et al., 2006; Leach, 2006) and public administration (Stivers, 1994). It is
hoped that readers will consider this discussion and related discussions (Cooper &
Bryer, Forthcoming) on how public administrators successfully use politics to
192
navigate political processes without sacrificing technical efficiency or orientation
and responsiveness towards citizens and values of citizenship.
193
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agranoff, Robert. 2003. Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public Managers
Working across Organizations. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business
of Government.
Agranoff, Robert, & Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative Public Management:
New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Arndt, Margarete, & Barbara Bigelow. 2000. Presenting Structural Innovation in an
Institutional Environment: Hospitals' Use of Impression Management.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 494-522.
Balla, Steven J. 1998. Administrative Procedures and Political Control of the
Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 663-673.
Bernier, Roger H. 2006. Citizen Voices on Pandemic Flu Choices--the Public
Engagement Pilot Project on Pandemic Influenza (Peppi).Sacramento, CA: Center
for Collaborative Policy.
Berry, Jeffrey, M., Kent E. Portney, & Ken Thomson. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban
Democracy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Booth, John A., & Patricia Bayner Richard. 1998. Civil Society, Political Capital,
and Democratization in Central America. The Journal of Politics, 60(3), 780-800.
Box, Richard C. 2004. Alternatives to Representative Primacy and Administrative
Efficiency. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 26(4), 588-608.
Bryer, Thomas A. 2003. Bureaucratization and Active Citizenship: Approaches to
Administrative Reform. Pi Alpha Alpha Online Journal, 5.
---. 2006. Stakeholder Approach to Bureaucratic Responsiveness: A Network Based
Framework to Analyze Public Administrator Value Preferences. International
Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9(4), 557-577.
---. Forthcoming. Toward a Relevant Agenda for a Responsive Public
Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
doi:10.1093/jopart/mul010.
Bryer, Thomas A., & Terry L. Cooper. 2006. Exploring Bureaucratic
Responsiveness across Stages of Collaboration: Networks, Inertia, and the Political
Environment. Midwest Political Science Association.Chicago, IL.
194
---. Forthcoming. Exploring and Differentiating Design and Implementation
Responsiveness in Administrator-Citizen Collaboration. Public Performance &
Management Review.
Bryer, Thomas A., Terry L. Cooper, & Ronald Kuramoto. 2007. Exploring the
Facilitative Role in Administrator-Citizen Collaboration. American Society for
Public Administration.Washington, DC.
Calder, Bobby J. 1977. An Attribution Theory of Leadership. In B. M. Staw & G. R.
Salancik (Eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 179-204).
Chaney, Carole Kennedy, & Grace Hall Saltzstein. 1998. Democratic Control and
Bureaucratic Responsiveness: The Police and Domestic Violence. American Journal
of Political Science, 42(3), 745-768.
Cigler, Beverly A. 1999. Pre-Conditions for the Emergence of Multicommunity
Collaborative Projects. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 86-102.
Cooper, Terry L. 1979. The Hidden Price Tag: Participation Costs and Health
Planning. American Journal of Public Health, 69(4), 368-374.
---. 1991. An Ethic of Citizenship for Public Administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
---. 2006. The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the
Administrative Role (Fifth ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, Terry L., & Thomas A. Bryer. 2007. Collaboration between Los Angeles
City Departments and Neighborhood Councils: Findings and Recommendations
from the Collaborative Learning Project. Los Angeles, CA: Urban Initiative,
University of Southern California.
---. Forthcoming. William Robertson: Exemplar of Politics and Public Management
Rightly Understood. Public Administration Review.
Cooper, Terry L., Thomas A. Bryer, & Jack W. Meek. 2006. Citizen-Centered
Collaborative Public Management. Public Administration Review, 66(Special Issue),
76-88.
---. Forthcoming. Outcomes Achieved through Citizen-Centered Collaborative
Public Management. In Rosemary O'Leary (Ed.), Big Ideas in Collaborative Public
Management. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Cooper, Terry L., & Terry L. Lui. 1990. Democracy and the Administrative State:
The Case of Hong Kong. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 332-344.
195
Denhardt, Robert B., & Janet V. Denhardt. 2000. The New Public Service: Serving
Rather Than Steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-559.
Denzau, Arthur T., & Michael C. Munger. 1986. Legislators and Interest Groups:
How Unorganized Interests Get Represented. American Political Science Review,
80(1), 89-106.
Disch, Lisa Jane. 2002. The Tyranny of the Two-Party System. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Dolan, Julie, & David H. Rosenbloom. 2003. Representative Bureaucracy: Classic
Readings and Continuing Controversies. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Elazar, D. J. 1994. The American Mosaic: The Impact of Space, Time, and Culture
on American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1970. Representatives, Roll Calls and Constituencies. Lexington,
MA: D. C. Heath.
Fisher, Roger, & William L. Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
without Giving In. New York, NY: Penguin.
Fishkin, James S. (n.d.). Deliberative Polling: Toward a Better-Informed
Democracy. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from
http://www.cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/
Follett, Mary Parker. 1998. The New State: Group Organization--the Solution of
Popular Government. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Fox, Charles J., & Hugh T. Miller. 1995. Postmodern Public Administration:
Toward Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Garrett, R. Sam, James A. Thurber, A. Lee Fritschler, & David H. Rosenbloom.
2006. Assessing the Impact of Bureaucracy Bashing by Electoral Campaigns. Public
Administration Review, 6(2), 228-240.
Gastil, John, & Peter Levine (Eds.). 2005. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook:
Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century.San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Getter, Russell W., & Paul D. Schumaker. 1978. Contextual Bases of
Responsiveness to Citizen Preferences and Group Demands. Policy and Politics, 6,
249-278.
196
Golden, Marissa Martino. 1992. Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: Bureaucratic
Responses to Presidential Control During the Reagan Administration. Journal of
Public Administration Research & Theory, 2(1), 29-62.
---. 2000. What Motivates Bureaucrats? Politics and Administration During the
Reagan Years. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gormley, W., J. Hoadley, & C. Williams. 1983. Potential Responsiveness in the
Bureaucracy: Views of Public Utility Regulation. The American Political Science
Review, 7(3), 704-717.
Greene, Kenneth R. 1982. Municipal Administrators' Receptivity to Citizens' and
Elected Officials' Contacts. Public Administration Review, 42(4), 346-353.
Harter, Philip J. 1997. Fear of Commitment: An Affliction of Adolescents. Duke
Law Journal, 46(6), 1389-1428.
Henderson, K. M. 2004. Characterizing American Public Administration: The
Concept of Administrative Culture. The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 17(3), 234-250.
Hill, Larry B. 1991. Who Governs the American Administrative State? A
Bureaucratic-Centered Image of Governance. Journal of Public Administration
Research & Theory, 1(3), 261-294.
Hummel, Ralph P., & Camilla Stivers. 1998. Government Isn't Us: The Possibility of
Democratic Knowledge in Representative Government. In Cheryl Simrell King &
Camilla Stivers (Eds.), Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-
Government Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ingraham, Patricia W. 2006. Who Should Rule? In David H. Rosenbloom & Howard
E. McCurdy (Eds.), Revisiting Waldo's Administrative State: Constancy and Change
in Public Administration. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Innes, Judith E., & David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus Building and Complex
Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423.
Jones, B. D., S. R. Greenberg, C. Kaufman, & J. Drew. 1977. Bureaucratic Response
to Citizen-Initiated Contacts: Environmental Enforcement in Detroit. The American
Political Science Review, 71(1), 148-165.
Kathi, Pradeep Chandra, & Terry L. Cooper. 2005. Democratizing the
Administrative State--Connecting Neighborhood Councils and City Agencies. Public
Administration Review, 65(5), 559-567.
197
Katz, Elihu, & S. N. Eisenstadt. 1960. Some Sociological Observations on the
Response of Israeli Organizations to New Immigrants. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 5(Special Issue on Comparative Public Administration), 113-133.
Kearns, Ade, & Ray Forrest. 2000. Social Cohesion and Multilevel Urban
Governance. Urban Studies, 37(5-6), 995-1017.
Kim, Chon-Kyun. 2003. Representation and Policy Outputs: Examining the Linkage
between Passive and Active Representation. Public Personnel Management, 32(4),
549-559.
King, Cheryl Simrell, & Camilla Stivers. 1998. Government Is Us: Public
Administration in an Anti-Government Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Klitgaard, Robert, & Gregory F. Treverton. 2003. Assessing Partnerships: New
Forms of Collaboration. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of
Government.
Lawther, Wendell C. 2002. Contracting for the 21st Century: A Partnership Model.
Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.
Leach, William D. 2006. Collaborative Public Management and Democracy:
Evidence from Western Watershed Partnerships. Public Administration Review,
6(Special Issue), 100-110.
Lewicki, Roy J. 2006. Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair. In Morton
Deutsch (Ed.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (pp. 92-
119). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J., & Lars H. Torres. 2006. Public Deliberation: A Manager's
Guide to Public Deliberation. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of
Government.
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. Rethinking Representation. American Political Science
Review, 97(4), 515-528.
March, James G. 1978. Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of
Choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9, 587-608.
March, James G., & Herbert A. Simon. 1993. Organizations (Second ed.).
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
198
Margerum, R. D. 2002. Evaluating Collaborative Planning: Implications from an
Empirical Analysis of Growth Management. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 68(2), 179-193.
Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, & Donna J. Wood. 1987. Toward a Theory of
Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What
Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Mizruchi, Mark S., & Mina Yoo. 2002. Interorganizational Power and Dependence.
In Joel A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations (pp. 599-620).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Mladenka, Kenneth R. 1981. Citizen Demands and Urban Services: The Distribution
of Bureaucratic Response in Chicago and Houston. American Journal of Political
Science, 25(4), 693-714.
Moe, Ronald. 1994. The 'Reinventing Government' Exercise: Misinterpreting the
Problem, Misjudging the Consequences. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 111-
122.
Moe, Terry M. 1991. Politics and the Theory of Organization. Journal of Law,
Economics, & Organization, 7(Special Issue).
---. 1997. The Positive Theory of Public Bureaucracy. In Dennis Mueller (Ed.),
Perspectives on Public Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Musso, Juliet, Chris Weare, & Terry L. Cooper. 2004. Npp Diversity Report. Los
Angeles, CA: Neighborhood Participation Project, University of Southern California.
Musso, Juliet, Chris Weare, Kyu-Nahm Jun, & Alicia Kitsuse. 2004. Representing
Diversity in Community Governance: Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles. Los
Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Urban Initiative.
Nachmias, D., & David H. Rosenbloom. 1978. Bureaucratic Culture: Citizens and
Administrators in Israel. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Nathan, Richard P. 1975. The Plot That Failed: Nixon and the Administrative
Presidency. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
O'Leary, Rosemary, Catherine Gerard, & Lisa Blomgren Bingham. 2006.
Introduction to the Symposium on Collaborative Public Management. Public
Administration Review, 66(Special Issue), 6-9.
Osborne, David, & Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the
Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector from Schoolhouse to
199
Statehouse, City Hall to the Pentagon. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Painter, Martin. 2005. Transforming the Administrative State: Reform in Hong Kong
and the Future of the Developmental State. Public Administration Review, 65(3),
335-346.
Paolisso, Michael. 2002. Blue Crabs and Controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: A
Cultural Model for Understanding Watermen's Reasoning About Blue Crab
Management. Human Organization, 61(3), 226-239.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, & Gerald. R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of
Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York, NY: Harper and
Row.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Provan, Keith G., & H. Brinton Milward. 2001. Do Networks Really Work? A
Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public
Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423.
Rainey, Hal G., & James Thompson. 2006. Leadership and the Transformation of a
Major Institution: Charles Rossotti and the Internal Revenue Service. Public
Administration Review, 66(July/August), 596-604.
Roethlisberger, F. H., & W. J. Dickson. 1946. Management and the Worker.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rohr, John A. 1986. To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative
State. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
Rosener, Judy B. 1982. Making Bureaucrats Responsive: A Study of the Impact of
Citizen Participation and Staff Recommendations on Regulatory Decision Making.
Public Administration Review, 42(4), 339-345.
Rourke, Francis E. 1992. Responsiveness and Neutral Competence in American
Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 52(6), 539-546.
Rush, Mark E., & Richard L. Engstrom. 2001. Fair and Effective Representation?
Debating Electoral Reform and Minority Rights. New York, NY: Roman and
Littlefield.
Ryan, Gery W., & H. Russell Bernard. 2003. Techniques to Identify Themes. Field
Methods, 15(1), 85-109.
200
Saltzstein, Grace Hall. 1992a. Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Conceptual Issues and
Current Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 63-
88.
Schein, Edgar H. 1990. Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-
119.
Schneider, A. L., & H. Ingram. 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
Schuman, Sandor P. 1996. The Role of Facilitation in Collaborative Groups. In Chris
Huxham (Ed.), Creating Collaborative Advantage (pp. 126-140). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Scott, W. Richard. 2001. Institutions and Organizations (Second ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Selden, Sally C., Jeffrey Brudney, L., & J. E. Kellough. 1998. Bureaucracy as a
Representative Institution: Toward a Reconciliation of Bureaucratic Government and
Democratic Theory. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 717-744.
Simon, Herbert A. 1997. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making
Processes in Administrative Organizations (Fourth ed.). New York, NY: Knopf.
Smith, B. C. 1988. Bureaucracy and Political Power. New York, NY: St. Martin's
Press.
Sonenshein, Raphael J. 2004. The City at Stake: Secession, Reform, and the Battle
for Los Angeles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sowa, J. E., & Sally C. Selden. 2003. Administrative Discretion and Active
Representation: An Expansion of the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy. Public
Administration Review, 63(6), 700-710.
Stivers, Camilla. 1994. The Listening Bureaucrat: Responsiveness in Public
Administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364-369.
Svara, James H. 1998. The Politics-Administration Dichotomy Model as Aberration.
Public Administration Review, 58(1), 51-58.
Taylor, Frederick W. 1967. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York,
NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of
Administrative Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
201
Vigoda, Eran. 2002. From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens,
and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review,
62(5), 527-540.
Vosburgh, William W., & Drew Hyman. 1973. Advocacy and Bureaucracy: The Life
and Times of a Decentralized Citizen's Advocacy Program. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 18(4), 433-448.
Waldo, Dwight. 1948. The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of
American Public Administration. New York, NY: Holmes and Meier.
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology
(Guenther Roth & Claus Wittich, Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
West, William F. 2004. Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and
Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis.
Public Administration Review, 64(1), 66-80.
Yang, Kaifeng. 2005. Public Administrators' Trust in Citizens: A Missing Link in
Citizen Involvement Efforts. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 273-285.
202
APPENDICES
Memorandum of Understanding with Department of Public Works
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR THE PROVIDING OF CITY SERVICES
This memorandum is entered into on this _______ of January, 2004 by and between
the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (“DPW”) and the City
of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils of Greater Toluca Lake, Mid-Town
North Hollywood, Studio City, and Valley Village (“NCs”) for a pilot project
to be reevaluated in eighteen (18) months following the execution of this
MOU.
RECITALS
DPW and NCs recognize the opportunity for increased cooperation in the delivery of
services by DPW to the communities of the NCs, and
DPW and NCs intend to form a partnership to work together in the enhancement and
efficiency in the delivery of services by DPW to the communities of the NCs.
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED
1) Appointment of NC Representative(s). NCs shall appoint representatives to work
directly with representatives of DPW to effect the terms of this agreement.
2) Education. DPW shall develop an educational program for the NCs which will
include current processes and practices utilized by DPW in assessing the
needs, development of projects, the method of financing such projects, and
the delivery of projects and services within the City of Los Angeles.
3) Stakeholder Participation. NCs and DPW shall cooperate in ensuring community
stakeholder participation in the formulation of programs and the delivery of
services.
4) Projects and Services. DPW and NCs shall jointly develop strategies, commencing
with the execution of this MOU, by which NCs, the Offices of the Mayor and
City Council and DPW will provide input into the programs and delivery of
services to the NCs’ stakeholders, both prior to, during and subsequent to the
formulation of projects to be undertaken by DPW.
5) Annual Service Plan (“ASP”). As a part of these jointly developed strategies,
DPW shall draft ASPs.
203
5.1) Contents. The ASP shall include, in a user-friendly format: A) details of DPW’s
evaluation of the condition of the infrastructure and services provided by
DPW;
B) proposal of programs, improvements and services to be provided within
the NC boundaries; C) why the recommendations were made; and D) sources
of funding.
5.2) Delivery. DPW shall provide the first of the four (4) ASPs within ninety (90)
days of this agreement, and each of the remaining three (3) reports every
thirty (30) days thereafter. The reports shall be provided in the following
order: Mid-Town North Hollywood, Greater Toluca Lake, Studio City, and
Valley Village.
5.3) NC Review. Each of the NCs shall review the ASP with stakeholders and
provide a response adopted by its Board within ninety (90) days to DPW
indicating agreement with or changes to the ASP.
5.4) Final Review. DPW and each NC shall review the amended ASP with the
Offices of the Mayor and the City Council member(s) in order to finalize the
ASP.
5.5) Implementation of ASP. Following its approval, DPW shall implement the ASP
as adopted.
6) Additional Procedures and Good Faith. DPW and NCs may, from time to time,
develop additional procedures and policies, shall maintain an open line of
communication, and shall at all times cooperate and act in good faith in
accomplishing and effecting the terms of this agreement.
204
Memorandum of Understanding with Department of Transportation
INTRA-CITY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
PARTICIPATING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS AND THE LOS
ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter “MOU”) contains guidelines that
are mutually agreed upon this _____day of ______, 2006 by and between the
Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and City of Los
Angeles Neighborhood Councils of Hollywood United, Mar Vista, Northwest
San Pedro, and Silver Lake (hereinafter NC or NCs).
RECITALS
Whereas Article IX of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles and the implementing
Regulations as currently set forth in Ordinance Nos. 174006 and 174975
provide that:
(1) Information from the City should be sent to Certified Neighborhood
Councils as soon as practical so that they are afforded as much
opportunity as is practical to provide comment before decisions are made;
and
(2) Certified Neighborhood Councils may provide comment and feedback to
the City Council, its committees, and to City Boards and Commissions by
using the Early Notification System. The Neighborhood Council may
communicate its views either by way of mailed letter, fax, e-mail or by a
representative appearing in person to make a presentation on an item
before the City’s decision-makers; and
(3) Neighborhood Councils shall monitor the delivery of City services in
their respective areas and have periodic meetings with responsible City
departments, subject to their reasonable availability.
Whereas LADOT and the NCs mutually agree that the People of the City of Los
Angeles will benefit from increased communication and cooperation between
LADOT and the NCs.
OBJECTIVE
Therefore, The Los Angeles Department of Transportation and the participating
Certified Neighborhood Councils enter into this MOU in order to establish a
collaborative working relationship focused on the effective planning and
delivery of services as suggested by the Certified Neighborhood Councils and
based on communication, education and partnership.
205
LADOT RESPONSIBILITIES
1. REPRESENTATIVES:
DOT will designate a person as the primary point of contact with each of the
four NCs represented in this MOU. Each LADOT Liaison will be responsive
to each NC whose boundaries fall, in whole or in part, within the LADOT
District to which they are assigned.
The duties of a LADOT Liaison shall include:
Attending and participating in board and committee meetings of NCs in their
assigned Districts regarding matters involving transportation issues,
Receiving requests for information, assistance or service from NCs in their District,
transmitting the requests to the appropriate person(s) within the LADOT,
attempting to provide responses to the NC in a timely manner, and
Processing requests for speakers or educational materials.
2. NOTIFICATION and CO-ORDINATION
LADOT will notify and coordinate with participating NCs on issues of community
wide interest that are under LADOT jurisdiction. The respective liaisons will
identify issues that are of significant interest to the NCs.
3. EDUCATION
3.1 LADOT will provide such education through workshops, participation in
LANC Congresses, presentations at NC meetings and distribution of
materials.
3.2 LADOT will use its best efforts to accommodate requests by NCs for
relevant and appropriate speakers at NC meetings and events and for
presentations on areas of interest to the stakeholders.
4. DELIVERY OF SERVICES
As a part of attending and participating in the board and committee meetings, DOT
commits to discussing with the board and/or committee on DOT programs,
projects, services, and procedures for authorizing traffic control devices.
LADOT will share its measurement of Delivery of Services by identifying and
providing to the NCs the standards it uses to measure its performance, upon
request by the NCs.
206
5. REPRESENTATIVES
Each Neighborhood Council represented in this MOU will designate a person as a
primary point of contact with DOT. This person shall typically be the Chair
of the Neighborhood Council Traffic Committee. If the Neighborhood
Council does not have a Traffic Committee, an appropriate person will be
designated.
6. NOTIFICATION
6.1 The official actions taken by Certified NCs with a LADOT or
Transportation committee will be communicated to the LADOT in a
timely manner
6.2 The NCs commit to DOT that they will prioritize written requests to be
forwarded to DOT, after reviewing the TIPS Guide.
7. RESPONSIVENESS
Quarterly, the NCs will return to DOT a DOT supplied Customer Service Survey to
indicate how DOT is doing in providing DOT services to the NCs.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
8. OVERSIGHT
8.1 Each participating NC will independently elect to enter into this MOU.
By entering into this MOU, each participating NC agrees to the formation
of a NC Oversight Committee (OC).
8.2 The OC shall be made up of one representative from each of the
participating NCs entering into the MOU.
The OC shall monitor the compliance with this agreement of both the LADOT and
the participating NCs
9. MODIFICATIONS TO MOU
9.1 This MOU may be modified by mutual agreement of the LADOT and the
OC. Both the LADOT and the OC agree to meet with each other as soon
as possible but in no event later than sixty days (60) after a modification
to this MOU has been requested in writing by either party.
9.2 Any modification must be in writing and must be signed by authorized
representatives from both the LADOT and the four NCs.
9 TIME FRAME
This MOU will be in effect on an ongoing basis
207
STATEMENT REGARDING BEST EFFORTS
The LADOT and the participating NCs pledge to make their best efforts to comply
with all of the provisions of the MOU. Both parties recognize that no cause of
action can arise by the failure of either party to comply with any provision of
this MOU. This MOU shall not establish any rights for any third party that is
not a signatory to this MOU.
208
ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES SUB-CATEGORIES
Department (without further role definition)
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“The department should get away from dealing with individual stakeholder calls. The
Neighborhood Council should be the collector.”
“There’s not a lot I can do from this office, but I can help tell other people what to tell other people
to tell the mayor. The stakeholders are more educated and more involved then than they used to
be… with higher analytical skills.”
[A neighborhood council participant] wanted the city to be “more responsible to neighborhood
needs” and to come out to the neighborhood to see what needs to be done.
Case One - Department
Outreach is also critical: PW must adjust by learning to acknowledging receipt of a complaint and
give a timetable for a response.
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“[Agency officials] are not letting themselves be effective. There are 15 kings [that] control things.
They would need an attitude of my way or the highway to get something done. They are not
activists or advocates; they are committed to their job, just like vegetarians who serve steak because
they are waiters. Change won’t come up through the bureaucracy; you need leaders.”
Case Two - Department
“To participate in decision-making, in matters that affect the local community so that everyone
benefits.”
Department - Service Delivery
Case One - Department
“[To follow] directions of the organization to provide the best possible service.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“We are key service providers. Neighborhood councils are not part of the system because we and
they don’t know about what can we do. We are caught in between citizens and City councils.”
Case Two - Department
“To improve the quality of life of the city residents, identify deficiencies, and respond to public
concerns.”
“To provide safe and efficient transportation services for LA residents and work with all: CC, NCs,
and Mayor’s office.”
“We’re service organizations. We serve elected officials, citizens, neighborhood groups, government
agencies, trying to operate the transportation system.”
209
“Basic function of the departments is to provide services to public."
“Basic function of the departments is to provide services to public. The departments’ role with
regards to NCs is to provide information about our services and enhance our services through
interaction with NCs. It is a two-way education.”
Department - Expert
Case One - Department
“City departments need to provide professional opinions, a citywide perspective, and they need to
show neighborhoods where options exist and where other types of priorities exist.”
Case Two - Department
“We should provide services, as well as expertise and education. Sometimes neighborhood councils
don’t know the consequences of their requests, if we fulfilled them. Education is important.”
“We encourage “doctor-patient” relationships – DOT provides professional service based on
expertise: we diagnose the problem, and provide best remedy based on availability of resources.
The patients can’t demand specific service without having expertise and knowledge of details of the
problem. Thus we also try to teach “soft no” as opposed to abrupt response to citizens.”
“In an ideal world, agencies are open to meeting with the community. What can we do to solve their
problems? We try to avoid situations where it’s, “For your own good….” We’d like to recognize the
good and then educate you.”
“To provide specialized core services to meet specific needs of the city [residents] thereby
improving the quality of their lives. The city depends on our specialized expertise to relief
congestion and secure traffic safety.”
Department - Employee
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“Public employees’ main objective is to protect their ass. Bureaucracies act out of self-preservation.
They should not feel that they are risking anything. They should be encouraged to make decisions
to serve the consumer.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“Excellent. People there can only toot their horn so much. They have to work for the mayor.”
“Superiors in the department. Bureaucrats want to protect their jobs; if they are not forced to do it,
they won’t.”
Case Two - Department
“To take care of their constituents and get them everything they want. And then get re-elected.
[Laughs.] After 9 years [under term limits] it’s done. Our role is to help – and protect – the City
Council members. If somebody’s to be blamed, it’s DOT.”
“I don’t know. Sometimes if we don’t have a pressure from an elected official we don’t do
something. We understand there is a balance of power here. NCs advise council members. That is a
very politically ambiguous power sharing. Council members want to have NCs in check.”
210
Department - Information Provider
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“My primary role is to keep neighborhood councils advised of what DPW can do for them and to
keep DPW advised as to what neighborhood councils expect.”
Case Two - Department
[An agency official] disagreed. “That sounds like a legal issue. Our role is to make information
available to you,” he said, referring to environmental impact statements and traffic studies. “When
we issue a report, it’s public.” He noted that the department is precluded from rendering judgments.
“We can only release quantitative information without an opinion [because] development is a policy
matter decided by policymakers. [We’re] not on the policy or populist side. That’s your role.” [A
neighborhood council participant] replied, “It’s what policies are effective.” This distilled the
differing views of the department and some of the participants’ development-related objectives in
these sessions.
[An agency official] noted that the DOT is not the lead agency in the development process. “It’s
Planning, and it goes before the PLUM committee, and City Council. We are information gatherers.
The longer agreement is well-intended, but there is so much on planning issues and early
notification [in it]. All we can offer is that we get you the information that you need.” He added that
the DOT works in the “here and now,” rather than planning months ahead, and so early notification
of policy changes may not be appropriate as with Planning. [A second agency official] added, “We
don’t do development – we do stop signs. Notification [referring to section 2 in the draft]? I can’t do
that.”
Our role is to make information available to you,” he said, referring to environmental impact
statements and traffic studies. “When we issue a report, it’s public.” He noted that the department is
precluded from rendering judgments. “We can only release quantitative information without an
opinion [because] development is a policy matter decided by policymakers. [We’re] not on the
policy or populist side. That’s your role.”
"The departments’ role with regards to NCs is to provide information about our services and
enhance our services through interaction with NCs."
"We are information gatherers....All we can offer is that we get you the information that you need.”
Neighborhood Council (without further role definition)
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“Until [NCs] become more proactive and less complaining, less a watchdog, they are not going to be
functional within the city or on their own.”
“What was dispelled by [the] meetings is that NCs are not just a tool of the city.”
211
[A neighborhood council participant] wants to “make Neighborhood councils as a new element in
the governing structure in Los Angeles, and “to rethink the whole thing top-to-bottom, connecting
city agencies with a piece of ground” in the form of the local community.
[A neighborhood council participant] said that there may be ways the community can lend a hand to
DPW. “You can come back to us [and say] ‘Here’s where the council can help us.’” Should the text
describe community involvement generally – such as by “formalizing the partnership on day-to-day
issues,” [A second neighborhood council participant] asked? Or be more specific on issues as [the
first participant] suggested? [A third neighborhood council participant] suggested that they
distinguish between plans and actions, that one item (#3) referred to “plans or ideas” while #4
concerned “concrete actions – ‘How councils can help you.’”
“In the past we had council members who were there for years and years. Now we have councilmen
who are dynamic, politicians, council people who are trying to make an impression and get the job
done at the same time. Neighborhood Councils are giving them another tool.”
“Neighborhood councils need to establish themselves as the go-to-agency for [neighborhood]
people.”
“Some of the NC participants don’t understand HOW the city departments work (I’m still trying to
figure it out) internally. I may be wrong, but I don’t see the internal system changing so we need to
figure out how to incorporate the NCs into it.”
As they assume responsibility, councils will have to adapt to a changing landscape. Fiscal
considerations such as budget deficits have been foregrounded by the recall race, but organizational
issues suggested by councils’ participation in the budget process suggest that councils will have to
adapt – as will the city departments themselves. [A neighborhood council participant] perhaps cut to
the heart of council responsibility when she said, “This assumes that NCs can develop an
educational plan to make this happen.”
Case One - Department
[An agency official]'s imperative was that “Neighborhood councils counter the influence of special
interests” to bring governance back to the local neighborhoods.
“In the best case scenario the council has a global view and the neighborhood council ultimately
have the say about the details.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“They should be more community oriented. I don’t want to put more work on [my local agency
official], but they need to be accessible.”
"The role of neighborhood councils is to be a more representative government at the grassroots
level."
“DOT has gained some exposure to NCs. NCs are out there. We want you to serve us. I want you to
take care of our problems.
212
“Not at all important. They’ve [departments] existed longer than we [neighborhood councils] have.
They have to recognize us, in spite of the mayor. We are not important yet. We focus community
needs, but departments/DOT does not recognize that yet.”
Case Two - Department
“There seems to be different definitions of NCs: if member or a president of the NC approaches us
would both be counted as [representing the] NCs?”
“They can help in improve the relationship in clarifying what NCs can do. They are skeptical about
NCs. They don’t show interest. Only sometimes.”
“They should be more important than they are right now. They are not as important because they
have not established boundaries [i.e. guidelines] yet for themselves and have not figured
out/identified what they can do best. They could become more established not only by
disseminating information, but also by identifying and addressing city’s structural/power issues.
There is so much energy in the community for change, but it is not organized/consolidated.”
“To represent their constituency to make improvements in their neighborhood by working with City
agencies, [to help them when] considering [department] priorities and constraints. [respondent spoke
of City Council prerogatives.] The NC says, “We told you what we want,” but I deal with 8 NCs [for
example] in that Council area. They’re [the NCs] advocates, but are they do get so focused that they
don’t provide a positive impact? Or on our relationship with the CD office? But if you don’t get
what you want [as an NC board member], how long will you be on your NC? It’s unpaid.”
“An attempt to provide representation so that grassroots level ideas/opinions can be better heard by
the city government.”
“Could have been more important if they could secure one voice of the community.”
“I see NCs as a more localized [hybrid of] council office, NC and HOA. We try to provide the same
services to NCs that we provide to City Council and Mayor’s office. We deal with issues as they
come up. Different people and different personalities generate different processes; we just try to do
our best. We do not have set expectations.”
“NCs are more important than HOA and block meetings because if their official democratic nature. I
tell NCs: considering the shortage of our resources we better do the job than talk. Attending
meetings require time.”
“Policy guidance, budget, and monitoring the city services.”
213
Neighborhood Council - Information Gatherer
Case One - Neighborhood Council
[A neighborhood council participant] wanted to “bring home city services and government close to
our neighborhoods,” and envisioned councils as a place where people can come to vent.” Vitalizing
the NC idea, she said, “means taking ‘venters’ and putting them to work – to give them a direction”
to prompt them towards action in the local community.
The role of council institutional knowledge was a serious matter, and one that the councils
themselves recognized clearly as their own responsibility.
We feel we can help you [the city] set the priorities – to be an information pipeline and also [in the
process] helping you with education.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“The relationship they wanted was for the neighborhood council to filter our salient requests. I am
now working with DOT to implement and an agreement with the City, to reduce traffic flow through
residential streets. They are balking, even though they are chartered to do this as part of a $750,000
settlement with Playa Vista. Another example is with metering traffic. I went through a process to
meter traffic, and now DOT wants to do a study. They want a community vote not only of residents
but users of local streets [respondent said in mocking disagreement]. Why should neighborhood
councils filter requests/complaints if the department is not accommodating the needs of the
neighborhoods.”
Case Two - Department
“In transportation NCs have to be a forum where issues are hashed up that generated unified voice.
We have lots of issues to deal with and would like to hear a consensual voice from the community.”
“Creating public mechanism to arrive at consensus on area-wide traffic issues. We expected the
NCs to be a mechanism to generate consensus on local issues and secure one voice, but thy still have
not incorporated some groups – we still have to attend block meetings and HOA meetings.”
Neighborhood Council - Accountability
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“We would like to be more involved in what gets done,” another boardmember said, “and to have
more choices as to what gets done.” Maybe the community can help the city avoid unnecessary
duplications and costs, she said.
214
Case One - Department
The need for accountability emerged as a clear theme. The councils representatives used the
opportunity of change to understand each other and each other’s obligations and responsibilities.
Progressive accountability means making sure things get done, [an agency official] said, while
reasonable expectations means nobody’s surprised – “so we all stay civic and flexible.” Recognizing
that councils were assuming ‘go-to’ status, several groups mentioned the need for council-level
liaisons or ‘point people’ with assigned responsibilities; they would parallel the city’s already-
implemented liaison-to-council program. Should snafus or dashed expectations arise, two groups
noted, the importance of the City Council office in mediating the process cannot be overlooked. “Go
to your council office,” one PW staffer urged.
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“Their role is to make city governments more participatory. They have to improve service delivery.
Unfortunately, we cannot make them take our advice.”
Neighborhood Council - Bridge
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“Its your life,” [a neighborhood council participant] said, emphasizing PW responsibility, “but it’s a
small piece of mine.” The onus should remain with PW? [the same participant] said, “If we go to our
stakeholders, we can say, ‘We’re going to be doing this,’ so they’ll know what to expect.”
“NCs are working as facilitators between citizens and government as I hoped.”
Case Two - Department
“We [at DOT] have to be sensitive to residents; we try to work with them. I think that all NCs are
valuable and useful, though there are situations, but we’d try to work through them. I think they’re
good – they involve the community for those who want to be involved.”
“We always have been accessible to public and HOA; NCs are one of the mediums between citizens
and DOT.”
“Initially in early stages of NCs formation DOT had instituted “NC ambassadors” to work as liaison
with NCs and DOT, but this idea withered away. It seems that current initiative - localized work
with NCs through district office – is working well.”
Neighborhood Council - Partner
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“We have to stop saying ‘we need’ and start thinking how we can help them in their job. For
example, citizens generally have prejudices – they are cynical about the government agencies and
presume that they waste tax moneys. That is why [NCs] need to help DPW to spread their message
out to citizens and build a supportive environment for them.”
215
"Neighborhood councils are not enemies of the city but rather work in partnership to get a maximum
number of ideas on what needs improvement."
[A neighborhood council participant] stressed the collaborative nature of the process, and that
Neighborhood councils are not enemies of the city but rather work in partnership to get a maximum
number of ideas on what needs improvement. [A second neighborhood council participant]
complained that city services are viewed at the local level as “a reactive thing” and that
neighborhood councils don’t see the prioritizing process at work behind the delivery of services. “It
only looks like a reactive process to us,” he said. “Why do some things get repaired and not others?
Why are some trees never properly trimmed?” He listed priorities as sidewalks; tree trimming; street
resurfacing.
[A neighborhood council participant] observed, “We have concerns that things that could be done
better, but we have a strong willingness to partner [in] a new way of doing business – an opportunity
to do something extraordinary,” he said. “We’ve got our shit together [in the east valley] and when it
comes to a group to be worked with, we represent a good group to come to [in order to] generate
some good stuff [ideas]. When you need something we can be here [for you].”
[A neighborhood council participant] was looking for a partnership between city departments and
neighborhoods to “recognize cost limitations and to use the process to educate neighborhood
councils about the limitations” at the city services level.
"We need to be treated equally. We need a regular update…or we’ll call on you [at DPW]. We need
to break down old barriers and come to an agreement” involving neighborhood councils as equal
partners.
Case One - Department
[An agency official] argued that both Neighborhood councils and departments have accountability,
so it is “a partnership.”
“We need to convince all other departments that neighborhood councils are here to stay and should
be given a place at the table.”
"DPW can work in concert with NCs to give them access to how and when we provide service."
Nevertheless, he said, councils are “a partner to me, to our department, and we need to discuss the
capabilities we have."
"Now we have a mayor, a council, and a Department of Public Works committed to giving
Neighborhood councils a partnership role with the Department, the Mayor and the city council.” His
ambition, he said, was “to make Neighborhood councils a partner with the City of Los Angeles.”
"We try to impress the notion to all neighborhood councils that we are looking for a parternship.”
“For the NC to be effective the city council needs to be ready to share power.”
“I think of the role of NCs as a partner. We now have the opportunity to go through a more detailed
review of stakeholder needs and conditions of the community to reflect better neighborhood needs.”
216
Neighborhood Council - Advisor
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“Our role is advisory with respect to issues of local concern. It is our job to give good advice, and
this advice is not to be ignored.”
Case One - Department
[An agency official] agreed that councils need a liaison to the department, just as the Department
was required to appoint a liaison. “We’ve done that,” he said. “We need an advisory voice [from the
councils] on big-picture public issues.” Sunshine Canyon landfill, he noted, is a $120 million issue.
“That’s [equivalent to] a few streets [to be paved], isn’t it [agency official]?” He replied, “That’s
about 400 miles of streets.” [The first agency official] was suggesting that councils need to grapple
with some of these issues too – and assume some responsibility.
“Maybe as a facilitator, when the neighborhood councils comes to the city council, [the city council]
starts seeing the tugging coming from different directions. Maybe they can help prioritize what
needs to happen.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
"The Law says NCs are advisory boards. They are a safety valve."
“NCs are in a position of influence city policy making. We manage to put in or shelve one of the
proposals to change the implementation of changes such as affordable housing and their changes.
We were not against that, but thought that it was poorly done. People now get a chance to get
involved in city affairs. Planning department is more involved, always seeking for advice. They have
to eliminate the barriers or iron curtains. City councils are not happy about our role and our power.”
“Neighborhood councils are in a position to influence the city council, certainly. We are hardly
going to turn someone around who is not a supporter, but we have the ability if they are open to us.
The department does not recognize this potential. The role of neighborhood councils is to be a more
representative government at the grassroots level. Representation alone at the city council level is
not enough. There are some city council members who recognize this, but their willingness to share
power is not consistent.”
“No importance. This applies not only to these 4 NCs, but also to the rest of the City of La’s NCs.
NCs are more sound than substance. DOT personnel know that NCs are advisory boards. This is
backed by the fact that the Mayor wants to reduce NCs’ actions to filling potholes or things like
that.”
“No. The Law says NCs are advisory boards. They are a safety valve. We have a lot of problems.
Few people come to our meetings. There are tensions between those that want to develop the
neighborhood and those that want to keep it as it is. Also, there are opportunities were people get
angry with us, because they do not know what we can do.”
“Yes. [Neighborhood Councils have power] particularly by working in coalition or with Council
members. We are advisory boards. A lot of council members are not interested in policy advice.”
217
Case Two - Department
“By being certified, NCs have access to City Hall that did not have before. They are an advisory
body.”
Neighborhood Council - Educator
Case One - Department
[A neighborhood council participant] returned to the councils’ “obligation” to hand down
information and perhaps prepare manuals to educate later members. “This is a marvelous
opportunity,” he said. “We could have committees, [and] people want to be involved.” [An agency
official] urged them to see the big picture – 6500 miles of streets – and urged that the councils’
perspective “has to be global.”
“Part of the mission is to educate the people about the services we provide to the best of our ability.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“Neighborhood councils can educate other neighborhood councils on what happened. It is all about
building relationships and exchanging information.” (I, DOT, 34, NC)
Case Two - Department
[A neighborhood council participant agreed. “It’s an NC responsibility to help educate the public”
on DOT issues. “NCs should commit to do it as a service.” The discussion turned to the NCs serving
as a conduit for information from DOT to stakeholders. One participant said, “Just to hand
information to [stakeholders] doesn’t explain it. The discussion turned to the MOU to perhaps
formalize an educative role by DOT at NC meetings. “Some councils don’t want us,” [an agency
official] said.
Provide NCs with input regarding future department policies. “Include NCs for feedback and input
because we live on these streets.” It was suggested that the DWP MOU offered an example for
better provision of information to neighborhoods and an emphasis on education of stakeholders.
“Initially my expectations of the NCs were high – I used to think “wow, what a great concept!” I
was hoping NCs would analyze the situation and come to consensus on issues. But is it hard for
them – to me it is more a rarity than a norm if they achieve consensus. Therefore I am cautious of
accepting voices from individual members of NCs as the voice of the entire community, and I try to
assess those voices in context. NCs are better for disseminating information.”
“NC system is another formalized mechanism for us to get our message out to the public. I see NCs
as localized but not unified voice of citizens. My current expectations of the NCs are not as high as
when they were formed.”
“NCs are generally receptive - they try to disseminate information to their members. Few
individuals in NCs tend to be rather negative by challenging our recommendations and claiming that
we did not hear them. It was easier to work with the NCs with traffic committees of some of the NCs
that were more informed and better connected with their board and members.”
218
Neighborhood Council - Advocate for Department
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“When the department does something good, neighborhood councils need to support them. Don’t
just grumble. Our job as community leaders is to get attention and support for the department when
they deserve it.”
Case One - Department
[An agency official] suggested that councils are good for city departments, too. “Neighborhood
councils are terrific public works advocates,” he said, “to get us the funding for infrastructure” and
other necessary department efforts.
“Neighborhood councils are terrific public works advocates,” he said, “to get us the funding for
infrastructure” and other necessary department efforts.
“People from the neighborhood councils are now acting as spokespeople to other neighborhood
groups on behalf of the department… that’s trust.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
[An agency official] replied, “We don’t have a problem with you being an advocate [for DOT], we
don’t have many.” This recalled the earlier plenary discussion about resource limitations. [A
neighborhood council participant] agreed. “I like ‘advocate.’ It’s the NCs’ responsibility,”
suggesting that an advocacy role should be formalized in the MOU. [The same agency official]
replied, “If you decide you want to initiate that, fine, but we can’t put it in [to the document]. If you
want to have a traffic committee spread the word, it’s a wonderful vehicle for us.”
Case Two - Department
“They’re important. They can be an advocate for us. They can meet with us, then go back to the
community and explain what we can’t do: “We asked DOT and here’s why not…” That they can
help us spread the word. We’re not able to say yes to everything.”
“We hope they can pressure for more budget for us.”
The discussion over the particulars of the longer document and wordsmithing of it consumed much
time. One participant said, “We had talked about advising on funding to improve delivery of DOT
services, and it might mean politically.” [An agency official] replied, “We don’t have a problem
with you being an advocate [for DOT], we don’t have many.” This recalled the earlier plenary
discussion about resource limitations. [A neighborhood council participant] agreed. “I like
‘advocate.’ It’s the NCs’ responsibility,” suggesting that an advocacy role should be formalized in
the MOU. [The same agency official] replied, “If you decide you want to initiate that, fine, but we
can’t put it in [to the document]. If you want to have a traffic committee spread the word, it’s a
wonderful vehicle for us.”
They can be an advocate for us. They can meet with us, then go back to the community and explain
what we can’t do: “We asked DOT and here’s why not…”
219
Neighborhood Council -- Advocate for Community
Case One - Neighborhood Council
"You’re speaking for the people,” [a neighborhood council participant] said. “So you’ve got to give
a voice to the people.” Set up a mechanism for stakeholder input, she suggested.
“NCs should be a stronger advocacy group. If DPW is not picking up couches, we have to be more
forceful in letting them know we want the job done.”
[A neighborhood council participant] disagreed. “To expect boards to be involved with each
department is not realistic….[but] councils should commit to having standing committees – three to
four people – to have responsibility to train new people. The burden should not be on the department
[of DPW].” [A seonc neighborhood council participant] agreed, saying, “We have to give up our
Saturdays or it will not work.” “But we can’t commit for other people,” [A third neighborhood
council participant] objected, referring to other boardmembers. She added, “The education process is
the most crucial: I don’t have the understanding – I haven’t got a clue about what you [DPW] do. I
don’t feel equipped to make decisions. Educate me and then I can lend my voice.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“There is culture change that will have to be vetted for city agencies for dealing with NC's. We are
there at the table and we speak for the residents of LA. NC's have become sounding boards for far
too many frustrated people in LA and they don't like the way things work. We are responding to our
constituents in a way that their local councilmembers do not. Given time I would say that in 10
years local government may be different in its response to NC's. The smart manager will see this
and guide the boat in that direction.”
"We are there at the table and we speak for the residents of LA. NC's have become sounding boards
for far too many frustrated people in LA and they don't like the way things work. We are
responding to our constituents in a way that their local councilmembers do not. Given time I would
say that in 10 years local government may be different in its response to NC's."
Case Two - Department
“The role of NCs is to provide opportunity for citizens to have access to City Hall and government
and help citizens’ voices to be heard in shaping policy. NCs, in addition to CC, give more
independence and empowerment, especially for those citizens who are not heard by other
mechanisms in place.”
“They are the voice of citizens. They are a grassroots movement. They exert some influence. We
have tried to get endorsement in some projects, but they shy away of controversial projects. In some
cases, they just don’t want to exert that influence. NCs are having problems in defining their area of
influence. There are differences between some subgroups and NCs.”
220
"NCs should represent the whole community and not merely the concerns of individual board
members. There was concern on the department side that particular issues could be advanced that
don’t speak to community priorities but rather reflect specific individuals’ needs – such as securing a
stop sign – that take away department resources."
“Could have been more important if they could secure one voice of the community.”
“I look to neighborhood councils to be representative of neighborhoods, to speak for the
neighborhood about their issues.”
“In ideal sense they are supposed to represent their constituency on governance and figure out what
is in the best interest of the community. Their role is also to guide us (departments) in providing our
services to the community. In practice these are hard to achieve, especially after term-limits, given
that they cover large areas. Also, it is hard to figure out what is in community’s best interest.”
City Council (without further role definition)
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“They are a lawmaking body. They don’t have a good grasp of how to work with departments.”
“Change in culture. They should embrace the opinion of the public. The City should empower and
improve representation.”
“City government should be more responsible to taxpayers of the City. Do away with pet projects,
offer slow growth.”
Case Two - Department
“Represent our residents. It is good to have NCs, but it is also good to have one CC member who
takes responsibility and provides leadership.”
Un-Coded
Case One - Department
"But you’re now charged with being part of the decision-making process."
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“Represent neighborhood councils to the City. They should not represent people with the deepest
pockets.”
Neighborhood Council, Agency, and City Council Role
Case One - Department
[An agency official] suggested a three legged stool metaphor: The mayor sets the vision; the
councilperson has a geographical area to address; and the Neighborhood councils have to know the
neighborhoods. “We have to keep the focus that we’re one big city – the global view. There are
some areas who need services but are not a drain,” or should not be thought that way.
221
COMMUNICATION-HOW SUB-CATEGORIES
Facilitating Communication
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“Ongoing dialogue… or we will slip into the place we were before.”
“Realistically, we’re shooting for FY 05-06 – [but] it’s not what everybody wants to hear.” The most
important thing is that process leads to enhanced communication “to catch things before they begin
to fester.”
“The challenge is in how we communicate how significant the process was without having all
neighborhood councils and departments go through it. There are just so many of them.”
“The relationship between departments and the NC's will require a member on each side to be the
point person. Without that ONE contact on each side the relationship could become very frustrating
and ineffective.”
“We need communication, to keep listening to each other, resolving difficulties with the same
spirit.”
"[We need a] process for the neighborhood councils and the city agencies to understand each other
needs to be developed. [A neighborhood council participant] then said that some form of middle
ground where both neighborhood councils and city agencies can interact needs to be developed."
[A neighborhood council participant] then lead on to the next point. She said that technology existed
to overcome the problems and she wanted ideas on the ways of communication, both in and out."
[A neighborhood council participant] said, “There still needs to be buy-in. When they get mad --
[when] their streets are not resurfaced – we can say, ‘there’s a neighborhood-level process’ and we
can say, ‘Were you party to the process? No? Okay….’”
She wanted ideas on the ways of communication, both in and out. She stressed that not only should
the city agency be able to communicate with the citizens but the reverse flow should also be
possible.
"The same two way communication should happen between the neighborhood council and its
members."
[A neighborhood council participant] started the discussion by suggesting that web based
communication could be used because it is easy and efficient. Some of the other participants had
words of caution."
Case One - Department
“Everything pointed toward better communication through the written plan.”
“I encourage transparency and communication.”
[A neighborhood council participant] asked how are the city council or the mayor educated?
“Perhaps DPW could have a day to invite regional neighborhood councils for education [in]
‘everything DPW.” [An agency official] noted that like the city council, “You are sitting in
judgement of the programs…."
[An agency official] suggested that high technology may be the answer -- that cell phones would
allow city workers to make immediate calls for service. This caused some disagreement among
Public Works about what encourages efficiency."
Group A2-[C3] called this process “a little like dating – do you like the other person? How do you
tell a story to each other?” In other words, how to get the communication started?"
222
[A neighborhood council participant] felt that though outreach was important, too much was being
asked of the neighborhood council and the city needs to do a lot more. [Two agency officials] also
stressed the need for two way communication between the city agencies and the neighborhood
councils."
[A neighborhood council paricipant] suggested the use of graphics and pictures as an easier way for
the common person to understand technical material. [An agency official] suggested that the city can
force the cable operators to carry neighborhood council information."
Next they mentioned NC-PW communication – from attending meetings to developing a joint NC-
PW website to tackle PW issues and services. “Use the telephone to communicate,” the group said.
(perhaps the only mention of the venerable technology at this event).
[Two agency officials] also stressed the need for two way communication between the city agencies
and the neighborhood councils. [A third agency official] thought it would be good idea to have a
liaison person nominated by the city agencies to deal with the neighborhood councils.
[An agency official] complimented the “timely, ongoing, two-way communication” clause. “It’s
good – it’s specific.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“As much as they know what the needs are. How they know the needs is a mechanism that needs to
be changed. For example, we want access of notifications. They are not willing to share
complaints/notifications. Information is a valuable tool."
“Representatives of the department need to be open to neighborhood councils. Neighborhood
councils need to communicate gently, no hotheads.”
Case Two - Department
“Departments should participate in meetings, sharing information. With the Internet, they have a
better ability to share information.”
Other NCs, especially those with transportation committees, are more well-informed and easier to
work with; they are better communicators with their boards and constituents.”
Formal Communication
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“311 has helped to centralize excess, multiple voices, into one place.”
“What is needed is a ‘point-person’” at both council and Public Works ends, to be able to look at
services not only at the micro level but at the macro level.
Another said, “I ask myself, ‘Who do I call for what?’ Is there an interdepartmental coordinator?”
How do councils navigate departmental boundaries, for example?"
[A neighborhood council participant again raised the issue of information sharing]. She wanted to
form committees of neighborhood councils and the DPW to educate the people for about 3 to 6
months. Later the priorities of the community could be ascertained.
[A city council office observer] raised the issue about whom to call at which place to get things
done. [A neighborhood council participant] agreed. She said that right now she calls [a city council
office deputy] at the council member office for lack of any other name in the city agencies.
223
[A neighborhood council participant] suggested that there is public service announcement potential
through a city TV channel.
She then asked whether the DPW could appoint liaison persons to interact with the neighborhood
councils. [An agency official] said that mini-conferences at the seven service areas level would be
possible.
She wanted to form committees of the neighborhood councils and the DPW to educate the people
for about 3 to 6 months.
[The mayor] wants you meeting regularly with the departments’ general managers so you have an
access person” in the system.
[A neighborhood council participant] thought email is very good, but that regular posted meetings
were important too.
Case One - Department
“There’s not a direct line between the NC and city services” but requests sometimes should be
routed through the council office.
“We now have a specific professional dialogue [with the four NCs].”
Create a classification of neighborhood council liaisons at the management level and fund them at
that level.”
[An agency official] mentioned that all city departments have a designated liaison “and they have
the onus to follow-up” with NCs. “We do that and report back to you, but we need a NC contact
person."
Group A1-[?] [An agency official] mentioned that all city departments have a designated liaison
“and they have the onus to follow-up” with NCs. “We do that and report back to you, but we need a
NC contact person” because NCs are now the ‘go-to’ organization at the community level."
Group B1-C2 stressed the NC-PW communication as most important, and suggested workshops,
training sessions, point people, and most importantly assigned responsibilities. ‘24/7’ accountability
means having everyone take advantage of meeting opportunities.
[An agency official] introduced the idea of a block captain to be the liaison for mini-districts within
the neighborhood council area. [A second agency official] supported this idea as the block captain
could become the point person for that area. [A third agency officail] agreed.
She suggested that local newspapers could be tapped to communicate neighborhood council
information. [An agency official] and [a neighborhood council participant] said that it was a good
idea but cautioned that local news papers charge quite steeply to carry such information.
The first group, C1-[?], foregrounded NC-stakeholder communications and stressed that they should
use existing tools from websites to newspaper and newsletters -- as well as distribute City-prepared
fact sheets and prepare public service announcements.
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“DOT managers should write a letter. “We hope we have opened lines of communication from
USC.””
“I do not foresee and disadvantages to an "agreement" if it written in a broad manner and outlines
the role each side wishes the other to take in clear layman's language so that all NC participants
clearing can understand what issues are appropriate..."
224
[A neighborhood council participant] suggested concentrating on issues that could be resolved in
this session. The issues of information and notification continued to concern NC participants."
Create channels between bureaucracies is important – e.g. zoning and zoning changes requires
channels between DOT and Planning. Departments are too isolated and need to become more multi-
disciplinary. This will help neighborhood councils interact with [the city].
"Standardize communication (like the City Council)."
Case Two - Department
“I am a liaison from DOT to work locally with the council districts #5 and #11. However our
relationship with local council office is not regularized; we interact also on issue basis. (My offer to
work with them regularly did not materialize)."
[An agency official] called the DOT a “point of contact” for NCs on information. “If it’s planning or
transit, our person will tell commit to being there at the next meeting.” He said that these sessions
offered a relationship with the department.
[Agency official]: The Office for Transportation Services is the department as far as the topics above
are concerned. [A second agency official]: Please refer to the TIPS guide on our website. For every
issue on every page of the website, there is a number that can be called."
[Agency official]: Please refer to the TIPS guide on our website. For every issue on every page of
the website, there is a number that can be called to address that problem. On the front page, there is
also a list of frequently called numbers.
Hindering Communication
Case One - Neighborhood Council
A boardmember suggested that the information which arrived via email “is too long, too, technical,
and too confusing” to be of much use to the average boardmember. “We need to have things done in
plain English [for us] to act upon. Most of it is way over our head."
Occasionally the operational side of that relationship was raised also. A boardmember suggested that
the information which arrived via email “is too long, too, technical, and too confusing” to be of
much use to the average boardmember.
Case One - Department
I can help tell other people what to tell other people to tell the mayor. The stakeholders are more
education and more involved then than they used to be… with higher analytical skills.”
[A neighborhood council participant] asked about the feasibility of putting the assessment online.
“Some of that is already online,” [an agency official] said. [A second neighborhood council
participant] said that websites would not be enough. “People don’t attend to it…we may need fliers,
and driving around….”
[A neighborhood council participant] said that web based communication is easy but not always
efficient. [An agency official] said that IT communication has problems of information overload. [A
second neighborhood council participant] felt that not every one could easily access a computer and
the internet to be able access web-based content.
225
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“They were clearly not used to doing it, but they seemed open to sharing information.”
"How all the communications we talked about could happen was lacking. We need to define
procedures that make our communications a requirement.”
Case Two - Department
"Some CC members are more cooperative and try to talk to us on relevant issues before making
decision. Some even use our information brochure and use our language in their policy documents
(such as reports). However, some CC members prefer not talking to us."
Informal Communication
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“We’re developing common language, ideas, and approaches so that everybody works in good
faith,”
And they suggested “follow-up communications to understand how the city responds to
Neighborhood councils in a “substantive way.”
Case One - Department
Communication emerged as a critical consideration, too. Two of the groups essentially asked, How
do you tell a story to each other? Tools such as websites, meetings, newspaper announcements and
newsletters were underscored as important…
NC-Stakeholder communication is important too, and they identified town halls; dual press releases;
information fairs; and working electronically with stakeholders as important mechanisms “so we can
all communicate.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“DOT can do what they said. They said they will take out phone calls and meet us personally, so we
will get what we are asking for; it just won’t be blessed with a signature.”
“Information sharing is important; it is the whole basis of neighborhood councils.”
“Making friends. By using several communication means, such as City Watch or blogs (grassroots
movements). There are several examples of the Mayor and City of LA not interested in these
topics.”
“Neighborhood Councils are the first line of information.”
Case Two - Department
NCs are better for disseminating information.”
The Power of Communication
Case One - Department
“We are trying to embrace the notion that our success is based on working with the community."
"Communication is fundamental, and we are using it as a tool now to get things done.”
[An agency official] suggested that communication was the major benefit of the last session. “We
got a lot off our chest,” he said, “and now we can get more focused” on creating an effective system.
226
CURRENT INTERACTIONS SUB-CATEGORIES
Evaluation
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“Departments would feel less besieged if they had somebody to attend to neighborhood councils.”
“I am not aware of the details of how city government works to suggest specific changes.”
“I want to be proactive, to address things before they become a big problem.’
“The interaction between the DPW and the NC represented seems lively and productive at the same
time. We have been open with each other and everyone appears to be working hard toward the
accomplishment of our mutual goals.”
Case One - Department
“I have a lot of respect for the depth and breadth of the neighborhood council representatives we
worked with.”
“No, but there is lots of tugging from different directions. There are lots of people pulling us… but
this isn’t anything new.”
Discussion followed regarding the complexity of the process, and the need for councils to dialog in
order to address needs in common.
“The Department of Public Works has been working with neighborhood councils."
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“Departments should go to NCs meetings. This could be seen as a symbol. They should be more
visible for the community.”
“Extremely open.”
“First of all, they were there. They were very friendly and gracious. Unfortunately, they offered
nothing. They had a very good attitude towards the process, but nothing interesting came up from
them."
“I trust the people, not the department policies.”
“Yes – neighborhood councils are individuals; we vote them in. [City Councilwoman] Janice Hahn
has neighborhood councils hash out an issue to take the brunt off her shoulders. Sometimes
uninformed community preferences trump expertise because of this.”
“Yes – they broke from their usual style of work and were open.”
"Relationships are qualified on personalities, not position.”
Understand that DOT is willing to react to neighborhood/neighborhood council concerns. “It seems
one-way: it goes in, but it doesn’t come out.”
“They had to overcome their culture. It is something that is part of the whole system. They should be
more responsive and overcome the routine. The newly appointed General Manager has a good
attitude. They did not have more authority to be more engaged."
227
Case Two - Department
“Each of the 15 City Council (CC) members has own distinct style of leadership and method of
working with us, hence we have different relationships with each. Some CC members are more
cooperative and try to talk to us on relevant issues before making dececisions."
“Every NC is different. Sometimes I don’t look forward to attending the meetings of the NCs where
personal interests tend to dominate. Other NCs, especially those with transportation committees, are
more well-informed and easier to work with."
“I attended few meetings of NCs in Harbor area. At one meeting we observed an awkward situation
where the NC president pressed for the traffic calming measures on the road that runs next to his
home. Sometimes we have to be cautious of [those types of] individuals."
“I have personal experiences with committees, not boards. Mostly it’s in and out, but fairly positive.
I could let them see what my role (and DOT) is and with some (in Studio City) an ongoing
relationship."
“In San Pedro, [a local official] has good relations. I don’t know about the other neighborhood
councils.”
“La Bonge and Ludlow – we work closely; at times we collaborate. At times we agree, but we try to
develop and maintain a good working relationship to help them and their staff to understand how we
operate. What we can and can’t do, to help their constituents."
“Positive. I have been assigned as one of the ambassadors to NCs from DOT. My assignment
includes Western district which overlaps with Council districts #5 and #11. I met with some NC at
the level of [traffic] committees and individuals."
“Positive. There are bound to be differences because each city council office differs. Since we went
organizational change we work more closely with the local CC staff. Positive. We work separately
with each CC office because their priorities and issues differ."
“Street signs. You want to be able to convince all of the people. We don’t expect by-off, but only
that people accept the reasoning [behind DOT decisions]."
“We are generally encouraged to work with NCs but the department leadership has to show more
attention to the importance of public relations. I am comfortable with attending NC meetings, but
some of my colleagues are not."
“We are meeting some of the needs.”
“We encourage our employees to interact with NCs positively and show “can-do” attitude.”
“The more we interact, the more we have trust. However our interaction is sometimes hindered by
the vested interests who lobby NCs to push us for certain measures."
“They were fairly organized, but we cannot really say that they are more important than others. We
work with more than 20 NCs.”
Feedback
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“We are in touch with people every day, so there was not anything that has changed.”
228
Case One - Department
“Pre-NCs the modus operandi was to sit down with engineers, plan, pilot, make a judgment and
implement. For instance recycling bins – we got people together, not residents, to determine that
bigger bins are better. [Respondent goes on to describe how they now get community feedback]."
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“Willingness to work with the community. They have to remember that people live there and they
can help in addressing the problems, particularly, in terms of transportation problems.”
Case Two - Department
“As much interaction as we can afford given our resource limitations. They want us to be aware of
what is going on among our customers, in the NCs local community so that issues raised by Mayor
and City Council did not come as surprise.”
“I wish I could engage more with NCs on routine basis, but I simply don’t have enough time.
However I keep track of the developments in NCs through their email listserves, and they know who
I am and who to call.”
Partnership
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“DPW has a better appreciation for us. It is recognized that we are not against them, and they are
not against us.”
But the linkage, he suggested, between the two is important. I think [to myself], ‘That’s easily
addressed if we bring it to your attention,” he said. “I want to be proactive, to address things before
they become a big problem.’"
[A neighborhood council participant] suggested that working proactively is more efficient that
working reactively – the existing state of affairs – and that, “If we are able to explain away enough
[to our community] then we can take away 20% of your [load]."
Case One - Department
“Be in partnership,” [an agency official] said, suggesting that councils get together with their City
Council office for outreach.
[An agency official] said that being proactive is not waiting for service requests but rather
“addressing quality-of-life issues through surveillance and enforcement."
[An agency official] said that “there will be no greater alliance than between Public Works and
neighborhood councils. Public Works impacts your life every day."
First impressions revealed that “we could do something for them and them for us.”
Moving past the proactive-reactive dynamic, [an agency official] said that being proactive is not
waiting for service requests but rather “addressing quality-of-life issues through surveillance and
enforcement."
Neighborhood councils will come together in an area to meet with me and send representatives to
these cabinet meetings to interface with who you need services from,” such as money spent on street
lighting.
229
“[Elected officials] should be middle ground, not a filter. They should be aware of the interactions.”
Who can get something done means learning how to interact with the city to get things done in your
area. It is of importance both to councils and to the Department of Public Works, he said, and
stressed the importance of “putting faces to names.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“Lots of things have to be done in this area. They are more responsive because of the noise in the
community. DOT and CALTRANS should work together if not DOT cannot do anything.”
“Probably, [trust] went form more to some. We can work together.”
Case Two - Department
“[The department's] office of transportation opportunity. They deal with NCs, and he’s made it
clear: Work with NCs and meet with them. Provide a positive image of the department. [The
philosophy is, respondent said,] “How can we work with the NCs?””
“We are here to work for them. We are willing to offer up whatever we can to help their cause.”
“We often don’t get opportunity to interact with public due to shortage of resources, but we need to
understand that public relations is important part of our work."
Regular Interaction
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“Everybody needs to be 100% responsive. Departments should have a list of names of
neighborhood council representatives to easily recognize and respond to these people.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“It is hard to say without creating more bureaucracy. Create channels between bureaucracies is
important – e.g. zoning and zoning changes requires channels between DOT and Planning.
Departments are too isolated and need to become more multi-disciplinary."
Develop a personal relationship with DOT. “There’s a formal process, but often it’s personal
relationships that get things done.” He said that the group wants “somebody inside the department”
to handle neighborhood requests and inquiries.
Hold regular meetings with neighborhoods. “And not just neighborhood councils,” [a neighborhood
council participant] said, adding that other community groups are important too.
"The door has been opened and we limited four NCs may choose to step in and develop further
levels of interaction.”
230
Case Two - Department
“DOT at district level offices attend NC meetings, some of which happen on weekends and at night
times. We were invited to the NW Harbor City NC for their annual meeting to report on most
important issues; [City Councilwoman] Janice Hahn was there too.”
“DOT works with NCs directly and on day-to-day basis at the local level through designated district
level senior engineers. Higher level or more “sensitive” issues are then dealt with higher/more
central level officers.”
“I attended three meetings of the Teamwork LA.”
“I haven’t been close enough to it. The way we work, its’ a senior transportation engineer in district
offices, and they’re good people – very diplomatic.”
“I normally don’t work with NCs on day-to-day basis because it is our district level senior
engineers’ job. I work with larger issues representing NCs. For example, at the former Mayor’s
budget day initiative I represented DOT at our booth."
“Our management leaders encourage us to have a lot of interactions – to the extent that NCs invite
us in."
"So far my experience of NCs was on the person-to-person basis, as opposed to working with the
NC at large. I will be attending the Valley Alliance meeting next week and this will be my first
meeting with NCs at large.”
“The meetings and interaction with NCs is an opportunity to educate the public about complexities
of our job, and help them understand why some problems are hard to solve. Once they understand
we are a step ahead.”
“[Neighborhood councils] seem to have some bureaucratic process as we do, for example getting
items on their meeting agenda."
"Working with an ah-hoc project on specific topic I attended couple of issue-based meetings of NCs
and spoke on a specific topic and answered their questions. I don’t work with NCs routinely, but on
issue-basis."
Un-Coded
Case One - Department
“When the neighborhood councils are able to take the Annual Service Plan to the City Council
offices and say ‘here we are, and this is what we want.’”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“Have a picnic, get some face to face. With or without a signature, it doesn’t matter unless
somebody plans to sue. A marriage license is only important at breakup time. We agreed to stuff
that already exists. Now it either is or is not happening.”
231
PRIORITIES/PROBLEM DEFINITION
Case One -- Neighborhood Council
“Understanding the department process and how they determine their priorities is important to the
quality of interactive dialog which will be given by NC's. Without such an understanding a lot of
"unrealistic" requests in a micro direction instead of macro which I feel is necessary for a successful
process between the NC's and any of the departments.”
“It only looks like a reactive process to us,” he said. “Why do some things get repaired and not
others? Why are some trees never properly trimmed?” He listed priorities as sidewalks; tree
trimming; street resurfacing.
“When we educate one another, priorities become more attainable.”
A boardmember said, “Maybe one of our priorities concerns the education of the community?”
Group two took a more problem-oriented approach, stressing bulky item pickup; street resurfacing,
and sidewalk repair as priorities. [A neighborhood council participant], though, suggested that
education and communication was critical “to communicate with the city in a way that sticks” at the
neighborhood level. “But we need resources [such as] personnel [i.e. NC volunteers] and a paid staff
to better outreach” to the community.
"[The mayor] really wants Neighborhood councils to shape city department budget priorities."
[A neighborhood council participant] said that as far as she knew, a system already exists in the
DPW. [An agency official] said that they have a system of giving priority to requests coming in
through the mayor’s or the council member’s office. They could provide a similar priority to
requests coming from the neighborhood councils.
[A neighborhood council participant] said, “We started [in our group] by defining what Public
Works is….That’s how we started with education [as a priority]. People need to know the go-to-
person,” she said.
[A neighborhood council participant] complained that city services are viewed at the local level as
“a reactive thing” and that neighborhood councils don’t see the prioritizing process at work behind
the delivery of services.
Case One -- Department
“’100 miles of failed streets’ – this expression we have conveys the message that there are many
problems/needs, but we have to prioritize them and deliver our services most efficiently.”
“Every year we assess the streets,” [an agency official] said. “You may have 700 miles which need
improvement equally, but you’ve got only 70 miles” allowance for repaving. “You are going to have
to make your priorities.”
“Sometimes it is easy to make a choice – public safety is one such criterion.”
“We are not going to have money to get everything done. There is always going to be a prioritization
process. Now neighborhood councils will have their voices heard in that process, just as when the
Mayor’s voice is at the table.”
“We really have to work through the city council because we need coordination and prioritization.”
232
“Who gets priority,” he said, depended on councils taking the reins. “The Mayor’s my boss but the
city council controls the money. It’s a fine line we walk.” Moving the focus back to Neighborhood
councils, he said, “We think outside the box – we stretch it to deliver services and develop
partnerships to change the way the city does business [but] it’s time for the neighborhoods to take
control. When you prioritize your needs based on available funding you get things done. We’ll see
you calling the shots.”
[Agency official]: “We’re all in agreement on education?” [To wide agreement] [A neighborhood
council participant] asked if priorities should rather be thought about as problems…. “That’s another
session,” [the same agency official] said. “Now we need our three priorities. Funding: is everyone in
agreement?” [Yes] [A city council office observer] then suggested that technology does free up
resources. [The same agency official] said, with a laugh, “We’ve actually taken cell phones away
from people [to increase efficiency].” The session wrapped up by identifying the three priorities on
the general level, not as problems but as issues.
[An agency official] urged thinking of it as a quid-pro-quo: “Los Angeles airport neighborhoods
should get their library,” he said, given their sacrifice because we don’t want to drive to Ontario, and
“We should say to Granada Hills [suffering the landfill], ‘OK – you get your trees first.’” [A
neighborhood council participant] suggested that it was the people on the City area edges who get
lost -- perhaps like Granada Hills bearing the burden of the landfill nearby. “We don’t know what to
do with their problems. ‘OK, now I’ve got to deal with this other city.’ How to make that work
easier?”
Group C1-A3 suggested that mission and vision were paramount. “The vision means, Where do we
want to be in three months, or one year? The mission means, What do we want to accomplish?” A
working plan based on PW would begin with a needs assessment to highlight prior
accomplishments, the group said. Next, changes could be made to facilitate PW response to
councils -- such as stamping service requests with a council imprimatur. “You’ve got a hot,
prioritized request,” [the group presenter] said. “A big, red ‘NC’ would tell us that you have a
concern to be addressed.” Education would inform the effort too. Learning about unit costs, for
example, would inform the NC about “how far the dollar goes for a ton of concrete.” The working
plan, they said, could be implemented in 9-12 months, though they suggested amending the Brown
Act may be desirable.
[A city council office observer] asked, “Should investing in technology be a priority? I don’t know if
technology is one of the priorities.” [An agency official] suggested it was a resources issue. [The
city council office observer] agreed. “We don’t have the money to fund new trucks.” [A
neighborhood council participant] agreed, “Money is critical, and Neighborhood councils are the
squeaky wheel. How could we fight to get empowered?” [A second neighborhood council
participant] followed up, “Resources as one of the priorities?” But [a second agency official]
suggested that technology saves money.
[An observer from a city council office] clarified, “That’s DOT." [An agency official] said, “Streets
[for example] are many different things – slurrying, repaving, etc.,” and “could be general enough
for a priority” he suggested, “but the other thing is infrastructure.” [A neighborhood council
participant] commented, “I don’t think it is one specific thing….”
233
Later the priorities of the community could be ascertained. [An agency official] suggested that
infrastructure needs would be better basis for budget distribution, but [a neighborhood council
participant] said that the infrastructure needs priorities should emerge from the neighborhood
councils and the citizens.
Reflecting changes that could impact PW, [a neighbohorhood council participant] asked [an agency
official], “Are you willing to have NCs come in to restructure the [PW] street priority order?” “I
don’t want to re-do the whole system,” [the agency official] said – though he seemed open to
tailoring it. “I think we need a one-year ‘stakeout’” to arrive at a consensus concerning the planning
process. [A second neighborhood council participant] agreed, saying, “I think you need a year to
deal with it.” “We’re going to give needs out to council offices, [but] now we’ll have to go back [to
re-think it],” [the same agency official] said, remaining flexible. “The key is to include council
offices,” [the same official] said, agreeing with [a neighborhood council participant] concerning
maintaining contact to avoid future snafus.
[An neighborhood council participant] endorsed the ‘learning-on-the-job’ approach, saying,
“Eighteen months ago I didn’t know anything, but after one day….” He suggested that a “self-
sustaining structure” needs to be created. Spend an hour with them,” he said, of DPW. “Each council
needs to look at what their [own] priorities are – and then say to the city, ‘You’ve got to educate us.’
Perpetuate the knowledge.” Instead of educating an entire board, he suggested that they designate a
task person. “If you tried to understand every aspect….” [A second neighborhood council
participant] suggested that the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment ‘Empowerment
Academy’ could be a model, with the city departments using those classes to “come up with a
program within” to train council representatives. “Hone it” and evolve it according to the councils’
evolving base of knowledge. [An agency official] replied that DPW did give a class at the last
Congress of Neighborhood Councils. “We’re doing it already.” [A second agency official] asked if
any representatives present attended the DPW presentation at the DONE congress. None did. [A
third agency official] said, “We do one-day city council seminars” but he thought that knowledge
comes from sitting down and talking over specific issues. “What you [neighborhood councils] need
to know is: how to access the services; and why things are prioritized [by DPW] as they are. It
comes down to a level of trust, [and] there is mistrust because you don’t have that ‘connect’….You
don’t get that one-to-one with us.” [The second agency official] agreed. “We have continual
briefings with the city council,” he said. “It’s OJT -- on the job training – a continual education.” He
suggested that neighborhood councils “focus on how we interact and how we prioritize,” adding,
“We’ve [at DPW] made this commitment to being here.” [A third neighborhood council participant]
returned to the councils’ “obligation” to hand down information and perhaps prepare manuals to
educate later members. “This is a marvelous opportunity,” he said. “We could have committees,
[and] people want to be involved.” [The second agency official] urged them to see the big picture –
6500 miles of streets – and urged that the councils’ perspective “has to be global.”
Case Two -- Neighborhood Council
“They are effective in their tasks; their selection of tasks is wrong.”
Prioritize community concerns and designate someone in DOT to represent those concerns. “So
they’re not just thrown into the pot,” [a neighborhood council participant] said.
"Prioritize service requests through the NC to the appropriate person/office within the DOT."
234
Case Two -- Department
“The transportation issues in the city are complicated, and we, engineers, feel helpless and only can
put band-aids such as speed bumps and stop signs. However those band-aids are not sufficient to
address the long-term problems, but aggravate them as frustration and traffic volume grows.”
[Agency official]: "Responding to the LAUSD question, DOT cannot enforce traffic violations on its
own, therefore it needs the consent of the school before it can enforce. The larger problem is that in
the past LAUSD used to consult DOT before it picked school locations. Now with more than 100
new schools proposed, the LAUSD is also under pressure to build quickly so it is not consulting
DOT. They pick the site and just inform DOT. Since they are a State entity, they do not have to
obtain any clearances from DOT like other private builders. So the new schools do not have
adequate traffic mitigation plans."
235
FUNDING/BUDGET/RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Case One -- Neighborhood Council
“But we need resources [such as] personnel [i.e. NC volunteers] and a paid staff to better
outreach” to the community."
He said that the intent behind the proposal was good but he felt that the mechanics were
troublesome. Decision-making about public funds could create legal problems.
[Neighborhood council participant]: “If safety is taking a massive part of the budget, communities
can take the lead” to relax that drain on the budget by coming up with local solutions.
[A neighborhood council participant] was “nudged to come down” but resides “on the fence,” he
said. “Unless there’s a bigger budget, we may be fighting an uphill battle” for improved services.
“But if everybody on my block heard your guys, they would have a changed opinion….[Here it’s]
not a bureaucracy or a phone menu.” He noted that participation was key, saying, “Then we
wouldn’t just be frustrated taxpayers.” How could councils contribute to that budget for Public
Works?
Case One -- Department
“Budget is the bottom line.”
“I don’t have an answer. It’s a matter of getting as much done as you can, and, of course, it’s all
about funding. It’s a juggling act.”
“Money is the major hurdle. We can still run the race, but the budget is tight.”
“Put money where the mouth is. The Mayor has directed every department to have executive
liaisons to neighborhood councils. No money has been allocated for these positions. DONE just
got its budget cut. All 43 departments should have a funded position to deal with neighborhood
councils, at least for proprietary departments and operating departments. Create a classification of
neighborhood council liaisons at the management level and fund them at that level.”
“The next step will be when we actually meet and say ‘here is the funding allocation, how are you
going to impact that?’”
“Until we ‘government’ decide that we are going to assign full time positions to work with the
neighborhood councils it will continue to be a challenge.”
[An agency official] wanted to emphasize to Neighborhood councils that city departments “are
limited in our funding” for neighborhood improvements.
Given the reality of a state budget deficit and declining local funding for infrastructure, the need
for partnership characterized the approach of both Neighborhood councils and the Public Works
Department.
"[Elected officials] said [to our department], ‘We’re going to take $18 million from your money,’
in case the economy stumbles, and [now] we have been informed that that money is gone.”
Nevertheless, he said, councils are “a partner to me, to our department, and we need to discuss the
capabilities we have. I’ve been called ‘Professor Pothole’ because I’m not a bureaucrat – I’m a
doer, I get things done – but I have my constraints, and we bend the rules every single day to get
you services” in spite of constraints.
236
[An agency official] asked, “Where does the money come from? How do you pay for it? How can
we work in partnership if we don’t know what it costs? Who makes those decisions?” Getting to
the issue of credibility (which Los Angeles City Planning Director Con Howe mentioned at the
last Congress), [The same agency official] suggested that councils must have a good idea about
these issues. “To say, to your councilperson, ‘We believe this will cost this much,’ that’s a
different strategy,” he said - “an example of ‘political intelligence.’”
The initial cost [of going elsewhere with the Sunshine Canyon Landfill] is $140 million – and you
are the decision-makers. Forget the potholes – this is a major fiscal management issue.
It’s a matter of getting as much done as you can
This underscored both the opportunities and the obstacles for councils. [An agency official] noted
that additional funds for street widening, for example, could be raised from the MTA. “It has
nothing to do with the annual budget,” he said, getting to the rub. “Except that the locality has to
get dollars to match the MTA [contribution].”
[An agency official] agreed, cautioning “You have to plan years ahead, and at this point we don’t
know what 04-05 will be. Funding sources affect projects. So it could not be deliverable in that
timeframe.”
[An agency official] said that there are different sources of funding and these sources change from
year to year. Similarly tree trimming cycles and street repair are based on factor such as number of
trees and number of streets.
Case Two -- Neighborhood Council
“[I rate the performance of the agency officials as] grade C. It is a problem of the city. They are
just reacting. The resources available for NCs are not that important but there are things that can
be done (seed money).”
Case Two -- Department
“We are doing all we can to meet their needs. It does not mean we are meeting all their
expectations. But we are doing all we can with our resources to meet their needs.”
Council members to restore that money. [Agency official]: it would be good if NCs lobby with
City Council to allocate some money to DOT for traffic calming. Speed bumps are cheap ($2000)
and popular so it is preferred to traffic islands ($20,000) so the cost-benefit analysis works in
favor of speed bumps.
“If we have more resources, we can provide people to go to their neighborhoods and work with
them. We require more resources and directions.”
“No. It comes down to resources; city departments might not want to enter into agreements if
there are no resources available to live up to the terms. Neighborhood councils can help by
influencing elected officials in terms of resources, but there is a limit to how much. [In response
to the issue priorities, the respondent indicated that he would check off “shortage of department
resources” if he thought neighborhood councils could really make a difference here, but, he
observed, they cannot].”
237
“Resources. Staff could participate in greater frequency with neighborhood councils if we have
more resources. With current staff, we are barely meeting current demands of neighborhood
councils. If the MOU were to be expanded to all neighborhood councils, that might be a problem,
because of resources.”
“We are doing the best we can given the resources we have. It comes down to resources. We are
charged with distributing resources where we see it is most necessary. Rules, policies, and
regulations – they may seem cumbersome to the layperson, but by and large, they are there for a
good reason. How else would we regulate resource distribution?”
[Agency official]: In the past [City Councilwoman] Cindy Miskowski had proposed a budget for
traffic calming. DOT got some money ($175,000.00?) for 2 years and then we lost it though DOT
has been canvassing City Council and Council members to restore that money.
238
ROLE OF ELECTED OFFICIAL
Case One -- Neighborhood Council
“People DPW NC CC. The flaw here is that volunteers can’t handle the process of
prioritization. And the mayor’s office is missing from this equation.”
“There’s plenty of political will from the Mayor and City Council to make this thing work out.”
Case One -- Department
"[Elected official might be concerned] that things are happening without [their] participation.” He
thought that the City Council would ultimately be more accepting of the proposal, but they may not
be comfortable having neighborhood councils drive the process. “The council will criticize this for
not enough participation specified for the City Council.”
“If we hear things from the city council it is powerful. A lot of things happen at the City Council
level that we don’t have control over.”
“They City Council and Mayor will make the final decision, but smart council offices are eager to
share their expertise and their influence with their neighborhood councils.”
"Most importantly, the development of mission and vision statements and a set of realistic
expectations was critical and rely on the City Council office if things go awry."
Case Two -- Neighborhood Council
“The mayor might not proscribe this, and DOT might say they cannot act without his endorsement.
OR they can just do it.”
“Absolutely. If we all start making noises, you can have an important number of people involved.
Councilmembers know that NCs channel interest of individuals. It has legitimacy. Positions that
have gained legitimacy through the representative process.”
“City council members are semi independent local lords. I don’t see improvement. It is a matter of
human government or human nature.”
“Culture of City Hall. They don’t want input from quasi experts.”
“Established to provide service, depending on what the mayor allows them to do and the department
heads chosen.”
“Have the mayor’s office more involved. This seems to be the biggest obstacle.”
“I think that the Mayor is too powerful. He wants to control things. Mayor’s office should facilitate
instead of deciding anything.”
“I think the Mayor should change his mind. Departments know the Mayor is against these
agreements.”
“It depends if the mayor allows it. The mayor put too many items on his plate to begin with. [City]
Councilman Rosendahl feels an attachment to Mar Vista Community Council.”
“Mayor’s office is key.”
Case Two -- Department
“[City council] should be a bridge between DOT and neighborhood councils. Sometimes
neighborhood councils come to us, sometimes the city council does. City Council can advocate for
the neighborhood council’s cause and vice versa. City Council should be a mediator – to explain
things, to give a second opinion, like a doctor.”
239
FUTURE INTERACTION
Case One -- Neighborhood Council
“Do differently: Have further meetings between the groups on substantive and procedural matters to
further lay the ground work for future cooperative activities.”
“My personal observation is that if we continue down this path, we'll end up putting into operation
the spirit of [City Councilman] Greig [Smith]'s motion --- and probably better --- because it'll be on
mutually negotiated and agreed upon terms. As by formulating our approach to this very same issue
--- as a partnership between the NCs and DPW --- it will engender a far greater buy-in by the parties
involved, and therefore far better implementation.”
[A neighborhood council participant] had “no expectations, but I do have hope that we are open to
changing city operations – to be more proactive and reactive."
[A neighborhood council participant] wanted “faces attached to jobs – for it to be more personalized
than people just ‘out there.’”
Case One -- Department
“[We] still have to learn more about each others’ roles in the city government.”
“Don’t operate in a vacuum or unilaterally. Operate in a partnership.”
“It is difficult, historically the primary focus has always been on the City Council offices. Now we
need to balance the needs of both City Councils and Neighborhood Councils. We try to impress the
notion to all neighborhood councils that we are looking for a partnership.”
[An agency official] looked forward to creating a partnership so that the city and the Neighborhood
councils “understand each other’s needs and come together for common goals.”
[An agency official] was interested in “expanding [department] relationships with neighborhood
councils” to improve service delivery by “realigning [services] according to local needs” without
increasing costs.
Case Two -- Neighborhood Council
“Give empowerment to the department officials to participate. Give DOT a chance to evaluate their
documents.”
“We have to wait and see what happens. We have to see how things are going. We have to see
things to be settled. Once things are better, we can push the MOU or other initiative forward. Maybe
things that were included in the MOU could be presented in a different way, not necessarily on a
MOU. It should be a win-win situation.”
Increase interaction (“teamwork”) between DOT and the Department of City Planning.
240
Case Two -- Department
“I don’t know if there are fruitful changes. I understand their frustration. I want to be more in tune
with their needs. I want to do a good job.”
“Trust needs to evolve, and we are willing to work on it, i.e. get NCs’ buy-in by listening to them,
communicating our perspective based on expertise and evaluation of feasibility of their
demands/requests, and, most importantly, by showing that we care. ….but we are willing to put
efforts to establish cooperative relationships with the NCs and gain credibility in their eyes.”
241
CLP EVALUATION SUB-CATEGORIES
Attitude
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“This is where we wanted to be. We didn’t throw each other under the bus.”
"I no longer felt a "they-us" split, but very open to what was happening.”
"I wished all people at public agencies could or would be that responsive.”
“From [my NC] one participant was terribly combative and didn’t understand that process was the
most important thing. Others, however, were tremendously useful.”
“I also felt an independence, and "feeling our oats" from the NC side --- simultaneous with a
maturity of understanding. We are NOT controlled by the City, nor do we have to toe the party line.
One manifestation of this was the broadly-felt aversion from the NCs to the [City Councilman]
Greig Smith motion in its present form. (Imagine that, Greig wants to give us "power," and we dont
want it, or at least not in the form it's being offered --- VERY interesting.)”
“I could feel commitment from everyone. This was the third month with the same group of people.
Everybody had a feel for each other. People wanted to be there.”
“I felt very positive about the session, if nothing more, there was a dialogue going. I no longer felt a
"they-us" split, but very open to what was happening.”
“I for one am appreciative to the employees of the DPW for their input and willingness to give up
their time to make this all successful.”
“I knew a lot going in. The NCs demonstrated the desire to focus, commit and follow through on a
long-term process to improve the neighborhoods.”
“I was a little surprised (and getting impatient) at other participants (neighborhood council
representatives) reactions and concerns. It makes me concerned that the Neighborhood Councils are
getting too caught up in the process and letting things fall out of perspective. (We aren't negotiating
a multimillion dollar contract here).”
“I was pleasantly surprised to find people at the DPW open and communicative. I wished all people
at public agencies could or would be that responsive.”
“It’s no longer you guys and us guys – we are a team. Your guys are part of the system [now].”
“That’s the thing,” [a neighborhood council participant] agreed.
“Most significant: The willingness of a City Department to meet and work with neighborhood
councils."
Case One - Department
“The overall atmosphere seemed pretty divisive when we began. There was clearly two sides –
theirs and ours.”
“The political people there were good. It is always good to have the bureaucracy there along with
the political people.”
“The process reinforced my view that NC people are volunteers; they have the most to win or lose.”
“There was a change on the NCs part. They came in cynical and left hopeful. The department came
in hopeful.”
“There was not mistrust because we accepted the process before going in.”
“They put in a lot of their own time… they are really do good work and really care.”
“We were all comfortable with each other. Nobody was dominating.”
242
"NC representatives were more “proactive” in discussing the MOU."
“Based on the successful result it can be said that you gathered ‘good’ people – everybody was
articulate and willing to work together.”
“Each group became visibly sympathetic to the needs of the other group.”
“It became clear that everyone had good intentions…and there was a recognition that everyone was
doing the best they could. They saw that we cared about our jobs, not just the paycheck. We
realized that these folks [NC reps] really cared as well. They weren’t just picking at us.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“This depends on the neighborhood council. I was impressed with Silver Lake; they were open
minded. They had an attitude that we are here for the neighborhood. I heard a debate at one of their
meetings when they were looking for a service whether to buy union or to buy local neighborhood.”
"I really enjoyed the working groups and the interaction between the NCs and the DOT was much
friendlier.”
"I think that all NCs are valuable and useful, though there are situations, but we’d try to work
through them. I think they’re good – they involve the community for those who want to be
involved.”
"The people from the DOT were very receptive and open to all of our ideas and discussions."
"Their process – all of the arguing with each other, and being mean to each other, the dynamics – I
don’t know how they get anything done. We try to avoid [neighborhood situations that include]
yelling, etc., and we don’t do that. It’s done in a professional manner – as much as we can do
diplomatically."
“People got out of it what they wanted to get. I made friends. Not much changed. I doubt [a
particular neighborhood council participant] changed. There were no epiphanies. You can’t
schedule epiphanies.”
“Two individuals from each neighborhood council would have been better. People from Silver
Lake and Hollywood just liked to talk.”
"75%. [Agency officials] were kind of reserved.”
"I was impressed with Silver Lake; they were open minded. They had an attitude that we are here
for the neighborhood. I heard a debate at one of their meetings when they were looking for a service
whether to buy union or to buy local neighborhood.”
“[One neighborhood council participant] was enthusiastic.”
“[One neighborhood council participant]'s very astute, if bothersome, demand for a NC role in the
nitty-gritty of traffic engineering and standards for grading congestion, etc. pointed up the need for
traffic planners to be present. The lack of support and appreciation of his efforts by the other NCs
was disappointing.”
“Bounded. It was the same as if they came handcuffed. They were very reserved and restrained.”
“Good. They were there. On the one hand, [two agency officials] were committed. On the other
hand, [two other agency officials] were not committed. [One of the first two officials] is a political
animal. He knows what to do. You do not reach at that position on DOT without that skill.”
“I think they showed good participation. I was pleased by the discussion and comments.”
243
“I thought it interesting to note that the real contention was not between the NCs and the DOT but
between the individual NCs.”
“I was impressed. The people participating in the sessions were middle and upper representatives.
[One agency official] is one of the best. She always talks to us. [Another agency official] was
committed as well.”
“I wish the people from DOT would have made more effort to get to know the NCs. It was too
obvious that they hated being there, and that is just too sad. [There were two DOT participants who]
were the only people from DOT, who opened up and talked and stayed after the session was over.
The rest of the DOT I couldn't even catch to say thank you to, that's how fast they ran out the door.”
“It was nice to see people's attitude change in only 3 meetings.”
“Mar vista was very active, because of the problems they have. They were talking all the time. It
was a very cohesive group overall.”
“Mar Vista’s participation was excellent.”
“My expectations were brought down several notches from the beginning of the three meetings
when it was clear that Planning folks were not going to be present.”
“Others were self-serving. [One participant] from Hollywood had good intentions.”
“People were interested. We don’t have Saturdays. So, the fact that they were there is a
manifestation that they were interested.”
Case Two - Department
"They tend to be dominant and sometimes you don’t know whether they are speaking for them or for
their NCs.”
“Encino? They are the most inexperienced, and the most difficult to work with. Their process – all
of the arguing with each other, and being mean to each other, the dynamics – I don’t know how they
get anything done. We try to avoid [neighborhood situations that include] yelling, etc., and we don’t
do that. It’s done in a professional manner – as much as we can do diplomatically. [Taking an
example…].”
“Generally good. There were individuals in each group that stand out as “leaders." They tend to be
dominant and sometimes you don’t know whether they are speaking for them or for their NCs.”
“Hollywood United: [one participant]. Very articulate and reasonable. Mar Vista: [another
participant].”
“People from Hollywood United were very impressive, particularly [one neighborhood council
participant]. [Another neighborhood council participant]’s group (Silverlake) was very reasonable.
They put their hearts on the process. They had the broad picture. I remember that at some point [the
first neighborhood council participant] tried to order the discussion. Mar Vista is also a interesting
group.”
244
Cooperation/Partnership
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“The cooperation between the DPW and the NC's was much more than I would have expected.
Each side worked very hard toward the mutual goal. The dedication of the DPW employee's during
the process was major factor in the success of the task. I must admit I did not think the City
Departments were going to be as willing to work with the NC's as was the DPW.”
“The seeds have been set for improvement, but we’re not there yet.”
“We didn’t have any specific prior relationship. Before the USC project we had a relationship with
no definition. We knew that there were councils that wanted to participate and interact. Now they
can; they know how.”
“The interaction between the DPW and the NC represented seems lively and productive at the same
time. We have been open with each other and everyone appears to be working hard toward the
accomplishment of our mutual goals.”
“I would have liked to have had the Council members there. This would have put more pressure on
city workers to act when we make a phone call.”
Case One - Department
[An agency official] thought this workshop was “an opportunity for a partnership to educate
Neighborhood councils as to what we do, and to support councils as to what you [the councils] need
– and for you to support us as to the resources” necessary to do the job. “We really need your
support, your voices!”
"I just enjoyed the opportunity to work together to create a formidable partnership.”
So that employees “can get out to talk to people, and so people can know service people.” They
suggested a “revolving relationship between street services and Neighborhood councils” was needed
as an outcome of this exercise.
“At times, I feel what more can I do to accommodate neighborhood councils. The project is helping
me work through those feelings by problem solving together as a team through the exercises instead
of relying on the force of my personality to win converts. I can do both, but, I prefer the former.”
“I don’t see [their role] differently. It was important however to have the NCs come together as 4…
this helped highlight the complexity of the process… over time this was helpful.”
“I would like to see elected officials participate in the project. They are the X factor, if not the X, Y
and Z factors, in this equation. DPW can work in concert with NCs to give them access to how and
when we provide service, but elected officials are in charge of appropriating the funds that
ultimately determine how much and what kinds of services are provided.”
“It was key that we had the right group of people, but letting the neighborhood council choose the
department was even more critical. They came to us prepared to do business.”
245
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“The DOT seems to have seen these sessions as more work, but I see it as an improvement in the
system, that everyone will benefit from in the future.”
“Very minimal. We are in a transition. There should be improvements in several projects. Thus, they
have to work with us, taking our opinion.”
"I expected the "tension" between the NC's and the DOT to be a little more balanced in terms of
defining a relationship and a process for working together.”
“I believe that we managed to find a common ground with the LADOT representatives. It certainly
clears the road for a much smoother and productive collaboration in the future. I am satisfied that we
reached a mutual agreement to be somehow more specific in the language - a way to avoid grey
areas and misinterpretations.”
“[One agency official] was wonderful; she had some planning background and so could talk to some
planning related issues. [A second agency official] was great, as was [a third agency official]. [The
second agency official] was the most party-liner kind of guy. Everybody else was open to new
ideas.”
Case Two - Department
"These NCs were key, because they were trying to talk about development issues."
“I am responsible for overseeing the Western Office. These NCs were key, because they were trying
to talk about development issues. They are very participatory, and have good webpages. Mar Vista
is very important in the western area. They are leaders in the NCs movement. NCs are very
important. The problem is that their role is not clear. In the future this could be a problem.”
“I commend your project, and appreciate how potentially useful and pertinent this effort will be in
defining the relationship between City Hall and NC's. It will be interesting to see how NC's voice
and power relate to each of the 15 Council members.”
“San Pedro NC – I personally don’t interact with them. They are very important. They shape
community preference; they have influence with politicians – the mayor and city council. They
have a direct line into council offices. Access – that’s mainly it. They don’t have any authority, but
they have access.”
Case One - CLP Facilitator
[The facilitator] closed by saying that this session was an encouraging step – “a mutually beneficial
relationship [emerging] between Neighborhood councils and the City of Los Angeles.”
Process
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“The preparing of the MOU was significant. It was prepared in 30 minutes and is now the standard
bearer for all future agreements.”
[A neighborhood council participant] said her council has not yet elected a board and so didn’t have
a meeting, but regardless, “We all felt it was productive – and we think there’s something here that
will be worthwhile.”
“All sessions were very productive”
246
“I don’t think any differently now. I’m not a cynic, but there is still a bureaucracy. We will always
have difficulty overcoming the bureaucracy.”
“I gained a great deal of knowledge about the efforts of the DPW and the restrictions under which it
works. Not only financial, but also State mandated programs etc.”
Case One - Department
“We had a lot of control over the last process. We were not forced to do anything we didn’t want to.
Neighborhood Councils at the end more than the beginning were very reasonable. If we try too
many too quickly, we will be juggling too many balls.”
“We tried to come up with some real solutions on how we should work together. The ultimate
solution should take into consideration the current system."
“I appreciate the depth and breadth of their knowledge – I may not have the knowledge they have.”
“I can’t say that there are things I would change… I’m not saying we’re perfect, but I’m not sure
there is anything I would change. There’s a lot of experience here and time tested strategies. I’m not
saying everyone knows the exact ingredients to use, but the taste we get is pretty good.”
“I think the session moved very smoothly from the general comments of the first session toward
more specific discussion of what can we come up with specifically to benefit ongoing neighborhood
councils/City relationship. I think we are on target, and I am eager to see what we all come back
with to the next session.”
“If we were asked to do this whole thing again we would do it. Next time we do this it will be
starting from scratch all over again. We will need to mold adapt to all new faces and situations. We
never know what is coming… so we need to work our hardest everyday.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“There is a little more communication between Mar Vista and DOT. Regarding cut through traffic
[an agency official] is attending subcommittee meetings now. [A neighborhood council board
member] took over the subcommittee from me in March; I don’t know what has happened since
then.”
“We met with the heads of the department. They were able to make decisions during the process.”
[The respondent felt neighborhood councils were generally good. Respondent confused Mar Vista
NC with Northwest San Pedro NC. Respondent observed inconsistent turnout from Mar Vista,
though probably was thinking about San Pedro. Respondent did not remember [one participant]
from San Pedro. Respondent observed that Silver Lake NC made clear the commitment each
participant would have to make to the process ahead of time.]
“[One neighborhood council participant] lost credibility with the projector issue. There were some
vocal individuals – [two neighborhood council particpants]. There were never the same people there
from San Pedro. From Mar Vista, [two neighborhood council participants] had a different agenda.”
247
“I can’t tell. Things that they each brought to the meetings were instructive. What agendas they
brought to the meetings, I don’t know.”
“I found the entire process informative and educational. It certainly enables the four participating
NCs, and hopefully the rest who decide to join later, with an important tool, missing in the past.
Handling issues with L.A. City departments, including LADOT was often a big challenge. The
creation of the NCs system as a new partner was a challenge for the departments as well.”
“I thought the meetings went very good. The people from the DOT were very receptive and open to
all of our ideas and discussions. I recommend more meetings and sessions like that one with various
departments of the city specially the Planning Department.”
“Mar vista. They were all there with a specific agenda (planning issues). They are good people, but
with a different agenda. The other NCs were interested, involved and committed. We tried to stick to
the original idea.”
“Mediocre. It felt like they were forced into this; they couldn’t wait to get released. They did better
than some neighborhood councils did. [A neighborhood council participant] always got fired up
after discussions with DOT officials. We learned that they deal with traffic calming, not just move,
move, move.”
“Other than the DOT's promising to send representatives to NC meetings, I do not see much change
from the status quo ante.”
“San Pedro is a remote area; Mar Vista is a remote area. Hollywood United always felt ignored…
they are important for DOT because they are sensitive locations, remote areas.”
Case Two - Department
“Generally good. We didn’t hold back anything. I didn’t participate too much. I missed the first
session; it took me a little time to catch up.”
“Generally Good. There was one point of view regarding our level of commitment. My staff was
frustrated because the creation of the NCs in LA implied more expectations, but not more support in
terms of money and staff.”
“I had a very positive experience with Silver Lake. I encouraged them as a community to look at
their needs, to choose their priorities, then come back to us – and they did. [As opposed to working
as individuals.] I haven’t had an opportunity to meet with anybody new since then.”
“One session, San Pedro was not represented very well – that’s all. [Prompt: any individuals stick
out?] I remember [one neighborhood council participant from Silver Lake]; he seemed to be shaping
ideas in my group.”
Relationship
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“[The relationship] changed for those weekend. It’s like going to camp and falling backwards.”
“DPW and the neighborhood councils will have a much better relationship. The process developed
appreciation. It the MOU is just copied and given to other neighborhood councils and departments I
don’t think it would work as well.”
248
“From the DPW side, I felt a willingness to play the game, and to do something new now that the
NCs are part of the landscape. The fact that this represents a "development" was best exemplified by
the look of panic on the new faces on the DPW side, when they started hearing what was going on.”
“I also think the "4 NCs" approach is paying dividends. My observation is that I'm being pulled as a
consequence of the contact with DPW. But I'm also being pulled as a consequence of being forced to
think beyond the borders of Studio City --- toward a global approach to these issues we're dealing
with, rather than a provincial one on account of sitting at the same table, elbow to elbow with [three
other neighborhood councils].”
“I keep going back to seeing people as individuals. That was a big change… these are real people.”
“I personally have better relations, because I know the people. I have attached a name to a face. I
can now call [one of two specific agency officials] and get something done.”
“I went into the 2nd session thinking, ‘this will either be a waste of time, or something spectacular is
going to happen.’ The trust from the session 1 showed instantly, and many things happened as a
result. It quickly became evident that we had come along further in session 1 than anyone had
realized and both sides needed to recognize that.”
“It was good to put a human face on the city department.”
Case One - Department
“I thought there would be more of an adversarial relationship between the Council and the NC –
they are very supportive of each other.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“As a stakeholder, I met friends, which is more valuable than the ultimate goal of traffic.”
“I didn’t know any of them before. There seems to be better relationships. [Respondent unable to
provide specifics].”
“I hope they are aware of our problems and have learned some things about us. Unfortunately, I
confirmed that in many of our problems, they are not in a position of doing something.”
“It was very good to meet people. They are a reference point for the future. Now, you have a
relationship. You need a face, someone to meet. Relationships with people are important to get
things done.”
“It would have been better to talk to [one agency official] out of the session. [A second agency
official] was not seen as an authority figure; [respondent did not know [the second agency official
was one of the management].”
“Mar Vista had a relentless topic; they were very western-oriented. Hollywood United tried to have
a meeting within the council, but we couldn’t get it together.”
249
“Mediocre. I could hear grumbling; it was a bureaucratic thing. It was interesting to meet people.
[Two agency officials]; they know what engineers know, but they’re not allowed to do anything. [A
third agency official] seemed to speak his mind; others grumble. They were under duress; there was
some paper floating around (Silver Lake homework) that creating some uneasiness. I was impressed
with [the first two agency officials]. [A fourth agency official] was super; [the third agency official]
was super. [One official]’s presentation was super, simple, dead on.”
“Not only did we accomplish what we set out to do 3 months ago, but I made some friends along the
way and I was inspired by some people and their projects for their neighborhoods.”
“San Pedro fizzled. Otherwise the councils were good. They get credit for showing up. DOT has
issues with Silver Lake; their homework set the relationship back. It would have been better if, like
Hollywood, Silver Lake fumbled the assignment.”
Case Two - Department
“I think there was a break down of barriers.”
“My experience is pretty good – they’re pretty sharp [with Encino as an exception, respondent
suggested.] There are things that they want to accomplish, and you have to be concerned: does it
deal with the whole NC [area] or just “my particular street”? But if you’re not helping them, then….
“I don’t want to talk to you any more.””
“Overall, I truly enjoyed the entire experience and the opportunity to meet and work with the USC
students/staff and the NC members.”
Trust
Case One - Neighborhood Council
“The most significant thing that needed to develop was trust and a willingness to be full invested
without a fear of negative consequences….that happened and was a very significant step.”
“Trust is no the right word. I am more open to them, but trust has to be built over a period of time.”
“We have developed a lot of friendships.”
“I have a better appreciation for what a tough job they have. Not everybody’s request can be
handled. I have a better appreciation for how they juggle everything.”
Case One - Department
“Trust doesn’t just happen… unless both sides open up. We were open, and they were open.”
We didn’t need “body armor” and did not feel a “threat”
“I think it got better… it takes time to build trust. You need to see results over time for trust to
develop.”
Case Two - Neighborhood Council
“We have an understanding. Even without a signature, as long as there is an understanding, just
continue; make it a procedure in the department.”
Case Two - Department
“For those individuals that were there, I think trust improved.”
“I feel that even at the end, there was a feeling of lack of trust.”
250
Attitude and Cooperation/Partnership
Case Two - Department
“They are not paid, which is something interesting. They were open. It was interesting to see how
they interact. They represent NCs, so they have to work together. You see different participation.”

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change

PDF

Cross-cultural, cross-institutional collaborative art project: finding family stories

PDF

Collaborating to provide microfinance to caregivers of orphans and vulnerable children in Ethiopia

PDF

Exploring student motivations toward civic engagement: an application of expectancy-value theory

PDF

New public management in Chile (1990 - 2008): exploring its impact on public employees

PDF

Factors affecting city government emergency preparedness

PDF

The social functions of private neighborhood associations: the case of homeowner associations in urban China

PDF

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

PDF

Governance networks: internal governance structure, boundary setting and effectiveness

PDF

A learning model of policy implementation: implementing technology in response to policy requirements

PDF

Community, empowerment, and the city: sources of capacity in local governance

PDF

The effects of interlocal collaboration on local economic performance: investigation of Korean cases

PDF

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

PDF

Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors

PDF

Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty

PDF

Institutional analysis of stakeholder collaboration in freight movement at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

PDF

Testing the entrepreneurial city hypothesis: a study of the Los Angeles region

PDF

Entrepreneurism from the ground up: entrepreneurism, innovation, and responsiveness in a start-up university

PDF

Planning care with the patient in the room: a patient-focused approach to reducing heart failure readmissions

PDF

Simple majority or supermajority: what do California's special tax initiatives mean for local governance?

Asset Metadata

Creator Bryer, Thomas A. (author)

Core Title Negotiating bureaucratic responsiveness in collaboration with citizens: findings from action research in Los Angeles

School School of Policy, Planning, and Development

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Public Administration

Publication Date 06/05/2007

Defense Date 05/09/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bureaucratic responsiveness,citizen engagement,collaboration,OAI-PMH Harvest,Public Management

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (city or populated place), Los Angeles (counties), USA (countries)

Language English

Advisor Cooper, Terry L. (committee chair), Crigler, Ann N. (committee member), Myrtle, Robert C. (committee member)

Creator Email bryer@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m505

Unique identifier UC1359151

Identifier etd-Bryer-20070605 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-499513 (legacy record id),usctheses-m505 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Bryer-20070605.pdf

Dmrecord 499513

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bryer, Thomas A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu