Declaration of Commitment to Representative Government
Having reviewed and considered the objections of two attorneys from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office seeking to constrain its free speech and advocacy, GTLNC finds their arguments unconvincing and contrary to its independence and sovereignty, and to the representative capacity and fiduciary duty promised and owed to the stakeholders and People of Greater Toluca Lake.
While reaffirming and remaining true to the conditions and obligations of elected office, GTLNC objects to the attempt to interfere with and constrain the collective First Amendment and other rights of GTLNC, its Directors and Officers, and to abridge the communication of its resolutions and advocacy to any level of local, county, state or federal government relevant to and on behalf of its stakeholders, voters, residents and taxpayers under its own authorized, unique and unambiguous name, while avoiding the likelihood of confusion with the official positions of the City of Los Angeles by its policymakers and officers.
GTLNC further disagrees with the anonymous and unattributed opinions proclaimed in an unsigned memorandum entitled The Role of Neighborhood Councils as Advisors to City Decision-Makers dated August 2020, as a limitation on its protected expressions of opinion (Exhibit 1, attached).
As its own democratically constituted body, having been duly elected by the qualified registered stakeholder voters of Greater Toluca Lake, and operating in accordance with its obligations, and acceptable, reasonable and transparent parameters, GTLNC shall not allow its autonomy and self-determination to be interfered with or infringed upon, nor have its identity and independence subordinated or subsumed.
GTLNC urges its fellow Neighborhood Councils to likewise reject the unjustified meddling and intrusions into its public interest services by City staff.
The Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council
By: Tess Taylor
President
GTLNC BOARD ACTIONS AFFIRMING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DECLARATION
At its Special Board Meeting on Tuesday, April 22nd, 2025, after hearing public testimony, deliberating, and over the objection of GTLNC’s DONE representative, GTLNC passed a resolution by unanimous decision (10 / 0 / 0) to support the California Legislature’s consideration of Entertainment Industry Bills which affect the economy of the City of Los Angeles and Greater Toluca Lake.
GTLNC voted likewise on state legislation and to oppose SB 79 (VOTE: 12 / 0 / 0) on Tuesday, March 18th, 2025, and voted to oppose then-current Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón Policies (VOTE: 9 / 0 / 0) on Tuesday, November 14th, 2023.
It should be noted that other Neighborhood Councils have appropriately advocated for their respective stakeholders both within the City of Los Angeles and to other agencies and levels of government where the interest of such stakeholders were actually or potentially affected.
OPINION ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT GTLNC FUNCTION AND ADVOCACY
The City asserts it is improper for GTLNC – or any Neighborhood Council (NC) – to advocate to any agency or entity other than to the City itself and that this is outside the role of NCs. The City offers an unsigned memo captioned The Role of Neighborhood Councils as Advisors to City Decision-Makers dated August 2020 (the “Memo”) (Exhibit 1) which is nowhere on the Web sites of the Los Angeles City Attorney, Los Angeles City Clerk or of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE). The only online copy can be found in one obscure location: the Northridge West NC’s Web Site.
Los Angeles City Charter Section 900 (from Article IX, creating Department of Neighborhood Empowerment): “Purpose. To promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs, a citywide system of neighborhood councils, and a Department of Neighborhood Empowerment is created. Neighborhood councils shall include representatives of the many diverse interests in communities and shall have an advisory role on issues of concern to the neighborhood [emphasis added].”
GTLNC disagrees with this interpretation taken by the City, as nothing contained in the City Charter or Ordinances prohibit NCs from taking a position and advocating to non-city entities.
NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
GTLNC does not represent, nor purport to represent, the City of Los Angeles, and there is no credible evidence to the contrary. There is no likelihood of confusion between GTLNC and the City of Los Angeles, nor any of its departments or agencies. Any position GTLNC may take on behalf of its stakeholders is distinguished with this clear disclaimer:
“GTLNC’s position may not reflect the official position of the City of Los Angeles.”
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS ARE VITAL COMMUNICATION HUBS
GTLNC is relied upon as a central source by our elected representatives from all branches of government to communicate with people in Greater Toluca Lake via GTLNC regular board and committee meetings, its email newsletter and social media accounts. Is this intended to be one-way communication only? How counterintuitive is it that GTLNC can’t express its collective view? GTLNC must have the unfettered right to advocate for the people who elected us.
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION
The NC system was created in 1999 to address the San Fernando Valley’s claim of the failure of representative democracy and its threat to secede from the City of Los Angeles. NCs are intended to be “the closest form of government to the people” according to DONE. NCs act as volunteer service providers and buffers for Los Angeles City Councilmembers, each of whom represent over a quarter of a million Angelenos. Compare the levels of representation provided by GTLNC with the disproportionate population concentrations of other elected officials:
| Elected Body | Population |
|---|---|
| GTLNC | 15,000 Est |
| Number of GTLNC Board of Directors | 15 |
| High Concentration Counterparts | |
| City of Los Angeles | 3,770,958 (2025) |
| Number of LA City Councilmembers | 15 |
| County of Los Angeles | 9,663,345 (2025) |
| Number County Board Supervisors | 5 |
| 29th US Congressional District: U.S. Representative Luz Rivas | 719,359 (2023) |
| United States Senators: Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff | 40,000,000 (2025) |
| 27th State Senate District: Senator Henry Stern | 993,140 (2020) |
| 44th State Assembly District: Assemblymember Nick Schultz | 514,564 (2020) |
| 5th Supervisorial District: Supervisor Kathryn Barger | 1,896,455 (2021) |
| 3rd Board of Equalization: Antonio Vazquez | 10,000,000 |
| City of Los Angeles Population | 3,770,958 (2025) |
| City of Los Angeles Council District 2: Councilmember Adrin Nazarian | 256,691 (2010) |
| LAUSD | 520,000 Students |
| LAUSD-Board of Education 6th District, Rep. Kelly Gonez | Approx.74,285 |
| Metropolitan Water District of So. California | 19,000,000 |
| Greater L A County Vector Control | 6,000,000 |
| L A County Flood Control | 2.1M Land Parcels |
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
In its decision in Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 * (1966), the United States Supreme Court held (in part):
“[D]ebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” … “Legislators do not forfeit their constitutional rights to speak out on public issues” Chief Justice Earl Warren reasoned that “while the State has an interest in requiring its legislators to swear to a belief in constitutional processes of government, surely the oath gives it no interest in limiting its legislators’ capacity to discuss their views of local or national policy.”
Warren’s opinion provided broad free-speech protection for legislators’ political speech. “The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issue of policy,” Warren wrote. “Just as erroneous statements must be protected to give freedom of expression the breathing space it needs to survive, so statements criticizing public policy and the implementation of it must be similarly protected.”
CONCLUSION:
GTLNC and its 98 NC counterparts throughout Los Angeles contribute substantial and valuable volunteer time, labor, services and resources – often without even reimbursement of direct out-of-pocket expenses – for the benefit of the City and their respective communities, with zero or near-zero undesirable effects on the City of Los Angeles. NC Board members and Officers are probably the only institutionalized labor force in the City of Los Angeles which is completely unrepresented and uncompensated – and with no pension and medical benefits, and no sick leave or paid vacations.
It is a waste of taxpayer funds and a misapplication of precious resources to attempt to make controversial such petty and inconsequential matters as the ones raised. This is made more painfully obvious in the midst of recent disclosures about Councilmember bribery and staff corruption, management incompetence, squandered and missing public funds, disabled contractor tracking mechanisms, uncollected fees and fines, budget deficits and pending layoffs.
* Citation error corrected on August 11th, 2025.
# # #
Preliminary list of recipients, subject to confirmation and possible supplementation.
This list is for information purposes only and is not part of the subject resolution itself.
To: Mayor Karen Bass
Joey Freeman, Deputy Mayor, Intergovernmental Affairs
Jared Rivera, Deputy Mayor, Office of Community Engagement
Marissa Bowman, Director of Community Engagement
Michelle Vergara, Director of Community Engagement, Van Nuys
Betsaira Aguilera, East Valley Area Representative, Community Engagement, Van Nuys
Members of the Los Angeles City Council
cc: Los Angeles City Attorney
Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney
Elise Ruden, Team Leader, Neighborhood Council Advice Department
Ayelet Feiman, Neighborhood Council Advice Department
cc: Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
Carmen Chang, General Manager
Erica Gatica Doughty, Neighborhood Empowerment Advocate
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1 (continued)
