Mount Pleasant DC Forum

[jack]

The Mount Pleasant Advisory Neighborhood Commission
with All-Ways MtP and MtP Main Street
Invites You to a Focus Forum on MtP Affordable Housing
Monday, May 23, 2005, 6:45 - 8:45 PM
Gather at 6:45, discussion starts at 7:00
Mount Pleasant Branch Library Main Meeting Room, Ground Floor

A forum for Mount Pleasant residents to discuss ideas and changes that would generate and preserve diversity and economic development via affordable housing.

Facilitated by Ward One Councilmember Jim Graham

We'll use 3x5 cards to collect input, & an audio recording of the discussion as a first step for the Comprehensive Plan + other studies. As a next step, MtPMS, AMP, & ANC1D plan a follow up Forum in three months with details.

Mount Pleasant Advisory Neighborhood Commission
Special Public Meeting -- 6:00 – 6:30 PM, Monday, May 23, 2005

A brief special ANC meeting will take place on Monday, May 23, at 6:00 pm, at the Mount Pleasant Library, immediately preceding the Focus Forum on Affordable Housing.

[jen]

What is the agenda for the special ANC meeting?

[jack]

[jen]

Jack--can you tell us more about what the issues are regarding the agenda items? Thanks.

[jack]

[wdcma]

I attended the special anc meeting this evening. It didn't officially start till at least a half hour than posted because they were waiting to get a quorum of anc commissioners. When it started, the first thing they did was ask if there was any public comment, which there wasn't at the time, the meeting had yet to get started. Then when the first agenda item was discussed, 1636 Irving St., they said they would have a 5 min. public comment period before voting but they never did have one. Then with the 2nd agenda item there was no public input time allowed or public input allowed. Then with the 3rd and final agenda item there was no public comment allowed, however this agenda item ended up being tabled to the next meeting. It doesn't seem to be very transparent that when the anc posted the notice about this meeting they gave very little information, so it was impossible to tell what exactly they were going to discuss related to the topics mentioned in the anc's earlier posting. Yet at the special anc meeting the commissioners already had pre-drafted pre-written resolutions regarding each of these agenda items. Why is it that the anc doesn't publish those 'draft' resolutions ahead of time along with the notice of the meeting? Yeah, the law doesn't say you have to, but by gosh, if the anc was genuinely interested in substantive input from the community they would be more open and transparent and would publish their draft resolutions ahead of time to allow for maximum public comment. But the anc appears to continue to shirk from the responsibility of community input and outreach altogether. This is just another fine example. Residents expect more and the anc should be held accountable for their failure to involve more of the residents, not to mention ignore the input of many who are very actively involved in the community.
I'm disappointed and frustrated.

[jack]

[Bill]

[jack]

[wdcma]

With that attitude of the anc, why even go to an anc meeting? If you can't as much give some time to the people who took time out of their day to physically be present at the meeting, to give their comments and provide input, then I highly doubt that there is much concern for the opinion of those hundreds, or thousands who don't go to the meeting. Why bother even going if the anc doesn't make the effort to ask the thoughts of those in attendance??? That meeting left me with little desire to waste my time there again. Who's fault was it that the anc meeting was running late and time was tight? Was it the fault of the residents in attendance? No. The ANC could be more efficient of the use of their time and the public's time. One of the commissioners went on and on for a half an hour about the real estate market in dc and when asked by a resident what his point was he refused to state it. That whole oration could have been replaced with sharing the resolutions that were drafted by the anc and letting the community provide input. That would have been valuable to those in attendance and perhaps to the anc commissioners but obviously the commissioners go to these meetings with their minds made up before they've even done any true due diligence in obtaining public opinion on a matter. It is shameful.

[jack]

[Gregg Edwards]

Dear Bill,

Here is the text mandating open meetings in DC:

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition
Division I. Government of District.
Title 1. Government Organization.
Chapter 2. District Of Columbia Home Rule.
Subchapter VII. Referendum; Succession In Government; Temporary Provisions; Miscellaneous; Amendments to District of Columbia Elections Act; Rules of Construction; And Effective Dates.
Part D. Miscellaneous.
§ 1-207.42. Open meetings.

(a) All meetings (including hearings) of any department, agency, board, or commission of the District government, including meetings of the Council of the District of Columbia, at which official action of any kind is taken shall be open to the public. No resolution, rule, act, regulation, or other official action shall be effective unless taken, made, or enacted at such meeting.

(b) A written transcript or a transcription shall be kept for all such meetings and shall be made available to the public during normal business hours of the District government. Copies of such written transcripts or copies of such transcriptions shall be available, upon request, to the public at reasonable cost.

Credit
(Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 831, Pub. L. 93-198, title VII, § 742.)

-----------------

As the web-published analysis of the act by lawyers from Williams & Connely says:
"The Sunshine Act does not address a right to comment during public meetings. "

I hope we can set up a structure for dialog. Of course, productive dialog is a cultural artifact practiced with varying dimensions of effectiveness and skill. In my professional life, I'm used to it requiring that people suspend judgment on the approach taken by others, and deal with what others have said, not one's own interpretation. Apparently, few folks do that 'naturally', thus the many training courses on Listening.

I'm an officer of a non-profit board (on Affordable Housing) where much emphasis (with consultants, retreats,...) has been devoted to building up those skills, including a research-based covenant. It is still a struggle, more honored exceptionally rather than regularly. Old habits die hard.

Respectfully,
Gregg Edwards

[jen]

[quote="Gregg Edwards"][color=darkblue]

In my professional life, I'm used to it requiring that people suspend judgment on the approach taken by others, and deal with what others have said, not one's own interpretation. Apparently, few folks do that 'naturally', thus the many training courses on Listening.

I

Wow Gregg! I actually prefer to judge motivations and intent based on what people do. In my profession as a social worker, approach( or process) is often the real defining issue. Talk is pretty cheap and people will say just about anything--often to hear themselves speak or disallow others an chance for input. Interestingly you and Jack are sticking by the written guidelines to defend your own opinion stifling choice rather than engage in the difficult but morally correct behavior of giving those in your community a voice--exactly the listening that you would so appreciate yourself.

I and many others in the community find this behavior rather appalling and each time this happens, you lose credibility and support.

Who knows, maybe the masses will rise in revolt and strip this ANC of any authority it professes to have. Actually, we do not have to rise, we can just view you as failing represent our interests and render you insignificant ( many Mt. Pleasanters already do). Too bad-- this body has so much more potential.