Georgetown ANC ignores democracy to fight campus plan

Development

Georgetown ANC ignores democracy to fight campus plan

by Jake Sticka • November 17, 2011 11:47 am

Later today, several commissioners from Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2E will present a 35-page report on the Georgetown University 2010 Campus Plan to the DC Zoning Commission. But the ANC never voted on the report, and some of its own elected members didn't see it until it was filed.

Photo by catface3 on Flickr.

The ANC already has significantly influenced the Campus Plan and steered the DC Office of Planning's own recommendations on the issue. This new report further tries to discredit efforts Georgetown University has made to satisfy neighborhood complaints.

This drafting process fails to meet the principles of transparent and accountable government, and stands in opposition to the stated goals of the ANC.

ANC 2E first became publicly involved in the campus plan discussion in January, when it hosted a town hall at the Duke Ellington School. Representatives from the ANC, the local neighborhood associations, and the university were present to discuss the plan and to solicit feedback and comments from community members.

Following this town hall, select members of ANC 2E drafted a 16-page resolution on the campus plan. After discussion at the ANC's March meeting, the resolution passed. It has subsequently had significant impact on the Office of Planning's review of the campus plan, which surprised many by recommending cuts in Georgetown enrollment if it doesn't house 100% of students on campus by 2016.

As an elected representative to ANC 2E I opposed that resolution, but nonetheless felt satisfied with the process. All voices on the matter were heard, and I was able to make the views of my constituents clear via my vote in opposition.

The same cannot be said of the supplementary report that was released last week, and which goes before the Zoning Commission today.

The supplementary report never appeared on a public agenda nor was it ever put to a vote. Despite being very engaged with the campus plan, and despite being a member of ANC 2E's town-gown committee, I only became aware of the existence of this report when it appeared on The Georgetown Metropolitan.

I asked ANC 2E chair Ron Lewis how it was that this report carried the full letterhead and endorsement of ANC 2E despite not having been voted upon. He referred me to a resolution passed in October 2010 (before my election) that reads:

Be it resolved by Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2E, that whenever a resolution or recommendation is adopted by the Commission that relates to a particular matter that is or will be before an agency, entity or instrumentality of the District of Columbia Government or of the United States Government, any Commissioner, or any one or more of them, or any successor thereto, who in each case has voted in favor of the resolution or recommendation so adopted, may represent the Commission before such agency, entity or instrumentality with respect to such matter. Further, any such Commissioner, with the approval of the Chair or in the Chair's absence, the Vice Chair, of the Commission, may authorize any other person to represent, assist in representing, or temporarily represent the Commission, in each case on a pro bono basis without fee, before such agency, entity or instrumentality with respect to such matter.

This resolution as usually applied has many positive and practical applications. The ability to have commissioners present before other government bodies on the thinking of the commission ensures that those bodies understand the ANC's position. It allows for clarifying questions that might otherwise be missed.

However, Lewis has clearly gone beyond the the intent of the resolution by creating a supplemental report over twice the size of the resolution it is augmenting, and which covers several new issues.

The report primarily attempts to discredit new initiatives Georgetown University instituted in response to community concerns. These programs include a late-night shuttle between campus and M Street, a daily trash collection service, and a significant increase in the number of reimbursable police details in the community. The report also addresses several of the points that GU made in its rebuttal statement, filed in July.

The original ANC 2E resolution does not address these programs or the the rebuttal statement because they did not exist at the time it was drafted. It is clear that the November 8th report is not in fact supplementary to anything, but is rather its own, original report. It does not clarify established positions, but rather establishes new positions about new issues.

Considering this fact, it is disappointing that the leadership of ANC 2E did not feel as though a public vote was justified. One of the best aspects of the ANC system is that it supports direct connection to the community. Constituents should always feel as though they have viewpoints heard. In the case of this supplementary report, that clearly isn't what happened. Instead, this report has been created in a completely non-transparent manner that undermines its authority.

It is my hope that Zoning Commission will consider the non-democratic drafting process behind the supplementary report as it reviews this case. Going forward, it is also my hope that ANC 2E will uphold the promise of the ANC system, and be more transparent and open in its proceedings.

16 comments

Tags: ANC, anti neighbors, campuses, DC, Georgetown, Georgetown University, Zoning Commission

Georgetown ANC redistricting plan marginalizes students (Aug 18, 2011)
GU campus plan changes target zoning board, not neighbors (Apr 11, 2011)
Town-gown planning can be more constructive (Nov 17, 2011)
OP wants 100% of GU undergrads on campus by 2016 (May 6, 2011)
Unreasonable Georgetown ANC redistricting plan moves ahead despite compromise proposal (Sep 13, 2011)

Jake Sticka is a member of Georgetown University's class of 2013, majoring in Government. Originally from San Diego, California, Jake was elected to ANC2E in November 2010. He also serves as President of the DC College Democrats.

Comments
Add a comment »

I see where the author of this piece is a student at Georgetown AND an ANC commissioner in Georgetown. Can we assume then that Jake is now a DC resident? ... i.e., paying DC income tax, holding a DC drivers license, and intending to stay in DC after graduation?

by Lance on Nov 17, 2011 12:49 pm

Lance, I think we can assume that Jake is legally a DC resident, or else he wouldn't have been eligible for the seat.

Where he, or anyone else currently sitting on an ANC, plans to live 1, 2, or 10 years in the future shouldn't have an impact on whether they're considered a DC resident.

Or if it should, please show me where in the law that is stated.

by Jacques on Nov 17, 2011 12:54 pm

Lance,

How is that relevant to Jake's comments?

by Alex B. on Nov 17, 2011 1:04 pm

Lance, I don't know what you are trying to say, but I do know that either (a) you don't know what "i.e." means or (b) you don't know what it means to be a DC resident.

by Devoe on Nov 17, 2011 1:07 pm

Lance, I would also argue that intending to stay in DC after graduation is not actually a requirement for being a DC resident. Is anyone who ever thinks of applying for another job or moving closer to family members *maybe* at some point in the future no longer a resident? What about people who are older and plan to retire to a different part of the country some day? Are they not residents?

by Kate W on Nov 17, 2011 1:16 pm

Well, the ANC interpretation is overbroad probably. Technically, standing is conferred on particular matters and is communicated via resolution and authorization of specific people as representatives before the ZC or BZA (or HPRB or ABC) on the matter at hand.

It all depends on how the ZC will handle it. They give a lot of leeway to ANCs. But they will ask about a resolution and authorization and they might ask about if the report has been passed by resolution. If they don't, certainly the Georgetown representatives will get that on the record.

But nothing prevents the ANC representatives as individuals from testifying and for submitting the report.

by Richard Layman on Nov 17, 2011 1:16 pm

Lance:

Residency does not require one to pay income taxes or get a drivers license (especially if you don't own a car).

By the way Lance, should I assume you are part of the realtor's group who have provided the money for the anti-GU campus plan because you want to encourage sales not rentals in Burleith, Glover Park, and Georgetown?

FYI, I am a former GU student who has lived in DC for 20 years.

by Paul W on Nov 17, 2011 1:28 pm

While I am persuaded by many of Jake's arguments about the Campus Plan, I'm afraid this one comes across as carping at his ANC colleagues.

Honestly, it would be a pointless exercise of repeating talking points on all sides were this to have been raised at the last ANC meeting. We all know where every commissioner and every attendee to ANC meetings stands on these issues, and the outcome would have been no different than it is now.

Honestly, I found Tom Birch's ANC2E redistricting map to be fair to all sides, and yet there has been no recognition that the democratic process actually worked with ANC2E redistricting by the students.

I think students would be well-served by spending every ounce of effort registering other students to vote, particularly those who live in West Georgetown dorms, instead of continuously lecturing the neighbors about democracy.

by Ken Archer on Nov 17, 2011 1:29 pm

@Richard Layman:

I agree with you that ANC2E's interpretation is probably overboard, and a lot of tonight's hearing will come down to how the ZC handles this report as well as the recent filings of CAG/BCA.

If I recall correctly (and I'm not an expert, nor have I followed this particularly closely, so perhaps someone better versed can help...), the ZC closed the record in June, except for filings related to the delayed DDOT portion of the proceedings (the record is closed to everything but transportation).

If that is the case, then perhaps CAG/BCA and ANC2E can make supplemental filings on non-transportation matters because they have party status, though I don't recall that exception being mentioned. (It should be noted that very little if any of their new reports deal with transportation while it mostly rehashes arguments the ZC heard this spring).

If parties are allowed to make non-transportation supplemental filings (something someone will need to clarify), then ANC2E can lose its party status without an authorizing resolution, preventing individual commissioners from testifying as individuals.

If even parties aren't allowed to make non-transportation related filings, then both supplemental reports (CAG/BCA and ANC2E) shouldn't be entered into the record, making the controversy over that particular report's legality insignificant (save for the ugly precedent of closed-door agreements).

by DCer on Nov 17, 2011 1:40 pm

@Ken: Do you really want to make the argument that the process doesn't matter when the results won't change? If ANC 2E wants to pass a resolution like this, the votes are there, but that shouldn't mean they don't have to allow people to make their points heard. More to the point, the majority of the content addressed in this report wasn't covered the first time around. Take the M Street shuttle and daily trash pick-up programs. Do you agree with ANC 2E that they have been abject failures and that they have made the situation worse? I'd be surprised if you do because I have spoken to several fairly neutral neighbors that do disagree with that position.

As for redistricting, I think the Birch plan is better (it is legal after all!) but by no means a real compromise with the student position.

@DCer: The University has said they plan to make the argument that these supplemental reports should be ignored because the record is closed (http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2011/11/16/tomorrows-campus-plan-hearing-what-to-expect/). Whether or not the ZC accepts that argument remains to be seen. Regardless, I think the precedent you cite is troubling.

Lance: I do happen to pay taxes here and have a DC driver's license. I'm not sure if I plan to stay in DC in graduation, in the same way that I suspect many other ANC Commissioners in the city don't know what employment options will spring up in the next 5 years of their lives. Also, as Alex pointed out, I'm not sure of the relevance of that discussion here, especially considering the fact that we have had this discussion several times already.

by Jake Sticka on Nov 17, 2011 2:01 pm

The only to make ANCs not break the rules is to get rid of them.

DC Universities should ban together and go over the City Council's head straight to Congress. If Washingtonians repeatedly not play by the rules, why would the universities not *within the rules* directly deal with Congress? It is clear they can't get anything done within the supposedly democratic institutions in DC.

by Jasper on Nov 17, 2011 2:21 pm

DCer -- I too haven't kept up with the proceedings. But if what you say is true and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then you're right, only the parties with standing can submit additional documents. Parties without standing can only submit documents if specifically asked to do so by the Zoning Commission with regard to particular matters.

However, it can be done outside of that. E.g., I once got around this by "convincing" ANC6C to "request from me" a retail and placemaking analysis of Florida Market to submit on the PUD matter there, after I had no more opportunities to submit testimony. I wrote it up, sent it to them, and they submitted it, and it did help to change the community benefits piece of the zoning order substantially, in good ways.

So yes, as Jake says, GU will challenge submittal of that document. BUT if the ANC asks for it and submits it they can still get it into the record. It's murky about whether or not votes on individual documents are required. I'd say no, it's covered under the general standing issue as long as there is a guiding resolution.

JAKE -- it's troubling maybe, but the "precedent" you are troubled by has to do with law. ZC, BZA, HPRB, and ABC matters are legal proceedings, matters guided by law and therefore follow very specific legal procedures and regulations. They don't just make it up as they go along. The rules are very clear. (And a long time ago when I didn't understand that, I lost the ability to submit on a particular matter, because I missed that submissions for that matter were due by 2 PM not COB on that day, I filed an appeal and lost, justifiably.)

by Richard Layman on Nov 17, 2011 4:12 pm

@Richard: To be clear, I wasn't referring to the record being closed. Based on the history of these proceedings, I think the decision to close the record was the proper one. Instead, I was responding to this piece of DCer's post:

My point was merely that regardless of if this report is entered into the record or not, the manner in which it came into being still sets a bad precedent.

Sorry if I was unclear.

by Jake Sticka on Nov 17, 2011 4:33 pm

@Ken

Let's apply this logic to analogous situations, shall we?

On Supreme Court nominations: "Honestly, it would be a pointless exercise of repeating talking points on all sides were this to have been raised at the last Senate hearing. We all know where every Senator and every attendee to Senate committee meetings stands on these issues, and the outcome would have been no different than it is now."

On parole hearings: "Honestly, it would be a pointless exercise of repeating talking points on all sides were this to have been raised at the last parole board hearing. We all know where every board member and every attendee to parole board meetings stands on these issues, and the outcome would have been no different than it is now."

On jury deliberations: "Honestly, it would be a pointless exercise of repeating talking points on all sides were this to have been raised at the last deliberation. We all know where every juror and every party to the trial stands on these issues, and the outcome would have been no different than it is now."

On elections: "Honestly, it would be a pointless exercise of repeating talking points on all sides were this to have been raised at the last campaign cycle. We all know where every candidate and every voter stands on these issues, and the outcome would have been no different than it is now."

Just because an outcome is predictable doesn't mean it's acceptable to circumvent the official process.

Could you provide some examples of this supposed continuous lecturing of the neighbors? What neighbors, in particular, have been lectured to? By what means?

by Dizzy on Nov 17, 2011 4:56 pm

Jake, thanks for the clarification.

by Richard Layman on Nov 17, 2011 6:40 pm

I don't know how they do things in ANC2E, but in my ANC, there are bylaws regarding representation of ANC views to ZC and other DC government bodies.

Specifically, a report or testimony from the ANC must clearly and explicitly state whether the statement being made has been voted on and is the official position of the ANC, or has not been voted on, or is contradiction to the official position of the full ANC.

ANC 2E's bylaws state: Section 6. Any individual Commissioner may communicate his or her views on any issue within the scope of his or her jurisdiction to
any government entity; provided, however, that unless such communication has been approved by the Commission as a whole or reflects the views of the Commission as reflected in a formal vote of the Commission, such Commissioner indicates in such communication that he/she is speaking as an individual Commissioner, and not for the Commission itself.

IINAL, but I think the Oct 20, 2010 "resolution" may be in volation of ANC 2E's by-laws.

by Trulee Pist on Nov 18, 2011 2:14 pm