You Can't Have it Both Ways.

On October 7, there was a provocative topic for the Commission meeting agenda.  The item was not heard, however, because its sponsor, Barbara Watts, did not come to the meeting.  I will assume the item will be reintroduced in November.

The item was a proposed Ordinance directing that the annexation matter be submitted to the general residents of the Park in a referendum.  This approach would replace the normal procedure of Commissioners making all BP votes on this matter.  This normal procedure is what has happened thus far, beginning a few years ago, continuing through last year, and proceeding through this year.

Barbara's argument was included in the backup for her Agenda item.  Steve Bernard, a strong adherent to Barbara's item, submitted a comment which he wanted read at the meeting.  It was not read, because the item was pulled, but I've seen it, too.  Barbara and Steve both argue that annexation is too unique and too important to be left in the hands of the Commission.  They further point out that some BP residents who are Commissioners right now (Steve cites in particular Roxy Ross, Bob Anderson, and me) have already, under other circumstances, argued for submitting to the residents-at-large certain uniquely important Village issues.  Their suggestion is that we show ourselves to be consistent in this philosophy, and that we once again advocate for turning to all BP residents to make these uniquely important decisions about the Village. 

Barbara and Steve are not wrong in references to Roxy, Bob, and me.  The citation of me was regarding the matter of moving the election.  Roxy and Bob are cited as advocating to go the referendum route, too, and it was regarding the same issue.  As is correctly noted, we all agreed that residents at large should vote on this matter, instead of having the Commission kill it for us.  Oddly, Steve was not with us at the forefront of this initiative of advocating for referendum.  Perhaps he felt that preserving the Village's stand-alone elections was too important to be left in the hands of the residents at large.  Barbara did distribute a flyer arguing against moving the election. 

So Barbara's and Steve's argument is about precedent and consistency.  They take what seems to be a solid and, by appearance, unassailable position.  Residents and stakeholders in a community should be consulted about important issues facing the community, and when their voices are clear and strong, they should prevail.  Some issues are so uniquely important to the community that they should simply be left to those residents and stakeholders to decide.  Who could argue with Barbara and Steve when they're so straightforward?  Well, it seems they themselves could.

Each of them has complained that three of the current Commissioners have made decisions that conflicted with what sounded like the expressed wishes of what could have been a significant proportion of our neighbors.  (If you think this sounds ambiguous, it very definitely is.)  Completely ignoring what one's neighbors/constituents clearly say they want?  (That's not ambiguous.)  Who would do such a thing?  And besides, the very nature of the annexation matter makes clear on its face that the decision should come not from the Commission, but from all BP residents themselves.  No?

Last year, a long line of BP residents pleaded with the Commission not to take Village money to pay for a mural.  No one, in fact, argued in favor of raiding Village coffers.  The "voice of the people" was unanimous.  Except for three of our neighbors.  Barbara Watts, Bryan Cooper, and Noah Jacobs voted, representing what appears to have been no one but themselves, to do what all their neighbors/constituents begged them not to do.  They snatched the money.  Just over a year and a half before that, there was again a long line of BP residents/homeowners who had waited interminably for a fence Ordinance.  Every single one of them pleaded with the new Commission to vote (up or down!) on the Ordinance that had been offered, after extensive prior review and two workshops.  It seemed that everyone in BP wanted a ruling.  Except three people.  Bryan Cooper, Barbara Watts, and Noah Jacobs ignored what every speaker wanted, and they decided to delay again, and to order yet more workshops, since none of the three had bothered to attend the two workshops we had already had.  Steve Bernard not only didn't complain about the Commission majority's completely ignoring, twice, the clear, loud, and unanimous voice of the people, he actually "congratulated" them for their "courage" in resisting public pressure regarding the fence Ordinance.  Just over two years before that, Steve sent an e-mail to a Village resident, and in that e-mail, he bemoaned what was to be a public referendum in Washington DC.  The referendum was about same sex marriage, and Steve pointed out the problem with asking the public to decide on this issue.  He imagined they would vote their strong personal feelings or even their consciences, instead of what he felt was clearly right.  He said that a referendum was a bad idea, because it could easily or likely result in a conclusion he knew was the wrong one.  It would reflect what the people wanted, not what was right.  Steve felt that same sex marriage was too important to be left in the hands of the general public. 

It appears Steve's doubt about allowing Village residents to determine when the election occurs was well-founded.  The general residents of the Park did in fact vote to do what he and Barbara felt should not be done.  They/we moved the election.  Barbara immediately lobbied the Commission for a new Charter Review Committee, presumably to undo the damage she decided we misguided residents had done.

In last year's mural project, Village residents "voted," not only by stating their preference among submissions, but by donating to the ones they liked best.  Barbara Watts lobbied heavily to choose one of the few submissions no Village resident liked, instead of the one most "voters" liked.  The popular choice was accepted, over Barbara's objection.  Part of Barbara's method of choosing the one she would promote involved installing a panel of non Village people she selected.  She relied on these "experts" over the preference of Village residents, thus trying to disqualify her own neighbors and constituents.  These were the same neighbors who were, as above, used against their will to pay for the mural.

So it's not at all clear that either Barbara or Steve think matters should be decided based on what residents in general want, or that important matters should be submitted to residents by referendum.  But perhaps they will say that this issue-- annexation-- is so unique and so important that it should be handled in a very special way.  It, above all things, must be left to residents to decide by referendum.  The Commission simply cannot arrogate this matter to itself.  But here's the problem.  It was only last year that Barbara and two of her Commission colleagues made their own vote on this very issue, without consulting the general public by referendum!  The question was whether to move ahead with an application to annex.  Instead of advocating for a referendum then (and neither did Steve Bernard), they took it upon themselves to do precisely what Barbara and Steve now say should not be done: they made a highly consequential decision, about annexation, without asking all of us what we thought.  They voted not to proceed with the application, thereby possibly ending, or at least materially handicapping, the whole project.  This decision was taken in exactly the way we are now told, by one of the very same people, is illegitimate.

The fact is, all of the three Commissioners who unflinchingly and without qualification favor annexation were elected last December, when the issue was very prominent during the campaign.  Two of us were clear and open about favoring annexation, and the third did not at all rule it out.  (A fourth Commissioner has signed on to the annexation effort as well, although with minor qualification.  He is one of the most persistently popular Commissioners in the history of the Village.)  Can we say that the people have already spoken regarding annexation?  Can we say that the proper, prescribed, and precedented process is already and correctly under way?

Ending in 2005, a Charter Review Committee made some very important changes to our Charter.  Annexation had been discussed for several years before this review.  No one could have said this was a brand new concept that could not have been anticipated.  If the Committee, which was chaired, by the way, by Steve Bernard, had felt that annexation should be brought to the residents at large, by referendum, this was the time to have inserted that requirement.  They didn't do that, and I can't think of any reason to change the rules now. 

Barbara Watts and Steve Bernard, more than most Village residents, have been precisely positioned to act on the unambiguously stated will of the people, to advocate for referendum for unusually consequential issues, and to insist particularly on referendum regarding annexation.  They have each declined persistently to do any of it.