City Report on Special Events Lacks Cost, Attendance Figures

City staff put together a list of 206 sponsored events in 2010 that lacks turnout information and expenses. An unhappy council is demanding the new information within a month.

Wondering how many people attend the special events West Hollywood puts on and how much they cost? So is the City Council. In fact, the council was so curious, it directed City Hall staff to write a report on the subject.

But when that report came back at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, it did not contain the information the council requested, leaving council members none too happy.

In July, the council directed staff to come up with a report of all the special events the city puts on, including cost and attendance figures. Such a report was needed to evaluate how the city is spending its money in light of the fact that six city staff positions (including a code compliance officer) were frozen and not being filled.

The report the council got contained a list of 206 special events the city put on in 2010, everything from the annual Halloween Carnival to a senior Valentine’s Dance to the Rainbow Key Awards ceremony. Included in that report was the date, location and type of event, but no information about cost or attendance.

Mayor John Duran said they could not evaluate the data without cost and attendance figures.

Councilman John D’Amico agreed, saying, “This doesn’t get to the goal of having a better understanding of how we’re spending money on the events that we’re doing.”

Councilwoman Abbe Land said they needed to know how much staff time was used in producing an event to fairly evaluate it. Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Prang said the report needed to distinguish ongoing events from one-time events.

Councilman John Heilman said they needed to know what constituencies were being served by each event to make sure certain groups of people were not being underserved.  

Data not in yet

City Manager Paul Arevalo defended the report, explaining that they did not have the final cost and attendance information yet. Hearing that, audience members talking amongst themselves wondered why since the report was for 2010 events, not 2011 events.

But Arevalo did not elaborate. He said final cost and attendance figures would be included as part of the biannual budget review process in the spring.

Land said they needed to have the information well in advance of the budget.

Duran concurred, saying, “206 does seem to be excessive. All of the five of us wish to have some input into that rather to delegating it to the budget subcommittee.”

Arevalo said he would have to schedule a council meeting where the report was the only substantive item on the agenda since it would take considerable time to go through each event. The council directed him to do so for the Feb. 21 meeting.

During public comment time, former City Councilman Steve Martin criticized the shoddy staff report, saying that the council had given clear direction about the report it wanted.

“Welcome to what the rest of us have to go through dealing with staff,” Martin said, pointing out that residents are often stymied trying to get information out of City Hall staff. “This is an issue of respect. Staff does work for you and the public. It’s embarrassing this is happening.”

According to the report, of the 206 special events the city put on in 2010, 62 were events that the city sponsored (city staff produced the event entirely). The city co-sponsored 33 events. All of them carry direct costs to the city.

The report also lists 22 events that the city endorsed and 89 events the city helped to promote. None of those events carried direct costs to the city.

Stay up to date on West Hollywood news and events, by following @WehoPatch and “like” on Facebook.

Sheila Lightfoot January 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Many commenters on recent articles and blogs have focused on the corrupt nature of an entrenched City Hall “process.” If you’d like to dive into the weeds of how the City’s corrupt process is managed, I’d recommend reading 10.D. on the Historic Preservation Commission’s meeting agenda tonight (Monday, Jan 23). Go to http://www.weho.org/index.aspx?page=878 - and click on 10.D. Review of City Projects. You’ll find a transcript and minutes of the 2 Historic Preservation Commission meetings in which the Park Plan, in general, and the historic buildings in the Park, specifically, were allowed virtually “no” critical consideration by the Commission. As you’ll see, the Commission was not only limited in the scope of their input, but the EIR presented facts in a way that were overwhelmingly biased toward a pre-determined outcome for the Plummer Park design desired by City staff and Council. It clearly exposes the shameful maneuvering that has been used to thwart any community opposition to a plan for Plummer Park that virtually everyone hates. This shows what kind of input was actually allowed in all those meetings in which they like to boast the community had a voice. For those of you without the stomach for reading endless details, suffice it to say… it demonstrates how the process is rigged. It is a perfect example of “business as usual” at City Hall… they pre-determine what they want and steer the entire process toward their desired outcome.
joninla January 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM
In case anyone does not know or has forgotten, the Historic Preservation Commissions (just like the planning commissions) is a board of 7, one per each Council Members absolute sole discretion to appoint, the remaining 2 ("at large") are chosen by majority vote of the same 5 Council Member voting. Hardly a Historic Preservation Board with an agenda to do anything that would go against the wishes of the Council to destroy whatever historic location they feel like. From the official (.org) West Hollywood Website: The Historic Preservation Commission (formerly Cultural Heritage Commission) was created on November 6, 1989 and consists of five (5) members appointed directly by a Councilmember, and two (2) members appointed by the Council as a whole (at-large). see for yourselves: http://www.weho.org/index.aspx?page=226 (thanks Sheila for not stopping your efforts to bring the many problems together into the big issues/problems with our City
joninla January 24, 2012 at 01:30 AM
Sheila - I think 10c also is significant. It confirms that the Subcommittees the Council or Commissions create to address concerns that arise from the public's voice is is now way any kind of decision making body that would required changing any plans. It's just an advisory conclusion that need not be implemented. from 10c. - second to last sentence at the end. "The subcommittee report will be considered advisory and its recommendations are subject to action by the full Commission." "ADVISORY" only
joninla January 24, 2012 at 01:36 AM
The "disclaimer" preceeding your link is also troublesome in general and going back to the election reform issue, another reason to not have an Election with information opposing candiates positions being provided 'for the beneit of the public' by the weho.org offical website. http://www.weho.org/index.aspx?page=237
Shawn Thompson January 24, 2012 at 08:57 AM


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »