On Monday evening the Ward 6 redistricting task force voted on its final submission for Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) and Single Member District (SMD) boundaries. The task force’s recommendation can be found HERE. It was forwarded to Councilmember Wells on September 28, who will in turn submit it to the Council on September 30th.
The new breakdown of SMD boundaries as compared to current boundaries is:
ANC old SMDs / new SMDs
6A 8 / 8
6B 11 / 10
6C 9 / 7
6D 7 / 7
6E 4 / 7 (new to Ward 6, formerly ANC 2C and NW parts of ANC 6C)
The evening’s vote capped a series of 10 public meetings and six Advisory Neighborhood Commission meetings where lines were debated and discussed. In addition, there was an active Ward 6 Task Force blog where task force members, residents, and commissioners, proposed maps and weighed in on the minutiae of various issues being considered.
Here is where we stray from strictly conveying facts to the murky area of perception. And, rather than our traditional practice of disclosing affiliations at the end of a blog post, I’m stating right now that I’m a commissioner for ANC 6A05. If you’d like to leave comments below about how it is a conflict of interest for me to write about this, know that I couldn’t possibly get any of our other writers to attend these meetings so it was either me or nobody.
So what happened? There were all kinds of dramatic proposals, including a Hill East ANC that got plenty of people stirred up. Ultimately, though, the task force chose to go with a status quo philosophy, making adjustments here and there to account for population changes but not making any big adjustments unless there were unusual or compelling circumstances. Most of the time, the process just felt like “The 6B and 6C Show.” 6B made a case for expanding boundaries from their current domain over Eastern Market and Barracks Row to include the Riverfront and stadium. (Yikes! Didn’t happen.)
Instead, in an attempt to gain another SMD, from its area east of Union Station 6C was able to encroach over East Capitol into 6B and take blocks southward to Independence Avenue between the Capitol and 8th Street. This crossed what had previously been a traditional ANC line of demarcation. 6C also took blocks from 6A on the northeast, leaving one of our SMDs perilously short of the target 2,000 population per SMD and causing all kinds of havoc with us in 6A attempting to maintain our philosophy of sharing H Street between as many commissioners as is practical while also keeping compact neighborhood lines.
Boundary lines within and among ANCs were tenaciously debated, to say the least. Many are still quite controversial and will continue to be at issue probably until the final stamp of approval is given. The task force process appeared to be very transparent, such that you can visit their website and get a full history of the blow-by-blow, with every meeting preserved and every proposed map and community comment cataloged for all to see.
To provide a fuller picture, we have invited each ANC to share its own perspective and will publish those as we receive them. Now, however, the process is in the hands of our councilmember . For those that might be interested, he can be reached at 202-724-8072, and by email.
Sharee Lawler is Commissioner for ANC 6A05. After publication this post was updated with contact information for the office of Councilmember Wells.
I am not sure your system will allow this and it is probably some breach of blog etiquette, but I thought it was worth posting the dissenting opinion of Ken Jarboe from the Task Force…
Ivan
Ward 6 ANC Redistricting Task Force Report
Dissenting opinion of Ken Jarboe
September 27, 2011
It is with reluctance that I must oppose the report of the Task Force. While I agree with many recommendations contained in the report, I cannot support a final report that, in the final analysis, violates the Task Force guidelines. Specifically, the final report’s boundaries (both ANC and SMD) for ANC 6B and ANC 6C fail to meet the first two guidelines:
1. Recognize neighborhood cohesiveness by grouping residents into ANCs where they are likely to have the most concern about issues that come before their own ANC, and have an affinity of interests and preferences with other residents in the same ANC.
2. To the extent that current boundaries contribute to effective functioning of the ANCs, limit the scope of change to ANC and SMD boundaries.
The proposed boundaries violate this criteria on neighborhood cohesion and propose unnecessary major changes to boundaries, especially SMD boundaries.
The final report of the Task Force supports the proposals by ANC 6C to transfer three SMDs and part of a fourth to ANC2C/6E and move its southern boundary with ANC 6B from East Capitol Street to Independence Avenue. This would remove the area from the US Capitol (including a part of the Capitol complex) and 8th Street between East Capitol Street and Independence Avenue from ANC 6B and place it in ANC 6C.
It has been argued that the shift is justified because, according to the ANC 6A resolution, “the interests and preferences of residents living between G Street NE and East Capitol are identical for the residents between East Capitol and Independence.” But the interests and preferences of residents living between East Capitol and Independence are identical for the residents between Pennsylvania Avenue and Independence. By this same logic, the area should remain connected with the area that it shares interests and preferences — which is the area that it is currently associated with. Shifting the boundary would sever those ties of interests and preferences.
In setting the boundaries between 6C and 6E, 6C made a compelling case to the Task Force for retaining an area south of Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. (in opposition to a request by the new 6E) by arguing the need for a continuity of representation. That same compelling case should also hold true for the area south of East Capitol. There is a 35 year continuity of representation in the affected area that the 6C proposal and the Task Force would overturn. If the principle applies to the residents south of Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., it must also apply to the residents south of East Capitol Street. We should not apply one set of principles in one case and the opposite in another case.
The argument has also been made that this shift is required to create a odd number of Commissioners in ANC 6A, which is asserted that it is needed for the proper function of the ANC to avoid deadlocks. While I cannot speak to the specifics of the 6A experience, I would point out that many ANCs function just fine with an even number of Commissioners. For the last decade ANC 6B has had 10 Commissioners [11 districts, but one includes the jail with no one eligible to be a Commissioner] without a problem of deadlocked votes. Nor does having an odd number prevent deadlocks. I have been told that there are cases where Commissions with odd numbers could not even elect a Chairperson because one Commissioner is either absent or abstains. Potential deadlocks are a fact of life in voting and there are parliamentary procedures to deal with deadlock votes. These procedures should be used, rather than change long standing neighborhood boundaries to attempt to create a pseudo-solution that will not necessarily solve the problem.
There are also some who have argued that ANCs should be close to equal size (thus it is unfair that ANC 6B has 10 members and 6C would only have 6). I strongly disagree. ANCs are supposed to be about neighborhoods — not numerical (political) parity among Commissions. I do not believe that we should sacrifice continuity of neighborhood representation for the sake of some theoretical idea of numerical balance. We should not be making decisions for the convenience of Commissions or Commissioners. We should be making decision in the best interest of our residents and neighborhood. Sadly I believe that the final Task Force recommendations on the 6C/6B boundaries falls short of this goal.
Finally, it has been argued that this is a minor shift. Unfortunately, this is not true. While the numbers transferred may seem small, the consequence are large. First, the shift removes the residents in the affected area from direct representation on issues that immediately affect their neighborhood. Rather than automatically being at the table on decision concerning items on Barracks Row and Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., the elected representatives of the residents in the affected area will be focused on issues of H Street, N.E., Union Station and NOMA in Northwest.
In addition, the proposed changes have dramatic effects on the SMD boundaries within both ANC 6B and ANC 6C. Under the boundaries originally adopted by the Task Force on August 8, 2001, all SMDs within ANC 6B and ANC 6C meet the statutory requirement of an SMD population of 2000 ± 5% (between 1900 and 2100). Shifting the population as proposed in the Task Force report mathematically guarantees that the SMDs will not hit the statutory requirement. Under the Task Force recommendation 4 out of 7 SMDs in ANC 6C and for 7 out of 10 SMDs in ANC 6B are outside the statutory requirement of an SMD population of 2000 ± 5% (between 1900 and 2100).
Thus, the Task Force final recommendation shifts from a proposal adopted in August where all of the SMD in ANC 6B and 6C comply with the legislative requirement of an SMD population of 2000 ± 5% to a situation where 13 out of 17 (over 75%) of the SMDs do not comply with the statutory requirement.
The justification of “rational public policy” (as called for in the statute) for this non-compliance: the desire to increase the size of ANC 6C from 6 Commissioners to 7 Commissioners.
I believe that the Task Force got the decision on ANC 6C and ANC 6B boundaries essentially right the first time in August. The ANC and SMD boundaries in that proposal met the criteria of the law for respecting natural boundaries, neighborhood cohesiveness and the development of compact and contiguous districts. These boundaries maintain existing neighborhood cohesion, in keeping with Task Force guideline #1. These boundaries also made minimal changes to existing boundaries, in keeping with Task Force guideline #2.
The ANC 6C and 6B boundaries (both ANC and SMD boundaries) in the Task Force’s final report violate both natural boundaries and neighborhood cohesiveness. These also radically change the SMD boundaries, especially within ANC 6B.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the findings of the Task Force and recommend that the Council adopt an alternative with respect to ANC 6B and 6C. This alternative outlined below would return the ANC boundary between ANC 6B and ANC 6C at East Capitol Street and proposes SMD boundaries adopted by the Task Force in August. In other words, I propose returning to the Task Force recommendations of August.
The alternative does makes minor modifications to reflect adjustments adopted by the Task Force in subsequent meeting: moves the boundary between ANC 6C and ANC 6E to North Capitol Street in accordance with the agreement between those two ANCs; moves Square 889 (bounded by 7th Street, N.E., I Street, N.E., 8th Street, N.E. and H Street, N.E.) from ANC 6C to ANC 6A as requested by ANC 6A and supported by a separate vote of the Task Force which results in ANC 6A retaining this block within its boundaries; and makes adjustments to the ANC 6B SMD boundaries recommended by ANC 6B to not split Seward Square and the Eastern Market Metro Plaza among SMDs and to make the boundary between ANC 6B09 and ANC 6B10 a straight line down Massachusetts Avenue, S.E.
The proposed SMD map for ANC 6B is based on the Task Force guideline to make minimal changes to SMD boundary where possible. The challenge was that certain SMD had grown beyond the 2100 person upper limit (ANC 6B03, ANC 6B04 and ANC 6B08 ) while ANC 6B10 has lost population due to the transfer of Reservation 13 to Ward 7. The proposed solution is to transfer population from ANC 6B03 north to ANC 6B02; transfer population from ANC 6B04 north to ANC 6B05 and east to ANC 6B06 and ANC 6B07; transfer population from ANC 6B08 to 6B10. In order to transfer enough population from ANC 6B08 to ANC 6B10, some population is transferred from ANC 6B05 and ANC 6B06 to ANC 6B08. In essence, this is a daisy-chain transfer of population from ANC 6B04 (which was well over the upper limit at 2376) to ANC 6B10 (which was well under the limit at 1655) through ANC 6B05, ANC 6B06 and ANC 6B08. As ANC 6B01 was very close to the target population (with a census count of 2007), it need to neither give or receive population and thus its boundaries remain the same. The result are minimal changes to SMD boundaries while meeting the statutory population requirements.
I am not sure your system will allow this and it is probably some breach of blog etiquette, but I thought it was worth posting the dissenting opinion of Ken Jarboe from the Task Force…
Ivan
Ward 6 ANC Redistricting Task Force Report
Dissenting opinion of Ken Jarboe
September 27, 2011
It is with reluctance that I must oppose the report of the Task Force. While I agree with many recommendations contained in the report, I cannot support a final report that, in the final analysis, violates the Task Force guidelines. Specifically, the final report’s boundaries (both ANC and SMD) for ANC 6B and ANC 6C fail to meet the first two guidelines:
1. Recognize neighborhood cohesiveness by grouping residents into ANCs where they are likely to have the most concern about issues that come before their own ANC, and have an affinity of interests and preferences with other residents in the same ANC.
2. To the extent that current boundaries contribute to effective functioning of the ANCs, limit the scope of change to ANC and SMD boundaries.
The proposed boundaries violate this criteria on neighborhood cohesion and propose unnecessary major changes to boundaries, especially SMD boundaries.
The final report of the Task Force supports the proposals by ANC 6C to transfer three SMDs and part of a fourth to ANC2C/6E and move its southern boundary with ANC 6B from East Capitol Street to Independence Avenue. This would remove the area from the US Capitol (including a part of the Capitol complex) and 8th Street between East Capitol Street and Independence Avenue from ANC 6B and place it in ANC 6C.
It has been argued that the shift is justified because, according to the ANC 6A resolution, “the interests and preferences of residents living between G Street NE and East Capitol are identical for the residents between East Capitol and Independence.” But the interests and preferences of residents living between East Capitol and Independence are identical for the residents between Pennsylvania Avenue and Independence. By this same logic, the area should remain connected with the area that it shares interests and preferences — which is the area that it is currently associated with. Shifting the boundary would sever those ties of interests and preferences.
In setting the boundaries between 6C and 6E, 6C made a compelling case to the Task Force for retaining an area south of Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. (in opposition to a request by the new 6E) by arguing the need for a continuity of representation. That same compelling case should also hold true for the area south of East Capitol. There is a 35 year continuity of representation in the affected area that the 6C proposal and the Task Force would overturn. If the principle applies to the residents south of Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., it must also apply to the residents south of East Capitol Street. We should not apply one set of principles in one case and the opposite in another case.
The argument has also been made that this shift is required to create a odd number of Commissioners in ANC 6A, which is asserted that it is needed for the proper function of the ANC to avoid deadlocks. While I cannot speak to the specifics of the 6A experience, I would point out that many ANCs function just fine with an even number of Commissioners. For the last decade ANC 6B has had 10 Commissioners [11 districts, but one includes the jail with no one eligible to be a Commissioner] without a problem of deadlocked votes. Nor does having an odd number prevent deadlocks. I have been told that there are cases where Commissions with odd numbers could not even elect a Chairperson because one Commissioner is either absent or abstains. Potential deadlocks are a fact of life in voting and there are parliamentary procedures to deal with deadlock votes. These procedures should be used, rather than change long standing neighborhood boundaries to attempt to create a pseudo-solution that will not necessarily solve the problem.
There are also some who have argued that ANCs should be close to equal size (thus it is unfair that ANC 6B has 10 members and 6C would only have 6). I strongly disagree. ANCs are supposed to be about neighborhoods — not numerical (political) parity among Commissions. I do not believe that we should sacrifice continuity of neighborhood representation for the sake of some theoretical idea of numerical balance. We should not be making decisions for the convenience of Commissions or Commissioners. We should be making decision in the best interest of our residents and neighborhood. Sadly I believe that the final Task Force recommendations on the 6C/6B boundaries falls short of this goal.
Finally, it has been argued that this is a minor shift. Unfortunately, this is not true. While the numbers transferred may seem small, the consequence are large. First, the shift removes the residents in the affected area from direct representation on issues that immediately affect their neighborhood. Rather than automatically being at the table on decision concerning items on Barracks Row and Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., the elected representatives of the residents in the affected area will be focused on issues of H Street, N.E., Union Station and NOMA in Northwest.
In addition, the proposed changes have dramatic effects on the SMD boundaries within both ANC 6B and ANC 6C. Under the boundaries originally adopted by the Task Force on August 8, 2001, all SMDs within ANC 6B and ANC 6C meet the statutory requirement of an SMD population of 2000 ± 5% (between 1900 and 2100). Shifting the population as proposed in the Task Force report mathematically guarantees that the SMDs will not hit the statutory requirement. Under the Task Force recommendation 4 out of 7 SMDs in ANC 6C and for 7 out of 10 SMDs in ANC 6B are outside the statutory requirement of an SMD population of 2000 ± 5% (between 1900 and 2100).
Thus, the Task Force final recommendation shifts from a proposal adopted in August where all of the SMD in ANC 6B and 6C comply with the legislative requirement of an SMD population of 2000 ± 5% to a situation where 13 out of 17 (over 75%) of the SMDs do not comply with the statutory requirement.
The justification of “rational public policy” (as called for in the statute) for this non-compliance: the desire to increase the size of ANC 6C from 6 Commissioners to 7 Commissioners.
I believe that the Task Force got the decision on ANC 6C and ANC 6B boundaries essentially right the first time in August. The ANC and SMD boundaries in that proposal met the criteria of the law for respecting natural boundaries, neighborhood cohesiveness and the development of compact and contiguous districts. These boundaries maintain existing neighborhood cohesion, in keeping with Task Force guideline #1. These boundaries also made minimal changes to existing boundaries, in keeping with Task Force guideline #2.
The ANC 6C and 6B boundaries (both ANC and SMD boundaries) in the Task Force’s final report violate both natural boundaries and neighborhood cohesiveness. These also radically change the SMD boundaries, especially within ANC 6B.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the findings of the Task Force and recommend that the Council adopt an alternative with respect to ANC 6B and 6C. This alternative outlined below would return the ANC boundary between ANC 6B and ANC 6C at East Capitol Street and proposes SMD boundaries adopted by the Task Force in August. In other words, I propose returning to the Task Force recommendations of August.
The alternative does makes minor modifications to reflect adjustments adopted by the Task Force in subsequent meeting: moves the boundary between ANC 6C and ANC 6E to North Capitol Street in accordance with the agreement between those two ANCs; moves Square 889 (bounded by 7th Street, N.E., I Street, N.E., 8th Street, N.E. and H Street, N.E.) from ANC 6C to ANC 6A as requested by ANC 6A and supported by a separate vote of the Task Force which results in ANC 6A retaining this block within its boundaries; and makes adjustments to the ANC 6B SMD boundaries recommended by ANC 6B to not split Seward Square and the Eastern Market Metro Plaza among SMDs and to make the boundary between ANC 6B09 and ANC 6B10 a straight line down Massachusetts Avenue, S.E.
The proposed SMD map for ANC 6B is based on the Task Force guideline to make minimal changes to SMD boundary where possible. The challenge was that certain SMD had grown beyond the 2100 person upper limit (ANC 6B03, ANC 6B04 and ANC 6B08 ) while ANC 6B10 has lost population due to the transfer of Reservation 13 to Ward 7. The proposed solution is to transfer population from ANC 6B03 north to ANC 6B02; transfer population from ANC 6B04 north to ANC 6B05 and east to ANC 6B06 and ANC 6B07; transfer population from ANC 6B08 to 6B10. In order to transfer enough population from ANC 6B08 to ANC 6B10, some population is transferred from ANC 6B05 and ANC 6B06 to ANC 6B08. In essence, this is a daisy-chain transfer of population from ANC 6B04 (which was well over the upper limit at 2376) to ANC 6B10 (which was well under the limit at 1655) through ANC 6B05, ANC 6B06 and ANC 6B08. As ANC 6B01 was very close to the target population (with a census count of 2007), it need to neither give or receive population and thus its boundaries remain the same. The result are minimal changes to SMD boundaries while meeting the statutory population requirements.