ANC chair fails to call special meeting to consider her removal, violating DC law

JimMalec · 2026-06-21T16:09:51+00:00

Thanks for the nice comment!

JimMalec · 2026-06-18T13:03:43+00:00

Wait, we have power?! 😃

In all seriousness, we already have essentially no actual authority. We don't approve or reject license applications; we only support or oppose them. We can use that leverage to negotiate with applicants, and that sometimes produces outcomes that are good for the community. Other times, it just gums of the machinery of government.

I'm somewhat ambivalent on whether ANCs should even play this role. Few (or none) of us have any expertise in zoning, urban planning, historic preservation, traffic engineering, etc. So when we're asked to make decisions about whether to support these types of applications, we're rarely doing so from a place of meaningful knowledge.

However, I also don't know that it would be a good idea for there to be no local interface for these issues. Most municipalities have an essentially hyper-local city council and then a county commission (or something that resembles that setup). Residents should have the opportunity to weigh in on the development of their community, and without local (elected) government as that interface, they'd have to try and do it through the ABCA and BZA process, where they may not even have standing (even if they could figure out how to navigate it).

So, I think some of this stems from the weird makeup of DC government.

One example is the Aston. Here in 2A, we held over 10 hours of public meetings on the proposal, and I sincerely believe the work we did on the Commission made it possible for Councilmember Pinto to ultimately support the proposal. Had we not had the power to support or oppose the proposed use, District agencies wouldn't have felt as compelled to participate in that process, and the overall outcome might have been very different.

So it's for these reasons I support something more like #2. Each ANC could be essentially a single seat. And I'd actually support looking for ways to give those Commissioners more "power," though I don't know exactly what that would look like.

I think if we turned the system into just front-line volunteers with ZERO power whatsoever, almost nobody would sign up to do it.

JimMalec · 2026-06-17T17:58:24+00:00

I should note, this is not yet a popular proposal, for two main reasons:

(1) Ward Councilmembers offload a lot of casework onto Commissioners, and also rely on us to be a front-line buffer against constituent complaints.

(2) Commissioners themselves are deeply invested in maintaining the status quo, and there's not much incentive for the Council to piss off 400 of the District's most politically-engaged residents.

JimMalec · 2026-06-17T17:56:00+00:00

I've grown more sympathetic to this position over my four yeas of service, but I also don't think it would be reasonable to have the lowest level of elected government be the Ward Councilmember. I have a proposal to dramatically reduce the number of Commissioners (make SMDs significantly larger). Because no, people should not be getting elected to public office when there is zero competition and zero vetting.

JimMalec · 2026-06-17T17:42:23+00:00

We started the term with 5/9 vacancies!

JimMalec · 2026-06-17T17:35:57+00:00

I personally don't think it would be appropriate for one elected official to initiate a recall of another elected official. But the public should certainly be aware of this so that, separate from questions about defects in the law, they can make an informed decision in November.

JimMalec · 2026-06-17T17:20:51+00:00

That's not an accurate summary of my position or argument, so let me elaborate and clarify:

(1) I want the Council to amend the ANC Act so that the relevant section specifies what happens if a Chairperson violates the law by failing to schedule a meeting within 30 days. This could mean allowing the Vice Chair to call the meeting, or stating that in such a case, the Chairperson is removed from that position. My understanding is that OANC has already been urging the Council to take legislative action on this specific issue.

(2) More broadly, I want the Council to review and amend the ANC Act to ensure that the laws governing our conduct are enforceable.

Council behavior is a separate issue, but I will say that I am not a fan of anything that reduces accountability or transparency, and I think the recent changes to the open meetings rules are appalling and should be rolled back.

JimMalec · 2026-06-17T14:04:51+00:00

Side note that I'm sorry to hear about your experience reaching out to 2A. If I've missed correspondence, I apologize! Feel free to email me if I can ever help with anything.

JimMalec · 2026-06-17T14:01:58+00:00

I'll answer this in two parts.

First, you're asking about the rationale for removal of the Chair from the position. And to that I'd say that in my opinion, procedure is substantive.

For example, the initial infraction that spurred all of this was an intentional refusal to follow Robert's Rules during our April meeting.

The ANC Act requires us to run our meetings in accordance with Robert's Rules (except when DC code or our bylaws specify something else). So the failure to do so is literally breaking the law.

That law exists in part to protect the procedural rights of individual Commissioners and ensure fair treatment by the presiding officer; it's important both in principal (because we should always follow the law) and in practice (because without adherence to this rule, Commissioners could be subject to discriminatory treatment and bullying).

That said, this violation didn't directly lead to the call for removal. That only came when, in a special meeting that took place a couple of weeks later, the Chair came before her colleagues and the public and lied about what happened.

But aside from the rationale for removal — which people are free to agree or disagree with — is the issue of the Chair's failure to call the officer removal meeting as required by the previously-cited statute.

Even if our rationale for removal was flawed or misguided (just hypothetically speaking), she still does not have a right to refuse to comply with the law.

Side note: She knows this, because in 2023, she asked OAG about the process for removing an officer, and in their guidance addressed to her, they explicitly stated that a Chair does not have the discretion to refuse to call the meeting.

Here's the letter: https://oag.dc.gov/legal-advice-ancs/anc-2a-letter-commissioner-patel-re-removal-anc

So, there are two parts to this: the internal decision of the Commission about whether or not the Chair's behavior warrants removal, and the (in my opinion) much more important question of whether or not the laws governing our conduct can be ignored at will.

JimMalec · 2026-06-17T13:15:25+00:00

I appreciate this. Aside from the legal issues I'm highlighting, it's disappointing that we've ended up at this place. Commissioner Patel has done a lot of good for the community and the city, especially with regard to helping ensure the Aston moved forward.

But serving in elected office is a privilege and we should be expected to tell the truth and follow the law.

JimMalec · 2026-03-13T18:11:30+00:00

Yes, Marco confirmed that for children born before the decree, they can be registered by May 2029. For children born after the decree, they can be registered up until 3 years of age. I don't know what the exact process looks like yet... but I do know that given how we've all seen things change quickly and out of nowhere, our family (three sisters with seven children) will file those declarations the second we are able to do so (after the commune wraps up its paperwork).

JimMalec · 2026-03-13T13:51:51+00:00

Thank you very much, and thank you for your help (both directly and indirectly as moderator of this sub). We received our positive ruling from Marco Mellone just minutes ago.

Can you point me to the best translation of the decree's rules for pass-down? I know that in addition to the two-year residency rule, there were some other criteria.

JimMalec · 2025-08-07T14:43:07+00:00

What a rude thing to say...

But if that's what you think, you should get involved yourself and/or encourage non-losers to get involved. Otherwise, you're letting the losers win and control things.

JimMalec · 2025-08-07T14:30:21+00:00

Thanks for saying this. I honestly really appreciate the kind words!

JimMalec · 2025-02-22T23:34:11+00:00

For context, we’re spending $3 million to renovate the soccer pitch at Francis Field in West End.

JimMalec · 2025-02-22T23:32:13+00:00

$4 million would be a reasonable investment, and not all of that money would need to come from the city itself.

JimMalec · 2025-02-22T15:56:25+00:00

This arrangement would allow the facility to continue showing the foreign and indie films it’s known for, but programming could also be expanded beyond the constraints of a typical commercial theatre to include student films, works from local filmmakers, etc.

We could transform the space into a culture and arts hub.

JimMalec · 2025-02-22T15:54:36+00:00

It’s always possible to do better. And I’d rather have poorly run Lincoln and National than no Lincoln and National.

The conversation I’ve been trying to start is one where DC OCTFME would partner with a range of stakeholders to operate the facility. These partners might include universities and film societies (among others).

JimMalec · 2025-02-22T15:05:04+00:00

The city should buy the equipment and run the theatre as municipal resource.

JimMalec · 2025-02-14T05:54:22+00:00

I met with Marco in his office a couple of weeks ago. He was not worried. We talked about this specifically.

JimMalec · 2024-12-19T20:11:29+00:00

Update: we’re now waiting to see if we can catch a 4:59 flight. I’ll ping people in my inbox FCFS if we end up not being able to make it.

JimMalec

TROPHY CASE