Another issue with ANCs (the flipside of what I sometimes term "the tyranny of neighborhood parochialism")

I've written about from time to time as well, and I should have mentioned in the previous entry, is the failure of many ANCs to set up an adequate committee structure, and to provide ways for non-elected residents (note the word resident vs. citizen) to participate within the committee structure. ANC6A and ANC6C for example, allow for (and depend upon) resident participation on committees, and even for committees to be chaired by non-elected residents. See "ANCs and civic engagement."

Someone pointed out in response that this removes a certain amount of ANC behavior from electoral oversight. Although someone else countered that citizens only vote for their own particular commissioner.

So this is why Rob's point 1 is reasonable to consider:

1. Modify the structure of Single Member Districts. The SMDs ensure every resident exactly one ANC commissioner to report to, however they suffer the same problem of any geography-based electoral system: diffuse interests are often not represented. (renters, immigrant populations, etc.) For this reason many city councils, including D.C., have at-large seats. The ANC boundaries could remain the same and all commissioners could be elected at-large within the ANC. Or, a compromise option, each ANC could have one at-large commissioner in addition to those elected from SMDs. The number of SMDs could be reduced, or the total number of commissioners in each ANC increased by one.

However, I don't think it really gets at the problem (just like speed bumps are merely pimples on the issue of prevailing driving speeds on residential streets).

A better alternative would be to have people run for both SMD and for ANC officer positions(chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer) through the general election process. The difference would be that instead of one at-large Commissioner, who would only have one vote out of upwards of 9, all the officers would be elected by the registered voters.

And, the enabling legislation for ANCs should and could be revised to make the vice chair position responsible for "commission development"--training and technical assistance.

I should point out that the proposed legislation to "reform" electoral procedures in DC makes a big mistake by putting ANC elections in the primary election cycle rather than in the general election. See "Fixing the Board of Elections?" in the June 17 issue of themail, the city's leading e-newsletter on good government issues.

Note that in an email exchange in February, ANC1D representative Jack McKay pointed out to me that the ANC enabling legislation allows for non-elected residents to participate on ANC committees. He wrote:

I'm missing something here. You congratulate 6A because it "allows non-electeds to serve as chairs of committees". But that's a legal requirement:

DC Code § 1-309.11(f)
Chairmanship of each Commission committee or task force shall be open to any resident of the Commission area. The chairperson of each such committee or task force shall be appointed by the Commission. Each Commission shall make a good faith effort to involve all segments of the
Commission population in its deliberations regardless of race, sex, age, voting status, religion, economic status, or sexual orientation.

The whole point to committees is to provide a vehicle for residents to participate in ANC activities. I've never heard of an ANC that limited committee membership to commissioners.

I responded:

So it is a legal requirement, but just because it is required doesn't mean the regulation is followed. I am most familiar with ANCs in Wards 5 and 6. Until recently, only ANC6A allowed this in reality. Now ANC6C does too (although from its creation in 2003, it has relied on non-electeds to populate committees, just not to chair committees). It hasn't come to my attention of being "allowed" in any ANC in Ward 5. I haven't heard of it in other wards, but I can't claim to have ever done a full study.

I don't think that any of the Ward 5 ANCs _actively seek_ nonelecteds as committee members. Hmm, maybe 5C does. I know less about it than 5A and 5B. I think 6D does now, but for a long time they didn't even have committees (I blogged about it in 2005). I suppose that it might be the case for 6B, but I never hear a peep from people who aren't commissioners. (I don't pay much attention to 6B efforts, except in the context of Eastern Market.)

And he responded:

Seems to me that, if other ANCs aren't following the DC Code, residents ought to call them on it. But in fact, neither ANC commissioners nor residents know the ANC laws, and our local media pay little attention to ANCs and their possible misfeasance.

Some ANC commissioners misunderstand the role of committees, which is to be a vehicle for resident participation in ANC deliberations. The whole point is for the public to attend, and participate in, committee meetings and discussions, outside of regular ANC meetings. Our ANC has committees, but does not have non-commissioner committee "membership", because the idea is that these meetings should be open to one and all, without favoring any residents as "members". Anyone who wants to attend is welcome, and all are heard, as equals.

This role of ANC committees, which is rather different from the nature of committees of legislatures, is not well explained to, nor understood by, incoming ANC commissioners.

and my response:

I will say the other reason to have citizens on committees, even though your ANC doesn't, is to bring more people on to address responsibly the work that comes up. It's not possible for a handful of commissioners to address all the matters that are generated each month, that come before them based on their geography. In an ANC like 6C, when you have a chunk of downtown, there are always many zoning, alcohol licensing, BZA, and public space matters that demand attention.