TO: Robert Gottlieb
FROM: Robert García and Erica Flores
Baltodano
DATE: May 11, 2005
RE: Internal
City Planning Department Concerns
I. Overview
The Los Angeles City Planning Department has long-suffered from a variety of internal personnel and organizational problems, marked by a culture that values conformity over creativity and favors status quo over change.Planning Department staff who offer new perspectives, question the cultural sensitivity of a particular approach, ask why some communities benefit more from planning resources and tools than others, or otherwise “rock the boat,” are given less prestigious job responsibilities that result in less face-time with senior staff, get overlooked for promotion into positions where they could more effectively advocate new approaches, and fall victim to favoritism that, in some cases, is linked with instances of racism, sexism, and age bias. Ultimately, communities in Los Angeles who need advocates in the Planning Department the most, including communities of color and low-income communities, are short-changed by the lack of appropriate leadership in the Planning Department.
For these reasons, the City of Los Angeles needs a Planning Director who is dedicated to conscientious planning—that is, pro-active planning for healthy communities, with an emphasis on the fair distribution of financial, staffing, and other planning resources, full and fair public participation that gives equal attention to diverse communities, and a culture within the Planning Department that supports creativity and change, encourages new ideas and approaches, and values the professional and personal experience of a diverse planning staff to serve the needs of Los Angeles’ diverse communities.
II. History of Internal Personnel and Organizational Problems in the Planning Department
Personnel and organizational problems making it difficult for the Planning Department to best meet the planning needs of Los Angeles’ diverse communities.
A 1991 independent audit (the Zucker Report) of the Planning Department commissioned by City Council identified a number of significant issues within the Department, including employee moral and productivity at dangerously low levels, internal organization and operations that have not kept pace with changes in the work force and work environment, and a system of personnel classification, compensation, training, organization, and structure that impedes the maximum utilization of employee skills and their own self-actualization.
Around this time, the Personnel Department conducted an audit of the Planning Department based on employee surveys.In response to the Personnel Audit, then-Councilmember Mike Hernandez expressed concern over the lack of diversity in managerial positions within the Planning Department.Councilmember Hernandez said “Given the multiracial and multicultural character of the constituencies which planning serves, achieving ethnic diversity and gender balance, especially within the upper echelon of the Department is of utmost importance.”The Los Angeles Daily News reported on the Audit, noting that employees felt in-house personnel actions were based on discrimination or favoritism rather than on-job related criteria and that discrimination also existed in the form of discriminatory remarks or jokes. The Daily News described an “old-boys network” in the Planning Department and reported that similar problems were cited in a previous 1980 audit of the Department.[1]
After the 1991 audits, the Planning Department’s own Advisory Affirmative Action Committee (AAAC) voted to dissolve itself because “it has become apparent to committee members and to four past Presidents of the AAAC . . . that the Committee has been ineffective due to the historical lack of concern and sensitivity to affirmative action issues on the part of the City Planning Department Management.”
A 1993 follow-up Audit by the Personnel Department concluded:
A 2001 letter to Mayor Hahn by some members of the Planning Department staff said “[e]mployee moral is at an all time low. The recurring personnel problems have become more entrenched and have rendered a majority of the staff silent, fearful of retaliation and resigned to [accept] the inequities and improprieties of a personnel system that does not ensure equal employment opportunities for all employees.” The planning staff explained “[w]ith more citizen involvement through the Neighborhood Councils, we need a management which is capable of management of a diverse staff and [capable of] planning for an increasingly multi-cultural city.”
In a letter submitted as part of her June 2002 exit interview, a female Senior City Planner succinctly summarized personnel problems within the City Planning Department as follows:
The Department has for some time promoted a culture of not rocking the boat, going along, and favoring certain developers and their lobbyists.In the Community Planning Department, this is accomplished by personnel practices which include management by intimidation, disrespect, retaliation, favoritism and bias. . . . Accomplishments such as creativity, completing projects on time or with little controversy are only acknowledged if made by favored individuals. The rest of us receive our thanks from the community or the Council offices, not our supervisors. . . . In the short run, such practices and cultures may preserve management’s position and protect the Department’s budget. However, in the long run, it hurts the department’s reputation in a city government and in the community.
III. A Culture of Favortism
The City Planning Department has supported a culture of favoritism that rewards employees who tow the line and retaliates against employees who “rock the boat.” Below is a summary of the Department’s flawed promotion process and allegations of race, gender, and age bias.
a. Allegations of Unfair Promotion Practices
There is a three-part process for promotion to the position of City Planner in the Department.
1. Written Exam. To be promoted to City Planner, an employee in an entry-level Planning Assistant or Planning Associate position must first take a written exam. The exam is given every two years.
2. Interview. The written exams are scored and those who score within a certain range automatically qualify for an interview with three senior level planners, two of whom are planners outside the City of Los Angeles (e.g. City of Burbank).
3. Certification Interview. Those candidates who are recommend to the final stage of the promotion process meet with a panel of three senior level planners from the City of Los Angeles for a certification interview. The certification panel makes recommendations to the Personnel Committee, which is comprised of the Deputy Directors, Planning Director, and Personnel Director. At this stage, the Deputies and Directors advocate for the employees they want to get promoted and those individuals are promoted.Some staff members find the certification interview subjective. Regardless of years of experience, success on the written exam, and success in the first interview, staff members who have been given opportunities to demonstrate their supervisory abilities (e.g. staff who have been asked to fill-in for a supervisor), staff members who have been given the “choice” assignments with more face time with senior staff, staff who have not “rocked the boat” by advocating for certain underserved communities, and staff who have been generally favored by senior level staff, tend to be promoted over other candidates with equal and often better qualifications.
Staff we have spoken with say they can predict exactly who will be promoted not based on exam score or interview, but based on the Assistants and Associates they know to be part of the “in-group” among senior staff at the Planning Department.
Some staff members contend the promotion process is also unfair because the Planning Department will only promote a select number of people from the promotion list even if there are more City Planning positions open. This allows the Department to only hire the people it wants to hire, rather than hire as many as needed from the qualified promotion list. The Department purposely waits for the promotion list to expire (it expires every two years) to wait for a new list of candidates and avoid hiring candidates it does not want to hire.
In a November 2001 letter to Mayor Hahn, staff members said the Department’s promotional practices “have rendered a majority of the staff silent, fearful of retaliation and resigned to [accept] the inequities and improprieties of a personnel system that does not ensure equal employment opportunities for all employees.”
b. Allegations of Race, Gender, and Age Bias
The Planning Department lost a discrimination lawsuit filed by an Asian City Planning employee in or around 2001. In addition to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the basis of race and national origin, the employee alleged that the Department failed to comply with its own policies in not promoting her to the position of City Planner.
African American and Non-Hispanic White males who would be good advocates for our underserved communities continue to be overlooked for promotion. Apparently, the hiring and promotion of young African American males has improved in recent years, but those who are being hired and promoted are careful not to make waves and cannot generally be considered good advocates for communities in Los Angeles that have generally been left behind.
As part of her June 2002 exit interview, a female Senior City Planner said “Women in particular are promoted on the based [sic] of meekness and attractiveness, or if they are lucky, protected by their political connections. Criticisms from females are not welcome, but favored when made minutes later by males.” The female Senior City Planner voluntarily took an early retirement without pension.
IV. Unfair Distribution of Planning Resources and Tools
According to current Planning Department employees, coveted assignments that receive a lot of press attention and “face time” with the Mayor’s office, such as the Staples Sports and Entertainment Center and School Board Construction, are generally assigned to Non-Hispanic White planners and planners who do not “rock the boat.” Others are relegated to the Public Information Counter and Research and Analysis unit. Those in coveted positions favored by management get invited to lunch and coffee with management-level colleagues. Their work is recognized and praised by management and they are placed on the fast-track for promotion. Planners who ask questions related to the fair distribution of planning resources or raise concerns about internal department affairs find themselves stuck in the least desirable positions with little contact with managers and no hope for promotion. They are considered less talented or “problem employees.” Some of those so-called problem employees were vindicated when the Los Angeles Wave newspaper ran a series of articles highlighting disparities in the allocation of planning resources.
According to a Los Angeles Wave article from July 4, 2004, there are several specific plans in Hollywood, West San Fernando Valley, Westwood, and other places where Non-Hispanic Whites disproportionately live. There are no specific plans south of Wilshire Boulevard, except near USC and the new Stables Center. There are no specific plans in East Los Angeles, except in communities that are disproportionately Non-Hispanic White, such as Eagle Rock and Mount Washington. There are no specific plans in the East San Fernando Valley, except one in Sunland-Tujunga-La Crescenta, a community described as Non-Hispanic White, horse-owning, and “Bohemian elite.” [2]
A Los Angeles Wave article from July 29, 2004, describes a 14-year struggle of the Crenshaw-area community to get the Planning Department to adopt a Crenshaw Specific Plan. In a letter to Mayor Hahn’s African American Deputies, representatives from 20,000 households, each having at least one registered voter, said “‘Our coalition [of homeowners and stakeholders] is offended that the Planning Department’s management will not give the Crenshaw District the same respect it gives to the Westside, Palisades, Granada Hills and Mulholland Drive communities.’” The Mayor forced Con Howe to meet with the coalition. “‘Then Howe said, “But they have money.” Can you believe that? He actually said it. So, in essence, he said if you don’t have money, you don’t get the services.’” According to the article, Associate City Planner Dwayne Wyatt who holds a masters degree in planning from UCLA and has worked for the Planning Department for 17 years, “launched a serious fight for [the Crenshaw] specific plan.” He was ultimately removed from the Crenshaw Area allegedly in retaliation for “teaching [the community] too much.” [3]
On August 4, 2004, the Los Angeles Wave addressed shortcomings of the Planning Department as they relate particularly to Latino communities. James Rojas of Latino Urban Forum is cited extensively regarding the Boyle Heights area’s experience with the Planning Department. According to the Wave, “Boyle Heights does not have a specific plan and the powers that be are not even thinking about creating one for that community. Yet, the land use problems of Boyle Heights are mammoth and would not be tolerated in some other parts of the city.” As Rojas explained “Basically, the squeaky wheel gets the grease from the city and most people don’t understand how the process works. This community is even less aware, since we’re dealing with language issues and the residents’ pressing concerns about feeding their families.” (Internal quotation marks omitted).[4]
V. Conclusion
Poor management, questionable promotion practices, and a culture within the Planning Department that values conformity over creativity and favors status quo over change is contributing to the unfair distribution of planning resources within the City of Los Angeles. As this memo demonstrates, the planning needs of Los Angeles’ diverse communities cannot be met without a Planning Director who can manage and lead a diverse staff capable of pro-active planning for healthy communities.
A conscientious Planning Director will ensure the fair distribution of financial, staffing, and other planning resources, promote full and fair public participation that gives equal attention to diverse communities, and develop a culture within the Department that supports creativity and change, encourages new ideas and approaches, and values the professional and personal experience of a diverse planning staff to serve the needs of Los Angeles’ diverse communities. Moreover, the next Planning Director must be held accountable to these goals, based on quantifiable measures.
1) Patrick McGreevy, “Racism, Favoritism in Planning Dept., City Audit Discloses,” Los Angeles Daily News (date unknown: in or around 1991).
2) Betty Pleasant, “City Planning Department shirks many of its duties,” Los Angeles Wave (July 4, 2004) (Second in a series).
3) Betty Pleasant, “Struggling for a voice within a powerful agency: Crenshaw-area community has long encountered resistance from L.A. Planning Department,” Los Angeles Wave (July 29, 2004) (Fourth in a series).
4) Betty Pleasant, “Planning Department Shortcomings Widespread,” Los
Angeles Wave (August 4, 2004) (Fifth in a series).