Comments on: Proposals for Reforming D.C.’s Advisory Neighborhood Commissions

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:22:16 +0000

A bit about ANC history: The first city to have them was St. Paul, Minnesota. The Congressperson from there at the time the Home Rule Act was being written and proceeding through Congress, proposed an amendment that provided for the establishment of ANCs in the District, all to be approved or not by the voters in DC at a special referendum. On May 7, 1974, the referendum was held containing two questions: Do you want Home Rule? and do you want ANCs? The vote was a good bit larger for Home Rule than for ANCs but still a sizable majority for as opposed to against.
After a 10 year struggle to get them, Los Angeles now has them. They are set up quite differently than ours in a number of ways but primarlily in that the qualifications, what a commissioner/commission can and cannot do are much more specific with the consequences for violations also much more specific and enforceable. In fact, what I read about them was all under the Attorney General’s Office.
A city in Texas, I’m pretty sure it is San Antonio, has been interested and someone from there interviewed a commissioner from St. Paul about them. Very interesting interview in that they have problems similar to ours even though they are set up a bit differently too. I don’t know if San Antonio got them or not.
I’m a 100+% advocate for ANCs. I think the fundamental problem with them in DC is that so few people take them seriously whether it’s the commissioners or the Mayor. The system is treated in general somewhat like other parts of the DC gov. The fact that it exists is good enough, it doesn’t matter how well it performs.
I asked a panelist at an Emanciapation Day celebration where the whole governing history of DC from the 3 commissioners appointed by George Washington right up through the “Control board” to the Williams administration about the ANCs because none of them had mentioned them in their presentations. The response was “They were sort of an after thought.”
To me, that was an “afterthought” that is an amazing expansion of democracy with an incredible amount of power if the system was taken seriously and we really did it right. Imagine for instance what might happen if every ANC were addressing the issue of voting representation in Congress at their meetings–how many more people just here in DC would know what that situation is and if every ANC were to stand as one in the demand for that, we could be a force that Congress could not ignore or toy with. It saddens me deeply that we have that power and don’t better use it.
So, I really appreciate your thoughts on how it could be made better. Next time, I’ll tell you some of my thoughts on that.
Thank you for your interest, concern and ideas for reform!

By: Nolan

Nolan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:07:16 +0000

I think the transparency and consistency could go a long way. Access to simple budgets or accounting for how the money was spent should not be so difficult.

And I swear some of these ANC websites are geocities holdovers, how much would it cost to employ a couple web guys to update those more often? There has to be a better solution.

I’m not really a fan of proportional representation, I think everyone having 1 member is good because it gives every geographic region a say. I could see a situation where one neighborhood dominates in a proportional system and another neighborhood is constantly underrepresented and undeserved. I’d be game for 1 at-large seat per ANC, but not making the whole ANC that way. It would be interesting to know how many votes wins one ANC district vs. another – this might tell us which neighborhoods would dominate in a proportional system.

By: Si Kailian

Si Kailian — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:38:38 +0000

great topic for discussion. As an ANC 2C constituent I have seen some crazy stuff in recent years :) the current situation of having 4 commissioners has been a big problem for sure. my neighboring ANC 6C has 9 commissioners, actual committees, and functions very well. I think one major problem is that when things go dysfunctional ala Shaw, there is no remedy other than the ballot box. We have one guy who oversees the ANCs but he has no actual power to enforce the laws governing them. So when certain commissioners (and people who think they are commissioners) do bad things, there are no consequences. So…the ballot box. basicly the recall process takes 18 months. when you have a 2 yr term its not worth the effort. And to top it all off the voter rolls are a mess. Something is very wrong when an SMD is supposed to have 2000 registered voters and about 260 actually cast votes.

with regard to resources, website & all that…DC gov does have things available but many ANCs choose not to take advantage of them. I think some sort of web presence should be mandatory. The lack of communication with the community is sorely lacking, even with a functional ANC like 6C.

By: IMGoph

IMGoph — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:14:31 +0000

first, rob, let me just say thank you for bringing up this topic! it’s something that i have wanted to discuss for a long while, and i’m glad to see someone taking the initiative to get a dialogue going.

a small correction�not every ward has between 4 and 6 ANCs. ward 5 has only 3.

this brings up what i have focused my thoughts on for some time�what is the ideal number of members in an ANC commission? one of the problems that has befuddled the 2C commission for so long is the fact that it has an even number (4) of commissioners. there are many 2-2 votes due to the nature of the commissioners’ loyalties and points-of-view.

ANC2D has 2 commissioners and ANC5C has 12! why this massive disparity? why is there not more uniformity in the system? each of the ANCs in ward 5, for example, has a large number of commissioners, yet they don’t in ward 2.

ANC2F, for example, split off from 2C at some point in time, due to the socioeconomic changes and stratification between the logan circle and central parts of shaw (at least, that’s the story i’ve heard, it would need to be backed up by someone who knows the full story).

so, this is a good start, i’d say. anyone have any thoughts on the numbers game i’ve brought up here?

By: SG

SG — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:12:24 +0000

I like the idea of expanding the areas of each ANC, thereby reducing the number in each Ward. I’d probably halve the number. That would likely ensure that each representative was vetted by a larger and more diverse population and there would be less unopposed seats (which often leads to crackpot candidates).

As for DC liquor licensing, it is among the most lax in the nation. Let’s not lose sight of that. If your not in a moratorium zone, there’s basically nothing you can do to stop it. The worst example I recall was the Queen of Sheba incident with Shiloh Baptist, but even there QoS eventually got their license. And FYI- I am glad it is so easy to get a liquor license. It gives the city the vibrancy that makes it so great.

Also, the ABC Board is paring back Moratoriums (like the one on 17th Street).

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:53:04 +0000

I’m not a big fan of term limits, but in this case that might be necessary. Would there be enough people wanting to participate that would allow term limits to work, though?

My other thought is: why aren’t DC late night patrons better organized? In SF we had the San Francisco Late Night Coalition that registered voters outside of bars and clubs and built up a constituency to combat NIMBYs.

Maybe it’s DC wanting to turn off politics in part of their lives — in SF there tends to be no division between work and play and play and work.