Sunshine Task Force

About the Beverly Hills Sunshine Task Force

Mayor John Mirisch formed the Sunshine Task Force upon election to “ensure greater transparency and public involvement in local government operations” in City of Beverly Hills. The committee includes former officials and politically-active stakeholders who share an interest in making the processes and products of local governance accessible to the public. We at Better Bike expressed our interest in the task force because we don’t always find City Hall particularly open to sharing information as advocate for mobility options.

We’ve created this page as a temporary repository for material related to the committee’s work until such a time as city staff organize and post it. (We also post Task Force meeting recaps on the main page.) Here we host reference material discussed at the Task Force meetings, highlight relevant organizations and potential contacts, and make available good governance reports and academic publications. We’ll add to the page as we come across new material.  Feel free to make suggestions in the comments pane and/or suggest material to post.

Advocacy Organizations

Sunshine Review is an organization that grades local governments on transparency. Their motto, “Bringing state and local government to light,” summarizes the mission and their goal – “a customer service hot-line for government transparency and accountability” –  suggests the utility. They publish a ‘transparency Report Card’ which grades cities (for example) according to a 10-item checklist. Their checklist focuses exclusively on what it calls “proactively disclosing government data” via the local government website. By their measure, Beverly Hills receives a grade of only ‘C’ in 2013.

American Society of News Editors is the organization behind Sunshine Week, an annual celebration of good and open government funded by the Knight Foundation that supports legislative action to make the products of government accessible to the media and the public.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press may sound like a members-only industry alliance, but in fact it can be helpful to the non-pro would-be journalist too. To the trade it  provides legal advice and advocates on First Amendment issues. To the local digger, the organization’s legal guide helps to protect your right to access public records and push back when you

The Knight Foundation is an outgrowth of the newspaper media empire of the same name and is a major backer of programs that nurture innovation in the media (e.g., the annual News Challenge). It works with selected communities on “transformative” communities program initiatives to to inform and engage the public. (Long Beach is the nearest Knight Communities non-resident partner.) Read the foundation’s national strategy for an overview.

The Open Government Foundation (helmed by California Congressman Darrel Issa) is a tech-tools maker with a mission to pry open the darker corners of the state and federal government. Making it’s mark early with opposition to the ill-conceived federal Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation, the organization embraces an aggressive approach (“We bring the sledgehammers”) to an ostensibly non-partisan tech-libertarian agenda of using public information as a “disruptive” means to force change upon against hidebound bureaucracies.

The Sunlight Foundation is another tech-centric organization that leverages the power of the Internet to “catalyze greater government transparency.” They’ve developed some very handy user applications to encourage informed participation as well as a suite of cyber tech tools (e.g., APIs) to empower organizations and web developers to access and repurpose government data. The motto: “improving access to government information by making it available online.”

Best Practices

Website Content for Local Agencies: A Checklist from ILG from the Institute for Local Government is a brief, bullet-list inventory of what a satisfactory local government website should contain. A starter for a report card, perhaps?

Reports

How the Public Perceives Community Information Systems (2011) from the Pew Internet Project. If you’ve come away frustrated with the Beverly Hills website because you couldn’t find the information you need, you’ll find comfort in the report’s findings from three American Cities. The emphasis is on communications between local government and citizens. The takeaway: “Those who believe they can impact their community are more likely to be engaged in civic activities and are more likely to be satisfied with their towns.”

Understanding the Basics of Transparency Laws (2009) in the Public Service Ethics series from the Institute for Local Government provides an overview (for stakeholder and official) of the public’s right to access information. Note the handy section on public meetings access – a framework for understanding California’s Brown Act.

Academic papers

(coming soon)

Legislation, Policy Guidance & Misc Resources

California’s Brown Act and brief Brown Act Summary from the Attorney General and unofficial descriptive PowerPoint explaining the fine points.

President Obama’s Executive Order: Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information. “Government information shall be managed as an asset throughout its life cycle to promote interoperability and openness, and, wherever possible and legally permissible, to ensure that data are released to the public in ways that make the data easy to find, accessible, and usable.” The emphasis here is on eliminating barriers by developing and implementing best practices through the federal government.

Potential Contacts

  • Long Beach Community Foundation Vice President Julie Heggeness: (562) 435-9033.(Affiliated with a Knight Community partner.)
  • Knight Foundation Vice President of Communications Marc Fest:
    (305) 908-2677 or fest@knightfoundation.org

Proposal: Ombudsman

The public sector Ombudsman is a “guarantor of citizens’ rights” and a mechanism for “impartial and independent investigation of citizens’ complaints,” according to United States Ombudsman Association. The ombudsman is responsible only to the people and to the legislative body; success in the position is defined by autonomy and independence, the freedom “to investigate any act or failure to act by any agency,” and “discretionary power to determine what complaints to investigate and to determine what criticisms to make or to publicize,” according to criteria developed by the American Bar Association (which publishes “Organizational Ombudsman: Origins, Roles and Operations”).

Among Westside cities, only City of Los Angeles has considered creating a Public ombudsman position. In 2006, Councilman Zine proposed an ombudsman position that would “assist and direct constituents who visit Council Chambers and need assistance from the City.” As submitted, the motion stated: “To ensure that all constituents are heard, the City Council should direct the City Clerk, the Chief Legislative Analyst and the City’s Administrative Officer to coordinate with the Council President’s office to create an Ombudsman position to assist constituents with questions or problems and direct them to the appropriate City department.” [excerpt from file 05-0575-S1]. But the proposal expired in November of 2009 without council action.

City of Santa Monica has fielded the suggestion several times over the years. At a community meeting titled “Improving the Electoral Process” (2007) public support was expressed for staffing positions assigned to individual Councilmembers “or appointment of a City ombudsman” (according to city notes from the meeting). No general public ombudsman position was created, however.

But Santa Monica has created (in 2005) a Development Services Officer position to facilitate permitting and “act as an ombudsman in terms of public interaction” with the planning process. Subsequently in 2010, the City Manager assigned to that position the additional responsibility for assisting Santa Monica’s businesses with strategic issues – aka ‘Business ombudsperson.’ The city has fielded requests for other focused ombudsman positions, including a volunteer Section 8 ombudsman to assist tenants in resolving housing issues (recommended by a member of the Resident Advisory Board in 2002) and a “business start-ups” ombudsman, which was suggested by attendees to a city budget process in 2009. As recently as 2012, members of the public revived the idea during a community visioning process. Under the rubric of “Improve Communications with Local Residents and Community Members,” the public ombudsman would “interact with community members and address impact concerns.” No position has been created.

West Hollywood in 2009 created a temporary “one-stop ombuds/community relations office” to handle any permits and issues arising from the 25th Anniversary capital improvement projects (e.g., library) but otherwise has not created a general public ombudsman position. Culver City has evidently not discussed an ombudsman position at all.

Los Angeles County, on the other hand, has created an ‘Office of Ombudsman Community and Senior Services’ to provide a “professional, neutral, and independent, forum for people who seek answers and solutions to problems” – chiefly the focus seems to be on elder issues and long-term care.

It seems that scale is a consideration. City of Los Angeles population is four million and the County counts ten million. At the same time, discussing the position at all seems to align with overall principles of good government and stakeholder access, and from this scant evidence it appears that there is interest among at least some members of the public for another means of contacting local government.

Recent Posts

Recreation and Parks Commission: Bicycles Ain’t Our Thing

Recreation and Parks commission this January formally decided to abandon the bicycle safety and training program the city undertook in 2015. Every month at a city school a trainer was on hand to educate children about bicycle safety and to provide hands-on ride-safe instruction. But the sessions were under-attended so it came as no surprise when the program was put on hold in 2017. More recently the commission showed little interest in revisiting the program. That was just the latest sign of the commissioner’s lack of enthusiasm for pro-bike park policies.

The few children who ride a bicycle in Beverly Hills seem completely unaware of ride-safe principles. They wear helmets because they must abide by the law, but they (and their parents) seem to see sidewalks as a kind of protected space for cycling. They cross the city’s many alley outlets without a care while each one is instead a danger point where serious injury is simply waiting to happen. The chance of a bike-car crash injury is greatest not on our streets but at blind alley crossings.

We could make our streets safer with a complete streets plan and a citywide bicycle network of marked routes to protect those who ride a bicycle. Indeed this is not a new idea for Beverly Hills. Back in 1977 the Beverly Hills Bicycle Master Plan (still on the books but never updated!) envisioned a 22-mile citywide bicycle route network “of the ‘bike lane’ variety” that would connect schools and parks “by the shortest, safest possible routes.” Imagine the possibilities!

Parks and schools were seen as anchor nodes of the future bike network. The General Plan updated in 2010 concurred: it saw a bikeway system as integral to outdoor recreation:

[A] bikeway route system should be developed to encourage bicycling on less- travelled streets and thereby separate transportation modes and lower the probability of accidents. The bike lanes (exclusive routes) or bike routes (portion of street or sidewalk labeled for bicycle use) should connect facilities such as schools and parks – places between which children may want to ride bicycles. – General Plan Open Space Element goal 12.5: Development of a Bikeway Route System

But our Recreation and Parks commissioners have not shared that view. Back in 2013 the Roxbury Park renovation was kicking-off and we reminded the commission about the Bicycle Master Plan’s vision of a route system that connected parks for riders. “This commission can integrate non-motor mobility into your oversight of recreation programs and park planning beginning with the Roxbury Park renovation,” we said. We suggested the commission develop ‘pre-planning guidelines’ in conjunction with the Traffic & Parking Commission in anticipation of the eventual bike plan update. The commission should have a role in the process, we said.

Active mobility was also a key recommendation in our Sustainable City Plan. That ‘shelfware’ was finalized in 2009 but roundly ignored by every city department — and not least by the Transportation division of Community Development which never regarded active mobility as worthy of planning.

While commissioners generally didn’t subscribe to our recommendations, one commissioner did consistently support pro-bicycle initiatives: Frances Bilak. Notably she pressed her fellow commissioners to let bikes in parks back in 2014 when, as her request, the commission on March 25, 2014 discussed adding a Class III path to Roxbury Park.

The in-park path would have allowed bicycle riding adjacent to walking paths. That it would have invited recreational riders in while giving children a protected opportunity to hone riding skills off of the street. But fellow Recreation and Parks commissioners did not endorse the concept.

Roxbury path minutes 2014-3-25Commissioner Bilak tried again that year: on May 24th she presented a revised proposal that would have allowed riders and walkers to share existing paths in Roxbury Park (after the park was renovated). She suggested that scheduled rides could encourage recreational bicycle riding in the park and perhaps remind riders to visit the park on a bicycle.

But fellow commissioners nixed that idea too!

A couple of years later in 2016 the commission heard from a member of the public who wanted to see bicycles in parks. Ye again the commissioners swatted away the idea. They did create an ad-hoc ‘bicycle liaison committee’ but it never evidently did any business. No commissioner other than Bilak suggested a way to make parks welcoming to riders (or integrate them into a bike network).

Complete Streets Plan: A New Opportunity Missd

Over the years we have urged Recreation and Parks commissioners to take a proactive role to make active mobility the preferred means of access to city parks. (Indeed it is something of an irony that Roxbury Park was, and is, accessible by bicycle lane — but that lane was striped by City of Los Angeles!)

In April of 2017 we rolled our prior recommendations into a broad suggestion that Recreation and Parks Commission anticipate the coming complete streets plan by making bikes-to-parks and bikes-in-parks priority items in the work plan. “We want people to visit our parks,” we told commissioners, “and we want them to leave the car at home.

That too fell on unsympathetic ears: early in 2018 the Recreation and Parks commissioners voted to formally jettison the long-standing, pending ‘bicycle riding’ priority item from the commission’s work plan.

Bicycles item pending 2017Now that the complete streets process was officially kicked off with a signed contract, commissioners simply let the ball drop entirely.


The Recreation and Parks Commission has done some good work. They presided over the Roxbury Park and Beverly Gardens renovations. There was the dog park (and a reprise of the dog park discussion) and the commission has other items on the plate too. Unfortunately, the relationship between active mobility and city parks as envisioned in our plans was ultimately not among the commission’s priorities.

We appreciate the bike-ed program that Community Services operated until 2017. But we were sorry to see the commission decline to revisit it when commission priorities were discussed this past January. Another missed opportunity.

  1. Halfway to one Complete Street (if not a ‘Complete Streets’ Plan) Comments Off on Halfway to one Complete Street (if not a ‘Complete Streets’ Plan)
  2. Beverly Hills Puts the Brake on Shared-Mobility Devices Comments Off on Beverly Hills Puts the Brake on Shared-Mobility Devices
  3. Concerns About our Complete Streets Process Comments Off on Concerns About our Complete Streets Process
  4. Complete Streets Walk Audit Recap Comments Off on Complete Streets Walk Audit Recap
  5. Bike Skills via WeHo Bicycle Coalition & Mid City West CC Comments Off on Bike Skills via WeHo Bicycle Coalition & Mid City West CC
  6. Complete Streets Workshop #2 Recap Comments Off on Complete Streets Workshop #2 Recap
  7. Beverly Hills Complete Streets Needs You Comments Off on Beverly Hills Complete Streets Needs You
  8. Lend Your Voice to the Beverly Hills Complete Streets Plan Comments Off on Lend Your Voice to the Beverly Hills Complete Streets Plan
  9. Collision Injuries in Beverly Hills Sill Reach for Record Highs in 2017 1 Reply
  10. Complete Streets workshop #1 Recap Comments Off on Complete Streets workshop #1 Recap
  11. Mark Your Calendar: Complete Streets Workshop #1 Comments Off on Mark Your Calendar: Complete Streets Workshop #1
  12. Traffic Citations Reach Record Lows in Beverly Hills in 2016 Comments Off on Traffic Citations Reach Record Lows in Beverly Hills in 2016
  13. Collision Injuries Reach Record-Highs in Beverly Hills in 2016 Comments Off on Collision Injuries Reach Record-Highs in Beverly Hills in 2016
  14. Complete Streets Comes to Beverly Hills Comments Off on Complete Streets Comes to Beverly Hills