This morning, Chicken Corner received an email from Bert Green, director of Bert Green Fine Art, a downtown gallery on 5th St. at Main, concerning my report that a grievance has been filed against Russell Brown by Kim Cooper and Richard Schave.

Green, whom I have met in the past, says I had my facts wrong in yesterday's "Grievance" post. He says that Cooper and Schave were not the founders of the nonprofit Downtown Art Walk -- that they took over leadership from Green himself in 2009. Green also claims Cooper and Schave were not forced out "as a result of meddling by Brown" -- as I reported -- but as a result of differences with members of Downtown Art Walk's board of directors that "had NOTHING to do with Russell Brown."

According to Green:

The Downtown Neighborhood Council (DLANC) was an incubator and major sponsor of the Downtown Art Walk, a relationship that I had built over 5 years. The Historic Downtown BID [Business Improvement District] was also a sponsor, and each of these organizations contributed up to 10,000 in cash and in kind donations to the event, including paying for the shuttle that Kim and Richard operated. The BID also took care of the safety and trash for the event, which was in indirect cost of close to 25,000 additional dollars, which is the BID's responsibility to the neighborhood they serve. Richard and Kim effectively destroyed those relationships and then demonized Russ Brown, who personally held together the nuts and bolts of the event; the unglamorous side of safety, trash, and political support.

Russ Brown is the Executive Director of the HD BID, and the current elected president of the DLANC. There are 2 other Downtown neighborhood council members who are also BID directors; Hal Bastian (Downtown Center BID), and Kent Smith (Fashion District BID). Where is the conflict of interest? There is absolutely NO financial gain for any of these members; in fact they are all volunteers who faithfully serve their neighbors in these DLANC roles. They are legally elected members in good standing. Conflict of Interest is defined as having conflicting financial interests.

And here we circle back to the issue that got Chicken Corner interested in the first place: the integrity of neighborhood councils. Because, regardless of Kim Cooper's (a friend of mine) or her husband, Richard Schave's behavior or relationship to their former colleagues, the question remains at Chicken Corner: Should board members of a business improvement district serve as board members of a neighborhood council? Here at Chicken Corner, a vote was taken, and the result was: No.

Call me a neighborhood council purist (or call me insane). What I want to believe is that the neighborhood councils have a community agenda, free from business biases -- even arts business biases. This doesn't mean a local business owner cannot serve his community on a neighborhood council board. But when you have representatives of business organizations serving on the neighborhood council in the same area, it starts to look...stacked.

I am sure Green is correct that none of the overlapping board members are receiving actual money in this arrangement. But I can't shake the idea that what they bring to the neighborhood council's table is a business agenda. Likewise, it's delightful when a business improvement district comes together with a local representative council to support a project as truly worthy as the Art Walk. But what about the resident who doesn't like the Art Walk (I mean, just suppose this were true), or wants neighborhood council efforts to be directed elsewhere? What if they want the council's money to support a parking lot picnic instead of an art walk -- one of the key issues here being city money? What if the agendas don't mesh? Do they stand a chance?

Here's a new question: if the system is going to work, should all L.A. neighborhood councils follow the same rules and get the same amount of money? Or can they follow the dictates of their own, unique values? What is a neighborhood council, anyway?