ANC Alcohol Committee Hearing on Barracks Row Tavern License Turns Contentious – Virtual Meeting Chat Function Faulted
by Larry Janezich
Posted January 7, 2022
ANC6B’s ABC Committee held a virtual meeting last night on the Tavern Liquor License application for “As You Are” the LBGTQ bar coming to the Barracks Row at the location formerly occupied by District Soul Food and before that, Banana Café. More than 100 tuned in a meeting which turned, at times, contentious. It ended hours later, with no resolution but with a plan for commissioners to meet with residents and owners over the weekend to try to hammer out a Settlement Agreement to address neighbor’s concerns before next Tuesday’s full ANC meeting. City regulations provide for the ANC to weigh in with an opinion on approval of liquor licenses. A Settlement Agreement is a signed agreement between the owners and the ANC which sets out how the establishment will operate and becomes part of the license after approval by the Alcohol Beverage Regulatory Commission. The application for a tavern license instead of the restaurant license held by previous occupants of the site means the new venue could stay open later and serves less food than a restaurant.
Nearby residents have long bemoaned the interruption to their sleep patterns and quality of life caused by late night departing patrons of previous restaurants on the corner of 8th and E Streets, SE. They fear later hours and less food will send even more inebriated bar goers reeling into the streets even later than before. Supporters of the LBGTQ community from all over the city vocalized their support for the proposed tavern. The owners demonstrated the excessive measures they have taken or plan to take to alleviate neighbor concerns including state of the art soundproofing and safety monitors governing conduct of patrons which will include reminders to be respectful of the neighborhood upon departure.
While discussion during the meeting was civil enough, the same could not be said for some of the comments in the chat function which afforded attendees the opportunity to comment freely on the comments and motivations of discussion participants. Following some blunt declarations by nearby residents about their feelings on the proposed business, some supporters of the proposed tavern took to the chat function to criticize and characterize in personal and unflattering terms the opponents of the tavern license and their comments, provoking in return a response from some of the nearby residents.
After a unanimous vote to refer the license application to the full ANC next week in hopes that a compromise could be reached before then, Chair Brian Ready said he had anticipated the chat degenerating into trolling and cautioned attendees about their responsibility to maintain civil discourse during the meeting. Following that, commissioners discussed whether the chat remarks were part of the official record of the meeting, subject to public dissemination. It seems clear that the chat is not, and raises the question whether the chat function should be activated during virtual meetings. Since the ANC meetings are conducted according to Roberts Rules of Order – which did not anticipate this technological advance – the chat function appears to violate the rule that no person can speak until recognized by the chair and – last night at least – the rule that prohibits personal remarks during debate.
At best, ANC meetings follow Robert’s Rules only in the loosest sense, and most commissioners in the four ANCs CHC follows closely are only vaguely familiar with them. The advent of virtual meetings – which appear to be on the verge of becoming standard operating procedure after resumption of in person meetings by the city council and ANCs – has resulted in the prolongation of ANC meetings by hours – sometimes starting at 7:00pm and going past midnight. Observation suggests the time could be shortened considerably by greater knowledge of and adherence to Robert’s Rules. This would undoubtedly work to the benefit of the commissioners, the participants, the community, and the journalists who cover these meetings.
CAPITOL HILL CORNER 
I read your reports closer and in more depth (every word) than I do with anything I read from any national publication – your coverage is always outstanding (and riveting, even though that is not likely the intent). THANK YOU for this amazing service you provide to the community!
Posting for EMCAC Chair Donna Scheeder:
I am glad you brought all of this up. It is not easy to Chair a Zoom meeting, especially when you cannot see all the attendees on one screen. In addition to disabling chat, it might also be desirable to mute the participants who are not commissioners until the chair recognizes them to comment. This restores the ability of the Chair to control who speaks. I also recommend putting the rules of conduct at the top of the agenda, Not very often but in the past, I have had to tell people at in person meetings that if they continued to make personal attacks, they would not be recognized for the remainder of the meeting.
Posting for Valarie Jablow:
“Following that, commissioners discussed whether the chat remarks were part of the official record of the meeting, subject to public dissemination. It seems clear that the chat is not, and raises the question whether the chat function should be activated during virtual meetings.”
Unfortunately, it now sounds like I need to file a complaint with the office of open government about excluding chats from the public record in DC. This is because sometimes the chat is the ONLY way the public can speak during a so-called public meeting and the ONLY record of the voice of the public.
Consider that last month, I attended two public meetings in DC, both held virtually. In one, run by DCPS, the public literally could not speak unless and until it posted questions in the chat. Sadly, most of the questions were IGNORED. In another public meeting, run by DGS, I was able to speak by voice as a member of the public–but my internet connection was so bad no one could hear me, so I HAD to use the chat function to ask questions, which were then reinterpreted by the people I asked them of (naturally, not including everything I asked).
Sadly, the posted video of both meetings does not include the chats–despite the publicly important function of it in both meetings and the fact that someone had to go in there and *exclude* that data.
No one should have to endure their questions being “interpreted” or ignored by the people who are being questioned–nor have public comments deleted. Yet this is what is being contemplated.
In addition, if meetings are long, that is the purview and responsibility of the people running the meetings–not the fault of people attending and certainly not of a chat.
I second Valerie Jablow’s opinion on keeping the chat as part of the public record. The chat is the ONLY way that the public can get any of their interests in the record and in front of the public and the commissioners. Without the chat the entire meeting runs at the whim of the meeting coordinator. In physical meetings there is feedback and interactions between the guys at the table and the audience. I am sorry to see incivility at the meeting and in the chat, but the chat is key to public engagement and the only way for the public to voice their concerns.