Greater Greater Washington

Development


CPCA board postpones election amid campaign for change

Despite some predictions to the contrary at various points in our history, no US President has ever tried to cancel or postpone an election to avoid losing office. Mayor Rudy Giuliani briefly floated the idea after 9/11, just as his term was about to expire, but backed down during the ensuing criticism. But the Cleveland Park Citizens Association just invoked their emergency powers to delay their annual election until this fall. On its face, it looks like they took this step because many residents of that neighborhood, upset with CPCA's recent direction, joined the group and were planning to elect new leadership.


Image from CPCA.

Any resident of Cleveland Park is entitled to join CPCA by paying $15 in dues. Anyone who joined by May 5th would have been eligible to vote in the election previously scheduled for June 6th. Neighborhood leaders dismayed by the CPCA's current direction, particularly its vociferous opposition to the Giant project on Wisconsin Avenue, were organizing to change CPCA. Their efforts yielded about 75 new CPCA members in recent months, very likely enough to swing the election.

According to Jeff Davis, the head of the pro-Giant project group Advocates for Wisconsin Avenue Renewal (AWARE), Zoning Commission Chairman Anthony Hood "questioned whether the CPCA truly represents either Cleveland Park or the CPCA membership itself since such a small number of CPCA members (32 of 425) voted for their resolution against the Application." AWARE members met with CPCA leaders to urge changes to the bylaws that would enable more residents of Cleveland Park to find out about and participate in CPCA meetings and votes.

Davis and the other AWARE leaders also asked CPCA to nominate supporters of the Giant project to half of the positions, both on the Executive Committee and committee chairs. That would have given them an "equal voice" in the organization without excluding the existing CPCA leaders, who have contributed substantial time and effort to the neighborhood. According to current CPCA President George Idelson, AWARE "said such a 'joint' slate would avoid an acknowledged, organized campaign to take over the entire leadership of CPCA at our annual meeting."

In an email to the Cleveland Park neighborhood list this morning, Idelson wrote,

The Cleveland Park Citizens Association welcomes the many new members who have joined in recent weeks. This is a president's dream come true and we look forward to their active participation. ...

[However,] this campaign [to register voters for the CPCA election] has been fueled by false charges that the Association opposes all change and development. It has distorted our position on the Giant development ... That the campaign was orchestrated was demonstrated by some 60 bundled applications received by certified mail just before the specified cut-off date, by anonymous leaflets, and by private emails urging residents to join CPCA to "stage a coup."

The campaign urged people to join by a certain date, to be eligible to vote for this competing, unnamed slate. Demonizing an association and encouraging a chaotic election is hardly normal. This is Cleveland Park, not some third world country. We are deeply dismayed over the divisiveness this campaign has caused in our community. Development issues can be contentious, but they ought not be used to tear the community apart.

We need some time for cooling off. Time to reflect on the issues. For these reasons, CPCA's Executive Committee has executed the emergency powers granted in our bylaws to postpone the election of officers until the Fall. This is clearly an emergency. In the interim, we will seek ways to mend this tear in our neighborhood fabric.

Idelson seems to fundamentally misunderstand democracy. Democracy means that people can choose the leaders of an organization. That choice isn't limited to people who come to the organization completely unprompted. Rhetoric, whether true or false, does not invalidate that right. Elections don't always involve people quietly and calmly reaching a consensus.

Our nation's elections were contentious at least since Thomas Jefferson and John Adams ran against each other in 1796, and probably before that back to the first Congress, not to mention state legislatures and town meetings back to the founding of the Virginia and Massachusetts colonies. When the Democratic-Republicans disagreed with the Federalists about the nation's direction, the Federalists didn't say that Jefferson's "wild claims" were going to "tear the nation apart." Or maybe some did, but elections went ahead just the same, and in 1800, Jefferson beat Adams.

"Demonizing an association" for an election is very normal; almost every federal election involves at least one candidate railing against "Washington." Postponing an election is far more evocative of a "third world country" than running a voter registration drive to democratically change policy.

There's nothing wrong with a group of people organizing to get residents involved in decisions. Nor is it unusual for a contentious issue to spur many people to get involved in politics. As long as most residents agreed with most actions of CPCA, there was little reason to take the time to get involved. Idelson seems to feel that the sudden wave of voter registrations reflects a small group that doesn't represent what he sees as the longtime consensus of the neighborhood. Instead, it's he who is out of touch with a community dismayed by the priorities of its leaders.

The citizens' associations frequently come under fire for their undemocratic tendencies. While they claim to represent the community, closed boards make many decisions, including filling vacancies without elections. The Dupont Circle Citizens' Association only allowed people who were members before January 2009 to vote in their recent election. Robin Diener may not have won election as President had newer members been able to vote. But in DCCA's case, the Board nominated a mixture of newer and more long-time residents with diverse voices, all of whom won except for the office of President.

It's too bad that CPCA first took a position without pushing for broad involvement by its members, then spurned the suggestions from the large group of residents upset with its processes, and finally postponed the election. CPCA has taken membership dues from the new members but denied them their voice. This gives enormous ammunition to critics of community organizations. That's too bad, because community groups fill an important role in our local civic fabric. When a few members disenfranchise their neighbors because they don't like the rest of the community's opinions, they instead become a harmful knot in that fabric.

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

So do the people who joined up get their money back because of the suspended election, or do these clowns get to pocket it?

by William on May 26, 2009 1:25 pm • linkreport

Sounds like it might be time to form an alternative, representative community association and let the CPCA's leadership run their own little organization as they choose, but without the ability to claim they represent the community.

by Eric H. on May 26, 2009 1:54 pm • linkreport

What's the legal status of the CPCA? I understand some of the history of Citizen's Associations, but I've come to be very very suspicious of their preferential treatment at zoning hearings. Using an emergency by-law to cancel an election should have consequences for this group.

At this point, as a taxpaying citizen of Cleveland park, I'm ready to contact the city council and the zoning board to have their "automatic party" status revoked. This kind of behavior *is* a strong argument to roll back the power of these little tyrannical neighborhood cabals.

by MichaelA on May 26, 2009 1:56 pm • linkreport

It is also interesting that they awaited the closure of public comments on the Giant before making this announcement. Is there any mechanism for this to be considered by the Zoning Commission in light of CPCA testimony and activism against the Giant PUD?

by William on May 26, 2009 2:21 pm • linkreport

We have always been at war with Eastasia!

by Reid on May 26, 2009 3:22 pm • linkreport

My civic association has a bylaw stating that no individual may serve as President for more than one consecutive year. We have not only stuck to that rule, but it has helped us to continually recruit new leadership.

by Adam Pagnucco on May 26, 2009 3:47 pm • linkreport

Idelson's email reminds me of a statement by Robert Mugabe: "Demonizing a government and encouraging a chaotic election is hardly normal. This is Zimbabwe, not some upper crust neighborhood citizen's association."

by David C on May 26, 2009 3:58 pm • linkreport

When the "Fall" rolls around and the political climate is still ripe for a change of leadership (perhaps even more so after this stunt), will another "emergency" be declared?

by Joe B on May 26, 2009 4:22 pm • linkreport

Of course, a lot of organizations' bylaws have provisions that forstall a complete "coup" or being suddenly taken over, like requiring that officers be an active member for a year (to show commitment to and knowledge of the organization) and advance notice to membership of non-slate nominations. To my knowledge, CPCA has neither.

by AEO on May 26, 2009 5:07 pm • linkreport

CPCA definitely suffers from lack of new leadership. The current crop of officers has been on board for at least a half dozen years.

This wasn't the first sleazy use of bylaws. The executive committee ordered CPCA to oppose the Giant PUD application BEFORE they had a public meeting on the issue, again citing arcana in the groups' constitution as rationale. That's what got them in hot water with many of the neighbors in the first place.

They've also been really cagey about announcing meetings; they gave the community next to no notice on their initial meeting on the Giant PUD. For the upcoming election meeting, none of the new members was informed of the date or time, nor were they welcomed when they submitted their checks. They literally heard NOTHING from the CPCA. Mr. Idelson monitors the Cleveland Park List Serve regularly (it's where he finally posted his announcement that there would be no election). New members had been complaining for some days on the listserve that they'd heard nothing from CPCA. Until the bombshell dropped this morning, neither Idelson, nor his little cabal of officers, bothered to reply to the new members' questions.

by MichaelA on May 26, 2009 5:17 pm • linkreport

They either have the bylaw or they don't. It's not a democracy, it's a club. The current leadership going into a bunker and fighting to the bitter end shouldn't come as a surprise, and no one should be getting the vapors over it.

Regardless, it's just delaying the inevitable. Their legitimacy seems to have been eroded to near zero on this issue, so the rebels have essentially already won. They control the countryside and it's just a matter of taking over the palace.

by crin on May 27, 2009 7:48 am • linkreport

> It's not a democracy, it's a club.

Precisely. Which is why I don't want them running all over town, as they do, claiming to represent the views of the nieghborhood. That *is* something to get the vapors over. These little elitist neighborhood bullies have far too much influence on the zoning process in DC.

The automatic "party" status these organizations receive at zoning hearings should be revoked and they should be treated as what they are--a small clique of NIMBYs, entitled to their opinion, but having no special weight or merit, and certainly not entitled to party status unless they can PROVE, with signed petitions, that their resolutions were passed by more than a dozen or so neighbors.

by MichaelA on May 27, 2009 9:07 am • linkreport

Agree that the whole party status thing should be looked at. A civic organization shouldn't automatically get party status anymore than another organization, but the Zoning Commission's findings of party status are very loose. In the Giant case, for example, the ZC gave the AWARE group party status even though it was hard to distinguish its interests from those of the general public. The ZC standard for party status is an interest that "would likely be more significantly, distinctively, or uniquely affected in character or kind by the proposed zoning action that those of other persons in the general public." (Indeed, by claiming to represent the Nixonian "silent majority," by definition it was claiming to represent the general public, which undercuts the argument for party status.) Not to mention, AWARE's membership included folks who live some distance from the PUD site (e.g., Woodley Park, Forest Hills, Chevy Chase DC.) Heck, if the Giant PUD were proposed for Forest Hills, I'd probably think it was pretty nifty too, as I wouldn't be impacted in the slightest.

by AEO on May 27, 2009 9:40 am • linkreport

@AEO

Is there a difference between the people in a specific neighborhood and the "general public" from the ZC's perspective? So that even if everyone in the neighborhood is on the same page, the fact that they are in the neighborhood where a zoning change or decision is implicated makes that group of people something other than the general public for party status?

by Eric H. on May 27, 2009 10:25 am • linkreport

Sounds like that comment in the Wash Times recently that Obama's popularity should not be taken too seriously, because of his high popularity amongst African-Americans. Apparently, their opinion doesn't really count as much as that of the white elite.

In this case it's not racist, but exclusionary of newbies. Obviously, the newbies aren't conditioned rightly yet to agree with the elites, and therefore they need to be silenced.

Last, I am not sure how delaying the election would help. Is there any example in history where delaying an election has calmed the electorate? There is even examples, where early elections were punished hard.

by Jasper on May 27, 2009 10:33 am • linkreport

Sounds like Cleveland Park IS a third world country.

Great to see the newly engaged working for positive community change - very unusual these days.

Emergency, indeed - impeachment or recall is, I assume, available to the new members.

by Ralph Bennett on May 27, 2009 12:14 pm • linkreport

Lost in the focus about the Giant is another theme in the Cleveland Park Citizens Association contest for control: payback. One of the organizers of the self-described “coup” at CPCA is the partner of Geoff Griffis, the controversial former chairman of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. The current CPCA leadership opposed Griffis’ nomination to the Zoning Commission, citing conflict of interest and other, uh, conduct allegations relating to Griffis’ stormy tenure at BZA. Griffis and his partner may now see an opportunity for possible payback.

by Roadie on Jun 8, 2009 2:50 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or