Can we recall ANCs???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our ANC treats his constituents' opinions as something to either ignore or overcome, which I don't think is how democracies are supposed to work.

I wish we could just abolish the ANCs.

Their intended purpose was to act as a sherpa for citizens interacting with government.

We need to dramatically expand the Council and abolish the ANC's. Were we going to have a 13 member legislature if we got statehood?

The goal is to have the ANCs act as a lower house and the Council would become the Upper house

Yeah that sounds like a nightmare. I'd rather have Congress in charge.

An attitude consistent with a disrespect for small-d democracy.

uh, what? it's exactly the opposite. dc's government is about as unrepresentative as it gets. most of our officials are left wing nutjobs who get elected in primaries in which barely anyone votes. then, because they got elected with, like, 12 votes, they think they have a mandate to pursue all their craziest ideas. when voters object, they ignore them because they think they know better or because, hey, they were elected, even if 99 percent of their constituents did not actually vote for them.

A big part of the problem is that D.C. has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who can vote in primaries, which in places like DC is where all the decisions get made.

The rules effectively disenfranchise some 90,000 independent voters.

There's a ballot initiative that would change this, so that we would have open primaries where independents get to vote too. It would also bring ranked choice voting, which would be another big improvement.

The Washington Post editorial board just came out strongly in favor of it. You should support it too. Voters should get to pick their elected representatives, not vice versa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/11/dc-open-primaries-democratic-party/

Those voters disenfranchise themselves.

What? That sounds an awful lot like the arguments some people make to dismiss DC statehood.

No, it doesn't. All they have to do, to be able to vote in the primary, is check a different box on a voter registration form.

The parallels are quite obvious. How do you not see it?

On the one hand: if you want to vote in a party primary election, you have to check the box on your voter registration for that party.

On the other hand: if you want to have voting representation in Congress, you have to live somewhere else.

Nope, I'm not seeing the parallels.

We should be making it easier for people to vote, not looking for ways to discourage turnout.

Those are two different issues, aren't they? Issue 1: what are the barriers to voting? Issue 2: why do voters choose not to vote in elections they could vote in? If you're registered to vote, but you choose not to vote in the primary because all of the candidates in your party primary are running unopposed anyway, or because you choose not to register with a party, that's not a barrier to voting, that's a you issue.

No one should have to register with a party in order to exercise their right to vote.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's 550,000 adults in Washington D.C.

In 2022, Bowser won her primary, the only election that matters, with 62,000 votes.

Seems pathetic that you can win election to be mayor of a major city with barely 10 percent of adults backing you.

Of course, Bowser seems like a massive vote getter compared to people further down the ballot.

Matt Frumin won with all of 8,000 votes.

She's not mayor because she won the primary. That was necessary but not sufficient. She's the mayor because she won the general election, receiving 147,433 votes (77%).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our ANC treats his constituents' opinions as something to either ignore or overcome, which I don't think is how democracies are supposed to work.

I wish we could just abolish the ANCs.

Their intended purpose was to act as a sherpa for citizens interacting with government.

We need to dramatically expand the Council and abolish the ANC's. Were we going to have a 13 member legislature if we got statehood?

The goal is to have the ANCs act as a lower house and the Council would become the Upper house

Yeah that sounds like a nightmare. I'd rather have Congress in charge.

An attitude consistent with a disrespect for small-d democracy.

uh, what? it's exactly the opposite. dc's government is about as unrepresentative as it gets. most of our officials are left wing nutjobs who get elected in primaries in which barely anyone votes. then, because they got elected with, like, 12 votes, they think they have a mandate to pursue all their craziest ideas. when voters object, they ignore them because they think they know better or because, hey, they were elected, even if 99 percent of their constituents did not actually vote for them.

A big part of the problem is that D.C. has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who can vote in primaries, which in places like DC is where all the decisions get made.

The rules effectively disenfranchise some 90,000 independent voters.

There's a ballot initiative that would change this, so that we would have open primaries where independents get to vote too. It would also bring ranked choice voting, which would be another big improvement.

The Washington Post editorial board just came out strongly in favor of it. You should support it too. Voters should get to pick their elected representatives, not vice versa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/11/dc-open-primaries-democratic-party/

Those voters disenfranchise themselves.

What? That sounds an awful lot like the arguments some people make to dismiss DC statehood.

No, it doesn't. All they have to do, to be able to vote in the primary, is check a different box on a voter registration form.

The parallels are quite obvious. How do you not see it?

On the one hand: if you want to vote in a party primary election, you have to check the box on your voter registration for that party.

On the other hand: if you want to have voting representation in Congress, you have to live somewhere else.

Nope, I'm not seeing the parallels.

We should be making it easier for people to vote, not looking for ways to discourage turnout.

Those are two different issues, aren't they? Issue 1: what are the barriers to voting? Issue 2: why do voters choose not to vote in elections they could vote in? If you're registered to vote, but you choose not to vote in the primary because all of the candidates in your party primary are running unopposed anyway, or because you choose not to register with a party, that's not a barrier to voting, that's a you issue.

No one should have to register with a party in order to exercise their right to vote.

Why?

Uh, for the same reason we don't require people to own property to vote? For the same reason we don't require people to pass literacy tests in order to vote? All of this stuff is just designed by elected officials and their parties to discourage people who are unlikely to support them from voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our ANC treats his constituents' opinions as something to either ignore or overcome, which I don't think is how democracies are supposed to work.

I wish we could just abolish the ANCs.

Their intended purpose was to act as a sherpa for citizens interacting with government.

We need to dramatically expand the Council and abolish the ANC's. Were we going to have a 13 member legislature if we got statehood?

The goal is to have the ANCs act as a lower house and the Council would become the Upper house

Yeah that sounds like a nightmare. I'd rather have Congress in charge.

An attitude consistent with a disrespect for small-d democracy.

uh, what? it's exactly the opposite. dc's government is about as unrepresentative as it gets. most of our officials are left wing nutjobs who get elected in primaries in which barely anyone votes. then, because they got elected with, like, 12 votes, they think they have a mandate to pursue all their craziest ideas. when voters object, they ignore them because they think they know better or because, hey, they were elected, even if 99 percent of their constituents did not actually vote for them.

A big part of the problem is that D.C. has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who can vote in primaries, which in places like DC is where all the decisions get made.

The rules effectively disenfranchise some 90,000 independent voters.

There's a ballot initiative that would change this, so that we would have open primaries where independents get to vote too. It would also bring ranked choice voting, which would be another big improvement.

The Washington Post editorial board just came out strongly in favor of it. You should support it too. Voters should get to pick their elected representatives, not vice versa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/11/dc-open-primaries-democratic-party/

Those voters disenfranchise themselves.

What? That sounds an awful lot like the arguments some people make to dismiss DC statehood.

No, it doesn't. All they have to do, to be able to vote in the primary, is check a different box on a voter registration form.

The parallels are quite obvious. How do you not see it?

On the one hand: if you want to vote in a party primary election, you have to check the box on your voter registration for that party.

On the other hand: if you want to have voting representation in Congress, you have to live somewhere else.

Nope, I'm not seeing the parallels.

We should be making it easier for people to vote, not looking for ways to discourage turnout.

Those are two different issues, aren't they? Issue 1: what are the barriers to voting? Issue 2: why do voters choose not to vote in elections they could vote in? If you're registered to vote, but you choose not to vote in the primary because all of the candidates in your party primary are running unopposed anyway, or because you choose not to register with a party, that's not a barrier to voting, that's a you issue.

No one should have to register with a party in order to exercise their right to vote.

Why?

Uh, for the same reason we don't require people to own property to vote? For the same reason we don't require people to pass literacy tests in order to vote? All of this stuff is just designed by elected officials and their parties to discourage people who are unlikely to support them from voting.

I mean, yes, the whole point of having party primary elections is for Party X voters to vote in them. Why is this a problem? Anybody can register as a member of Party X.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our ANC treats his constituents' opinions as something to either ignore or overcome, which I don't think is how democracies are supposed to work.

I wish we could just abolish the ANCs.

Their intended purpose was to act as a sherpa for citizens interacting with government.

We need to dramatically expand the Council and abolish the ANC's. Were we going to have a 13 member legislature if we got statehood?

The goal is to have the ANCs act as a lower house and the Council would become the Upper house

Yeah that sounds like a nightmare. I'd rather have Congress in charge.

An attitude consistent with a disrespect for small-d democracy.

uh, what? it's exactly the opposite. dc's government is about as unrepresentative as it gets. most of our officials are left wing nutjobs who get elected in primaries in which barely anyone votes. then, because they got elected with, like, 12 votes, they think they have a mandate to pursue all their craziest ideas. when voters object, they ignore them because they think they know better or because, hey, they were elected, even if 99 percent of their constituents did not actually vote for them.

A big part of the problem is that D.C. has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who can vote in primaries, which in places like DC is where all the decisions get made.

The rules effectively disenfranchise some 90,000 independent voters.

There's a ballot initiative that would change this, so that we would have open primaries where independents get to vote too. It would also bring ranked choice voting, which would be another big improvement.

The Washington Post editorial board just came out strongly in favor of it. You should support it too. Voters should get to pick their elected representatives, not vice versa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/11/dc-open-primaries-democratic-party/

Those voters disenfranchise themselves.

What? That sounds an awful lot like the arguments some people make to dismiss DC statehood.

No, it doesn't. All they have to do, to be able to vote in the primary, is check a different box on a voter registration form.

The parallels are quite obvious. How do you not see it?

On the one hand: if you want to vote in a party primary election, you have to check the box on your voter registration for that party.

On the other hand: if you want to have voting representation in Congress, you have to live somewhere else.

Nope, I'm not seeing the parallels.

We should be making it easier for people to vote, not looking for ways to discourage turnout.

Those are two different issues, aren't they? Issue 1: what are the barriers to voting? Issue 2: why do voters choose not to vote in elections they could vote in? If you're registered to vote, but you choose not to vote in the primary because all of the candidates in your party primary are running unopposed anyway, or because you choose not to register with a party, that's not a barrier to voting, that's a you issue.

No one should have to register with a party in order to exercise their right to vote.

Why?

Uh, for the same reason we don't require people to own property to vote? For the same reason we don't require people to pass literacy tests in order to vote? All of this stuff is just designed by elected officials and their parties to discourage people who are unlikely to support them from voting.

I mean, yes, the whole point of having party primary elections is for Party X voters to vote in them. Why is this a problem? Anybody can register as a member of Party X.

If there's only one election that matters, then everyone should be allowed to participate in it since, you know, we have the right to vote and all, and that right shouldn't be conditioned on their willingness to declare themselves a member of the party in power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our ANC treats his constituents' opinions as something to either ignore or overcome, which I don't think is how democracies are supposed to work.

I wish we could just abolish the ANCs.

Their intended purpose was to act as a sherpa for citizens interacting with government.

We need to dramatically expand the Council and abolish the ANC's. Were we going to have a 13 member legislature if we got statehood?

The goal is to have the ANCs act as a lower house and the Council would become the Upper house

Yeah that sounds like a nightmare. I'd rather have Congress in charge.

An attitude consistent with a disrespect for small-d democracy.

uh, what? it's exactly the opposite. dc's government is about as unrepresentative as it gets. most of our officials are left wing nutjobs who get elected in primaries in which barely anyone votes. then, because they got elected with, like, 12 votes, they think they have a mandate to pursue all their craziest ideas. when voters object, they ignore them because they think they know better or because, hey, they were elected, even if 99 percent of their constituents did not actually vote for them.

A big part of the problem is that D.C. has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who can vote in primaries, which in places like DC is where all the decisions get made.

The rules effectively disenfranchise some 90,000 independent voters.

There's a ballot initiative that would change this, so that we would have open primaries where independents get to vote too. It would also bring ranked choice voting, which would be another big improvement.

The Washington Post editorial board just came out strongly in favor of it. You should support it too. Voters should get to pick their elected representatives, not vice versa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/11/dc-open-primaries-democratic-party/

Those voters disenfranchise themselves.

What? That sounds an awful lot like the arguments some people make to dismiss DC statehood.

No, it doesn't. All they have to do, to be able to vote in the primary, is check a different box on a voter registration form.

The parallels are quite obvious. How do you not see it?

On the one hand: if you want to vote in a party primary election, you have to check the box on your voter registration for that party.

On the other hand: if you want to have voting representation in Congress, you have to live somewhere else.

Nope, I'm not seeing the parallels.

We should be making it easier for people to vote, not looking for ways to discourage turnout.

Those are two different issues, aren't they? Issue 1: what are the barriers to voting? Issue 2: why do voters choose not to vote in elections they could vote in? If you're registered to vote, but you choose not to vote in the primary because all of the candidates in your party primary are running unopposed anyway, or because you choose not to register with a party, that's not a barrier to voting, that's a you issue.

No one should have to register with a party in order to exercise their right to vote.

Why?

Uh, for the same reason we don't require people to own property to vote? For the same reason we don't require people to pass literacy tests in order to vote? All of this stuff is just designed by elected officials and their parties to discourage people who are unlikely to support them from voting.

I mean, yes, the whole point of having party primary elections is for Party X voters to vote in them. Why is this a problem? Anybody can register as a member of Party X.

You must *love* the House of Representatives. Pretty much all of those ***holes come from areas like D.C. where the general election is nothing more than a formality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we just have the crazy chairperson cutting people off after 90 seconds. There are actually two people on the commission with children at home. There is a strong ageist, anti single family home dweller bias. It's also the only ANC that has not moved back to hybrid meetings.

.

Do you think everyone should be able to ramble on as long as they want?

Allowing members of the public -- who include the voters -- to speak for more than 90 seconds is not "rambling on as long as they want." Other ANCs have gone to hybrid meetings, as has the DC Council. If the intention is to wait for the "perfect" hybrid meeting, the wait will be an eternity. The perfect can't be the enemy of the good. What is wrong in our Northwest DC ANC is that the chair exercises the complete ability online to cut people off after a minute or two, which doesn't allow for comments and questions on issues that sometimes can be complicated. ANC meetings feel staged, where most commissioners seem very certain in their own opinions and don't appear very interested in hearing public debate.

Have you ever seen/been to a Council committee hearing? They wield control of the mics, cut people off with harsh time limits, usually only atteneded by one councilmember that acts utterly disinterested, rarely have insightful followup questions, and obviously have their mind made up most of the time. At the actual meetings with the actual votes, of course, nobody other that councilmembers are allowed to speak. And this says nothing of Congressional hearings which are mostly just soundbite fodder for fundraising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our ANC treats his constituents' opinions as something to either ignore or overcome, which I don't think is how democracies are supposed to work.

I wish we could just abolish the ANCs.

Their intended purpose was to act as a sherpa for citizens interacting with government.

We need to dramatically expand the Council and abolish the ANC's. Were we going to have a 13 member legislature if we got statehood?

The goal is to have the ANCs act as a lower house and the Council would become the Upper house

Yeah that sounds like a nightmare. I'd rather have Congress in charge.

An attitude consistent with a disrespect for small-d democracy.

uh, what? it's exactly the opposite. dc's government is about as unrepresentative as it gets. most of our officials are left wing nutjobs who get elected in primaries in which barely anyone votes. then, because they got elected with, like, 12 votes, they think they have a mandate to pursue all their craziest ideas. when voters object, they ignore them because they think they know better or because, hey, they were elected, even if 99 percent of their constituents did not actually vote for them.

A big part of the problem is that D.C. has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who can vote in primaries, which in places like DC is where all the decisions get made.

The rules effectively disenfranchise some 90,000 independent voters.

There's a ballot initiative that would change this, so that we would have open primaries where independents get to vote too. It would also bring ranked choice voting, which would be another big improvement.

The Washington Post editorial board just came out strongly in favor of it. You should support it too. Voters should get to pick their elected representatives, not vice versa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/11/dc-open-primaries-democratic-party/

Those voters disenfranchise themselves.

What? That sounds an awful lot like the arguments some people make to dismiss DC statehood.

No, it doesn't. All they have to do, to be able to vote in the primary, is check a different box on a voter registration form.

The parallels are quite obvious. How do you not see it?

On the one hand: if you want to vote in a party primary election, you have to check the box on your voter registration for that party.

On the other hand: if you want to have voting representation in Congress, you have to live somewhere else.

Nope, I'm not seeing the parallels.

We should be making it easier for people to vote, not looking for ways to discourage turnout.

Those are two different issues, aren't they? Issue 1: what are the barriers to voting? Issue 2: why do voters choose not to vote in elections they could vote in? If you're registered to vote, but you choose not to vote in the primary because all of the candidates in your party primary are running unopposed anyway, or because you choose not to register with a party, that's not a barrier to voting, that's a you issue.

No one should have to register with a party in order to exercise their right to vote.

Why?

Uh, for the same reason we don't require people to own property to vote? For the same reason we don't require people to pass literacy tests in order to vote? All of this stuff is just designed by elected officials and their parties to discourage people who are unlikely to support them from voting.

I mean, yes, the whole point of having party primary elections is for Party X voters to vote in them. Why is this a problem? Anybody can register as a member of Party X.

If there's only one election that matters, then everyone should be allowed to participate in it since, you know, we have the right to vote and all, and that right shouldn't be conditioned on their willingness to declare themselves a member of the party in power.

Everyone is allowed to participate in it. All you have to do is check the box on the voter registration form that's associated with the party whose primary is where the action is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our ANC treats his constituents' opinions as something to either ignore or overcome, which I don't think is how democracies are supposed to work.

I wish we could just abolish the ANCs.

Their intended purpose was to act as a sherpa for citizens interacting with government.

We need to dramatically expand the Council and abolish the ANC's. Were we going to have a 13 member legislature if we got statehood?

The goal is to have the ANCs act as a lower house and the Council would become the Upper house

Yeah that sounds like a nightmare. I'd rather have Congress in charge.

An attitude consistent with a disrespect for small-d democracy.

uh, what? it's exactly the opposite. dc's government is about as unrepresentative as it gets. most of our officials are left wing nutjobs who get elected in primaries in which barely anyone votes. then, because they got elected with, like, 12 votes, they think they have a mandate to pursue all their craziest ideas. when voters object, they ignore them because they think they know better or because, hey, they were elected, even if 99 percent of their constituents did not actually vote for them.

A big part of the problem is that D.C. has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who can vote in primaries, which in places like DC is where all the decisions get made.

The rules effectively disenfranchise some 90,000 independent voters.

There's a ballot initiative that would change this, so that we would have open primaries where independents get to vote too. It would also bring ranked choice voting, which would be another big improvement.

The Washington Post editorial board just came out strongly in favor of it. You should support it too. Voters should get to pick their elected representatives, not vice versa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/11/dc-open-primaries-democratic-party/

Those voters disenfranchise themselves.

What? That sounds an awful lot like the arguments some people make to dismiss DC statehood.

No, it doesn't. All they have to do, to be able to vote in the primary, is check a different box on a voter registration form.

The parallels are quite obvious. How do you not see it?

On the one hand: if you want to vote in a party primary election, you have to check the box on your voter registration for that party.

On the other hand: if you want to have voting representation in Congress, you have to live somewhere else.

Nope, I'm not seeing the parallels.

We should be making it easier for people to vote, not looking for ways to discourage turnout.

Those are two different issues, aren't they? Issue 1: what are the barriers to voting? Issue 2: why do voters choose not to vote in elections they could vote in? If you're registered to vote, but you choose not to vote in the primary because all of the candidates in your party primary are running unopposed anyway, or because you choose not to register with a party, that's not a barrier to voting, that's a you issue.

No one should have to register with a party in order to exercise their right to vote.

Why?

Uh, for the same reason we don't require people to own property to vote? For the same reason we don't require people to pass literacy tests in order to vote? All of this stuff is just designed by elected officials and their parties to discourage people who are unlikely to support them from voting.

I mean, yes, the whole point of having party primary elections is for Party X voters to vote in them. Why is this a problem? Anybody can register as a member of Party X.

If there's only one election that matters, then everyone should be allowed to participate in it since, you know, we have the right to vote and all, and that right shouldn't be conditioned on their willingness to declare themselves a member of the party in power.

Everyone is allowed to participate in it. All you have to do is check the box on the voter registration form that's associated with the party whose primary is where the action is.

Unfortunately for you, a ballot initiative to break up this silly racket by the party's extremists to depress turnout is going on the general election ballot (not the primary one), and DC's closed primaries will soon be a memory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we just have the crazy chairperson cutting people off after 90 seconds. There are actually two people on the commission with children at home. There is a strong ageist, anti single family home dweller bias. It's also the only ANC that has not moved back to hybrid meetings.

.

Do you think everyone should be able to ramble on as long as they want?

Allowing members of the public -- who include the voters -- to speak for more than 90 seconds is not "rambling on as long as they want." Other ANCs have gone to hybrid meetings, as has the DC Council. If the intention is to wait for the "perfect" hybrid meeting, the wait will be an eternity. The perfect can't be the enemy of the good. What is wrong in our Northwest DC ANC is that the chair exercises the complete ability online to cut people off after a minute or two, which doesn't allow for comments and questions on issues that sometimes can be complicated. ANC meetings feel staged, where most commissioners seem very certain in their own opinions and don't appear very interested in hearing public debate.

A hybrid meeting structure doesn’t mean that people can speak for longer.

It’s very important to have objective and equally applies rules on public comment. If the chair lets one person talk for 10 minutes because they deem it more worthy of air time, but don’t give others 10 minutes, that’s not fair. And you can’t get through a crowded agenda letting everyone talk for 10 minutes. A 90 sec comment limit is totally reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we just have the crazy chairperson cutting people off after 90 seconds. There are actually two people on the commission with children at home. There is a strong ageist, anti single family home dweller bias. It's also the only ANC that has not moved back to hybrid meetings.

.

Do you think everyone should be able to ramble on as long as they want?

Allowing members of the public -- who include the voters -- to speak for more than 90 seconds is not "rambling on as long as they want." Other ANCs have gone to hybrid meetings, as has the DC Council. If the intention is to wait for the "perfect" hybrid meeting, the wait will be an eternity. The perfect can't be the enemy of the good. What is wrong in our Northwest DC ANC is that the chair exercises the complete ability online to cut people off after a minute or two, which doesn't allow for comments and questions on issues that sometimes can be complicated. ANC meetings feel staged, where most commissioners seem very certain in their own opinions and don't appear very interested in hearing public debate.

A hybrid meeting structure doesn’t mean that people can speak for longer.

It’s very important to have objective and equally applies rules on public comment. If the chair lets one person talk for 10 minutes because they deem it more worthy of air time, but don’t give others 10 minutes, that’s not fair. And you can’t get through a crowded agenda letting everyone talk for 10 minutes. A 90 sec comment limit is totally reasonable.

The prior chair used time limits enforced by the current chair to give everyone fair time. The chair prior to that gave people who agreed with her all the time in the world, but would cut off people with whom she disagreed. I am glad she is gone. Total abuser of power. Every empty storefront within the ANC’s boundaries should have a sign thanking her for making it such a difficult place to do business.