Emails reveal close relationship between Office of Planning and ANC 2E, CAG, BCA

By Alykhan Merali (Georgetown 2013)

The Office of Planning report on Georgetown University's 2010 Campus Plan was a game changer, by all accounts. The 100% on-campus mandate surprised many and led to questions about how the report was formulated. Toward understanding the OP process, on May 22nd DC Students Speak filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act, asking the Office of Planning to release all communications that they had with ANC 2E, ANC 3D, the Burleith Citizens Association, the Citizens Association of Georgetown, and Georgetown University regarding the 2010 Campus Plan.

On Monday, OP responded to this request, handing us a 300+ page tome that we will attempt to release in full this week (a similar FOIA request to ANC 2E has not yet been responded to). What has become apparent in our first read through the provided materials is that there is an extremely close relationship between OP and ANC 2E, CAG, & BCA. The documents also show that ANC 2E, particularly Chair Ron Lewis, wielded significant influence in the drafting of OP's report.

Based on the emails, it appears that OP met with the University once, sometime in November 2010 in advance of the Campus Plan's final filing but well into its drafting. By contrast, OP met with community groups no fewer than five times and exchanged emails with Chair Lewis with immense regularity. The headliner of these meetings took place on February 24th, when Chair Lewis, Mayor Vincent Gray, OP director Harriet Tregoning, OP deputy director Jennifer Steingasser, and perhaps others sat down to discuss the resolution that ANC 2E would pass the following Monday.

Besides displaying a certain verbal chumminess that borders on inappropriate,  the communications between Chair Lewis and the OP staff, generally Ms. Steingasser, reveal significant coordination. As the below correspondence from July 2010 shows, Chair Lewis provided Ms. Tregoning and Ms. Steingasser with talking points for how to deal with Georgetown University while also arguing for them to disregard the University's argument as much as possible.

Perhaps the most interesting tidbit in the correspondence is Chair Lewis' memo dated 2/7/11 sent to OP's Ms. Steingasser, Stephen Mordfin, and Joel Lawson. A number of elements in this memo were eventually included in OP's report. This is most clear with regards to the 100% on-campus requirement. The memo outlines a phase-in undergraduate cap proposal and yearly targets (2016, for instance) that were not in ANC 2E's resolution but that would eventually be in OP's report. The memo also includes Chair Lewis considering the legality of requiring students to live in zip codes other than 20007. This memo is reproduced in part below:

Such policy consultation would continue throughout the process. As OP began to finish their report on the plan, Chair Lewis was provided with an early copy of it at 10:17am on May 5th, before it was released to the public. He responded thusly:

An hour and a half later, Ms. Steingasser sent Chair Lewis an updated draft of their report, including the fairly significant additional provision that all housing built to meet the 100% mandate had to be within the University's gate, and could not be on the blocks east of 37th Street generally considered on-campus.

Chair Lewis does not appear to be the only individual from the community that had impact on the ultimate report issued by OP. Among the most curious elements of the report was that its section on the changing nature of the neighborhood drew heavily on a British study of university towns in the UK. GU's legal counsel Maureen Dwyer raised several questions about the notability and relevance of this study during her cross-examination of OP. Based on our FOIA request, it appears as though CAG legal advisor Richard Hinds is the original source of this report:

All of this is particularly striking considering that it appears no student input was taken by OP. Despite being more than receptive to Chair Lewis, Aaron Golds, a former ANC 2E commissioner who supported the Campus Plan, does not appear to have had a similar chance to discuss his views. The only piece of correspondence in the dossier between Commissioner Golds and OP is the following:

This lack of concern for student input is troubling, as is the general tenor of relations between OP and individuals like Chair Lewis. Tomorrow, we will have additional documents that although not directly related to the drafting of OP's report will still almost certainly be of interest to students that have followed the Georgetown Campus Plan debate. We appreciate your patience as we continue to navigate this sizable document.

Editor's note: This article is being published with assurances from the Student Press Law Center that reproduction of documents obtained through Freedom of Information is completely legal.

Comments (6)

1. 

   Reply By ADW on June 14, 2011

   Thank you for filing this request.

2. 

   Reply By Colin on June 14, 2011

   Thank you for your hard work, DC Students Speak!

3. 

   Reply By Phil on June 14, 2011

   Great work!

4. 

   Reply By Kaya W on June 15, 2011

   This seems a bit more than “bordering on inappropriate.” Given that part of the mission of the OP is “engaging all communities,” the fact that it ignored some communities (e.g., Georgetown U. and G’town students) and gave a monopoly of input to one group is flat out inappropriate. Instead of two different perspectives, you have two reports (ANC & OP) offering same view. They should have saved some trees and just published one joint report.

5. 

   Reply By Dizzy on June 15, 2011

   Feel free to add CM Evans and CM Cheh to your next round of filings. The legislative branch isn’t subject to FOIA, but correspondence by executive branch agencies like OP is. They were likely smart enough to not get their “contributions” to the process on tape or in print, but you never know…