The Clarendon Sector Plan established in 2006¹⁹⁷ prioritized open space as one of the most important community benefits to make high density apartment living possible.

The 2006 plan included 50,000 square foot park on Irving St. The open space was negotiated in return for the massive increase in height and density.

During the revisions of the plans that followed between 2006 and 2022¹⁹⁸, the open space vanished.

Significant changes from the original plan with significant increases and elimination of originally planned community benefits¹⁹⁹. Despite entreaties from all adjoining neighborhoods and the Parks Department, the original park was eliminated from the 2022 plan. The developers received additional height and density beyond even the massive increase in 2006. Residents’ input and concerns were not taken into account.

The Residential Parking Program (RPP) changes were not broadly communicated with the public. The County sent a mass mailing to residents after RPP approval.

County Staff Review began in summer of 2017²⁰⁰. The county-planned Spring 2020 deliberative dialogue with residents was cancelled because of COVID-19²⁰¹. The County told residents that it would be inequitable to hold online forums. A virtual Q&A session in October 2020 was the only public dialogue with residents to take place after the proposal was released.

The County Board proceeded to advertise the plan at the December 2020 meeting and took action on February 20, 2021, to overhaul and adopt changes to the program²⁰². “I look forward to deliberating on this next spring, it’s going to be a doozy,” said County Board Chair Christian Dorsey.²⁰³

On the day of the vote, the Board did respond to the community uproar and eliminated the proposed 2-hour paid parking on residential streets component, but the eligible parking permits for a typical home were reduced prejudicing against multi-generational homes and giving an inequitable preference to group homes by differentiating eligibility for passes. Fees also were increased.

The County Board attempted to place it in an equity framework and claimed that the community had a 50-50 split on this issue without any evidence. At the public hearing, 19 of the 20 speakers spoke against the RPP proposal. “Some people will be unhappy no matter how we do this program,” Board Chair Libby Garvey said. “The people who might benefit from this in terms of apartment buildings aren’t here.” “Aurora Highlands has been well-represented in the public comments,” Board member Matt de Ferranti said.²⁰⁴

A County-wide mailing was made after approval to notify the community.

County Board discussing the need for the “Arlington Way 2.0” to reduce expectations.

At the December 14, 2021 Recessed Board Meeting, Ms. Libby Garvey stated that there was a major disconnect between the expectation of people and County expectations related to when and how to engage with the community when the topic is something the community will not be able to influence anyway. The Board discussed the need for “Arlington Way 2.0” to reduce expectations.²⁰⁵

²⁰⁵ https://youtube.com/watch?v=DWJ-nOGt-6Y&feature=share&si=EMSIkaIECMiOmarE6JChQQ&t=2767

Arlington Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility²⁰⁶ appears to have insignificant community engagement opportunities.

In September 2020, the County Board addressed the award of a contract for the planning and design of the Arlington Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility²⁰⁷. County Board and staff informed the community that “public engagement” would be limited to only the “aesthetic elements of the buildings and perimeter treatments.”^{208, 209}

²⁰⁶  https://www.arlnow.com/2020/09/17/county-board-approves-contract-for-new-art-bus-facility/

²⁰⁷ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y7L5WEtQN8&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=20807

²⁰⁸ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3793&meta_id=197398

²⁰⁹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y7L5WEtQN8&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=22025

Comments about process failures appear to have become commonplace and pervasive in public forums.

Despite repeated concerns about the lack of incorporating residents’ input, the County Board has not made any improvements to the engagement process. Instead, the County has placed further restrictions on resident participation, see here

Civilian Review Board (CRB, later renamed the Community Oversight Board).

Due to potential conflicts of interest and policy-related outcomes, actions regarding the Police Practices Group²¹⁰ recommendations were handled by the County Manager and County Board rather than through the Police Department.

²¹⁰  https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/CMO/Police-Practices-Work-Group

The County attempts to raise affordable housing Area Median Income (AMI) from 60% to 80%.

Columbia Heights Civic Association²²⁷, Arlington NAACP²²⁸, Penrose Neighborhood Association²²⁹, Douglas Park Civic Association²³⁰, elected officials, and other community advocates fought against county staff attempt to raise affordable housing Area Median Income (AMI) from 60% to 80% thresholds. The County withdrew an amendment to Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Form Based Code (N-FBC)²³¹ October 2020. See links for letters, testimony, and other materials ^{232, 233}

Comments from the community:

• “Affordable housing tools should benefit the vulnerable. The County Board cannot credibly address racial and economic equity while promoting the displacement of so many of our neighbors on Columbia Pike, known as “‘the world in a zip code.’” “By using county standards, you are destroying the very diversity you claim to support. “Protect our most vulnerable residents who don’t have time to come to myriad of meetings or be a commissioner.” County policies should be raised to meet our Columbia Pike standards, not pushing Columbia Pike to lower ours.”

With enormous effort from the community, the County had to keep Columbia Pike standards for 60% AMI on affordable housing and developer density bonuses despite county staff attempts to change that.

²²⁷ https://columbiaheightsva.org

²²⁸ https://www.arlingtonnaacp.com

²²⁹ http://penroseneighborhood.org

²³⁰ http://www.douglasparkca.org

²³¹ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Building/Permits/Form-Based-Code/Neighborhoods

²³² https://columbiaheightsva.org/group-letter-opposing-n-fbc-amendment/

²³³ County Board meeting, item #47: https://arlington.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3808

Pentagon City Sector Plan²³⁴: Community, Civic Association, and a 22202 resident survey all demand an increase in green space and dedicated casual use space.

²³⁴  https://livability22202.org/wp-content/uploads/Summary-of-Pentagon-City-Plan-and-AHCA-comments.pdf

Consensus-building leadership may appear to be lacking.

At the September 17, 2022 County Board Meeting, a resident’s call for consensus-building as a true hallmark of true leadership is dismissed and refuted. The County Board turned the resident’s public comments which implore inclusivity, transparency, and consensus- driven engagement and outreach, into statements that residents are “uncompromising.” The resident’s statements²⁴⁶:

• “We need a leadership that unites us.”
• “With a collaborative approach you get far superior results”
• “Citizens and their associations need to be invited back to have a weighted seat at the table.”
• “We your citizens are ready and willing to work with you.”
• “Public engagement must be real, not a check-the-box attitude”
• “It starts at the top.”
• “Surveys must solicit opinions, not limit them.”

Board Vice Chair Christian Dorsey noted the community does not have shared values and so “we are not there yet on consensus on growth and development.”²⁴⁷

²⁴⁶ https://youtube.com/watch?v=pY_5oEluops&feature=share&si=EMSIkaIECMiOmarE6JChQQ&t=1317

²⁴⁷ Ibid.

Nelly Custis Park Project was about more than a playground.

According to the Friends of Aurora Parks, “The concern surrounding the Nelly Custis Park project was never just about a playground – it was and is about transparency, the role of special interests, fiscal and environmental responsibility, assessing needs, inclusiveness, community engagement, the role of County staff and civic associations, and ultimately ensuring that our valuable parks and public spaces remain available for everyone in the community.”²⁴⁸

Documents produced after a FOIA request led to a public, County statement concerning the County staff’s interaction with the community.²⁴⁹ As a result, the County Manager’s Office and Department of Parks and Recreation issued an apology:

“On behalf of the County Manager’s Office and the Department of Parks and Recreation, regarding the Neighborhood Conservation project at Nelly Custis Park we’d like to apologize to the community for a process that did not meet Arlington’s vision to be a diverse and inclusive community where people unite to form a caring, learning, participating, sustainable community in which each person is important. County staff made statements that were inappropriate and inconsiderate. The engagement within the community was not at the level that Arlington County expects to deliver to their residents. We are sorry. We are especially sorry to those residents who participated actively and voiced concerns and input, but felt left out of the process. We will strive to ensure that all members of the community are a critical part of the project moving forward.”²⁵⁰

²⁴⁸ https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?u=c6b15e2b9edbfc419372da47d&id=d16ebbe2d6

²⁴⁹  https://www.arlnow.com/2016/12/22/peters-take-toward-a-new-model-of-arlington-civic-engagement/

²⁵⁰ http://friendsofahparks.org/nelly-custis-park/

Bluemont Baseball Field Renovation public engagement was “not successful”.

While the solution compromise is a positive documented in Section 2.4, public engagement on the Bluemont Baseball Field Renovation²⁵¹ was not ideal. Opponents to the renovation plan insisted that they were blindsided by the plan. ““Schwartz acknowledged that the County’s engagement process in planning for the renovations, which included a community meeting and digital communications, was not successful. The concerns of those opposed to the fence became known to staff and elected officials only after the County Board approved the construction contract in July 2016. “We are working to improve the County’s processes for engaging the community across County government,” Schwartz said. “I’ve asked our new Assistant County Manager for Communications and Public Engagement, Bryna Helfer, to report back to me in early 2017 with recommendations.””²⁵²

In this case, the County worked with the community and negotiated a solution compromise on the field renovations.²⁵³ See Section 2.4.

²⁵¹ https://arlingtonva.s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2016/10/Bluemont- Park-Presentation-Oct-25.pdf

²⁵² https://www.arlnow.com/2016/11/10/bluemont-baseball-field-compromise-approved-county-promises-better- outreach/

²⁵³  https://www.arlnow.com/2016/10/31/county-revises-bluemont-baseball-field-plan-in-attempt-at-compromise/

Significant issues at the Serrano lacked appropriate County attention.

““It’s sickening,” said NAACP President Julius “JD” Spain. “This is a dereliction of duty and someone needs to be held accountable.””^{254, 255}

At a public hearing in June 2022, one resident said “this was ongoing for years and the County did step in and listen to our residents. It did take long though and that’s how I feel about it. I think I should say that. It took long.”^{256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261}

Intense public scrutiny appeared to be required for the County Board and County Manager to take additional steps despite long term issues. Severity was so high that it garnered legislative and Virginia Attorney General attention.^{262, 263, 264, 265}

For more information related to the Serrano and affordable housing, please refer to Section 2.6. In detailing the positive actions taken, the section also implies the issues and corrective actions required to address the serious issues.

²⁵⁴ https://www.arlnow.com/2021/05/06/rodents-mold-shoddy-maintenance-plague-affordable-apartment- building/

²⁵⁵ https://www.arlnow.com/2021/05/20/a-flurry-of-activity-descends-on-the-serrano-apartments-after-residents- decry-conditions-inside/

²⁵⁶ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ePk1Akv5AA&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=24047

²⁵⁷ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ePk1Akv5AA&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=21640

²⁵⁸  https://www.arlnow.com/2021/06/17/county-board-drills-into-ahc-about-serrano-apartment-conditions/

²⁵⁹ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3924&meta_id=203933

²⁶⁰ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3924&meta_id=203935

²⁶¹ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3924&meta_id=203934

²⁶² https://www.arlnow.com/2022/01/18/new-ag-will-pursue-state-housing-discrimination-inquiry-into-serrano- apartments/

²⁶³ http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3924

²⁶⁴ https://www.arlnow.com/2021/12/21/del-lopez-files-bills-strengthening-tenant-protections-after-serrano- saga/

²⁶⁵  https://www.arlnow.com/2021/06/17/county-board-drills-into-ahc-about-serrano-apartment-conditions/

Engagement related to development appears to require tracking of minute details.

A neighborhood was impacted by a one word (net)²⁶⁶ change in site plan conditions related to utility undergrounding. The neighborhood was previously powered by utility poles running through the site being redeveloped but the developer wanted to eliminate unsightly poles at their location. While community benefits included utility undergrounding and the neighborhood changes were a direct result of the site redevelopment, neighbors later discovered that the developer and County agreed that only the site utilities would be undergrounded.

A resident said “we were misled about plans to relocate utilities: [developer] informed us and other neighbors that our utilities would be undergrounded, while in fact they worked with County staff to approve a change in the site plan placing a new utility pole directly in front of our house.” She went on to explain that “the process of engineering plan review and site inspection does not include a public engagement component” and “instead of the original language of no new utility poles, developers and county staff added the word net to justify adding a new pole in front of my house. The County should not allow developers to mislead the public about their plans, then claim that changes to these plans do not require consultation.”²⁶⁷

The County Ombuds said the project does come up on other site plans where similar conditions exist.²⁶⁸ He cited technicalities as to the purpose of the poles and that the site plan process is limited to the site plan boundaries despite impacts outside the site plan area. Additionally he stated that “from a perception standpoint, you can see how confusion would arise from the community… and it is a compounding of issues that has been frustrating for the residents there”.^{269, 270}

Mr. Karantonis said that the engineering issue requires attention because the type of problems related to undergrounding happen “way too often… it is quite a repeating complaint… it is a sudden, negative surprise… we need to be more attentive of how to mitigate the impact”.²⁷¹

Mr. Dorsey expressed that while it may be seen as an engineering issue, it is also an engagement issue.²⁷² He went on to explain that while what is required is a minimum expectation, “I think we need to figure out how to put a little bit more of the art into it and to recognize that if someone has an existing condition with no utility pole in front of their house and redevelopment is going to bring a new one to their house, they need to know about that. Part of what is driving this angst is not only was this something they weren’t able to weigh in on and maybe seek an alternative solution, but they just weren’t even notified. That’s something that’s not acceptable… We owe it to people to inform them of that.”

Mr. de Ferranti whole-heartedly agreed with Mr. Dorsey’s suggested review of the process.²⁷³ Chair Garvey endorsed figuring out a way to enhance communication to avoid “nasty surprises”.²⁷⁴

However, the utility pole problem was not changed. Additionally, the existing community was forced to deal with limited enforcement of site plan conditions (including those related to safety); dumping and storing materials in unapproved locations; and low levels of community engagement by the developer. Additionally, there were unannounced “administrative” changes such as paving materials, design of pedestrian access and lighting. The site plan conditions, administrative changes and later, “clarifying” approvals are not publicly available via the project’s page. County justifications have relied on vague wording rather than diagrams and drawings to justify actions. At other times, the County has relied on miscellaneous “standards” rather than drawing specifications.

The County repeatedly said they could not intervene because it was a civil matter, despite the County having a construction oversight role and one as an investor/lender. In the case of lighting, the ownership of new streetlights was transferred to the County, still without the ability and/or desire to resolve light levels to eliminate light trespass on neighboring homes.^{275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281} The developer’s suggestion to reduce light impacts was exterior shutters on neighborhood homes which was not an acceptable community outcome.

The community is often inexperienced in the development process and does not often possess engineering, architectural and other certifications. Instead, the community relies on the County to be good advocates with a fair process. However, the process appeared to skew to favor the County and developers.

²⁶⁶ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3597&meta_id=183944

²⁶⁷ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=1265

²⁶⁸ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2404

²⁶⁹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2478

²⁷⁰ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2556

²⁷¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2590

²⁷² https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2669

²⁷³ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2780

²⁷⁴ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2844

²⁷⁵ https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/

²⁷⁶  https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2020/02/SMP-FINAL-REPORT-2020.pdf

²⁷⁷ https://www.insidenova.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letter-new-arlington-street-lighting-not-meeting-dark- sky-needs/article_1604537a-bf85-11e5-8afc-1f3fe9b71211.html

²⁷⁸ https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sample-letter-to-your-neighbor_DP.doc

²⁷⁹ http://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=44&event_id=1171&meta_id=166632

²⁸⁰ https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/lighting-crime-and-safety/

²⁸¹ https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/

County construction and lack of notification hinders business and enrages residents²⁸²

“A construction project along Columbia Pike is causing confusion, congestion, and outrage near Four Mile Run in Arlington. It’s also led to an apology from several top county leaders, who admit they failed to properly communicate and prepare people for the changes.”²⁸³

“I am frustrated we’ve executed a project so poorly here,” said then Arlington County Board Chair Christian Dorsey. “I wanted to make sure that we not only posted signs on the road itself, we also sent things via social media and would even go door to door to affected residents, to give people an opportunity to hear about the changes that were coming and to have their questions answered.”²⁸⁴

²⁸²  https://wjla.com/news/local/arlington-county-leaders-apologize-for-construction-confusion-on-columbia-pike

²⁸³ Ibid.

²⁸⁴ Ibid.

County May Lack of Proper Community Notification of Use Permits.

At the February 2022 Recessed Board Meeting, it was revealed that 14 previously approved use permits and site plans had to be reconsidered because the County had not properly notified the public with required on-site placard notifications.^{285, 286}

The County Board’s actions on items considered without proper placard notification were void. The Board was forced to properly post the notices and spend time with additional public hearings to reconsider the items. This also cost community members engagement time.

²⁸⁵ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_wDD9aQGco

²⁸⁶ https://www.arlnow.com/2022/02/16/typo-causes-hassle-for-county-prompts-critique-of-public-notice-laws-limits/

The County has very limited circulation of legal notices.

The February 2022 Recessed Board meeting errors prompted larger discussion on the purpose and methods of public legal notices. “Board Vice Chair Christian Dorsey said. “Many have long decried our practice of advertising in the Washington Times, given its relatively low circulation in the county. While it meets the legal requirements, it doesn’t necessarily meet the spirit of broad notice.””²⁸⁷ “[Board Chair Katie Cristol] said she “would love” to advertise with an online news source, but state law mandates that such notices be placed in print publications.”²⁸⁸ The Board discussed the Washington Times notifications as meeting the state’s notice requirements despite low circulation. Delegate Patrick Hope said “The thing about the current law… [is] it flies in the face of putting notices in a place where people see them.”²⁸⁹

Arlington should find a way for public notices to reach a larger audience and comply with the broad notice spirit of the law, perhaps by find a way to also post notices online. The Dillon rule²⁹⁰ may require that the County work with legislators for permission to change notification requirements. However, the County may determine that print notification is the minimum required by law, with online notices in addition to reach larger audiences. The County’s legislative priorities will soon be submitted to the Commonwealth.²⁹¹

²⁸⁷ https://www.arlnow.com/2022/02/16/typo-causes-hassle-for-county-prompts-critique-of-public-notice-laws-limits/

²⁸⁸ https://www.arlnow.com/2022/02/16/typo-causes-hassle-for-county-prompts-critique-of-public-notice-laws-limits/

²⁸⁹ https://www.arlnow.com/2022/02/16/typo-causes-hassle-for-county-prompts-critique-of-public-notice-laws-limits/

²⁹⁰ https://law.lis.virginia.gov

²⁹¹ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/CMO/Legislative-Affairs

The County appears to tell community what they’re going to do before County Board action.

Neighbors near the Buck/Quincy site have stated concern that placing buses on the Buck/Quincy site would lead to issues with noise during quiet hours.²⁹² The Civic Association President stated that the site was not zoned for bus dispatch and storage.²⁹³ There was reportedly only one community meeting where DES “told residents what they were going to do. Questions were dismissed as soon as they were asked.”²⁹⁴

One community member wrote an opinion piece “Obituary: The Arlington Way is Dead²⁹⁵. An commenter referred readers to a Sun-Gazette piece “‘Arlogance’ rears its ugly head once more”²⁹⁶ which describes “Arlogance” “as the self-satisfied contempt that one-party rule had allowed county officials to lord over the populace”.

Previous engagement efforts related to other site uses prompted Ms. Garvey to share that there is a disconnect between people’s expectations and the County’s when and how to engage when the County is working on something the community can’t change.²⁹⁷

The community insisted that the County follow their own laws and policies. ²⁹⁸ While JFAC looked at long-term uses of the site, the scope specifically excluded the ability for JFAC to look at short-term or temporary uses.^{299, 300} Despite the significant purchase price, proximity to Metro, and long-term uses discussed by JFAC, Chair Cristol wished there had been greater transparency from the beginning about the site being acquired for “back of the house” uses.³⁰¹ Despite Ms. Garvey appearing to vote for approval and opposed, the item was considered as unanimously passed.³⁰²

The County’s link to JFAC’s Phase 3 report³⁰³ and other related information³⁰⁴ redirected to a general page on Commissions rather than to the appropriate content.

²⁹²  https://www.arlnow.com/2022/05/13/county-board-to-consider-bus-storage-as-art-facility-construction-nears/

²⁹³  https://www.arlnow.com/2022/05/13/county-board-to-consider-bus-storage-as-art-facility-construction-nears/

²⁹⁴ https://nextdoor.com/p/PsCqXZ9XSXBD?view=detail

²⁹⁵ https://nextdoor.com/p/PsCqXZ9XSXBD?view=detail

²⁹⁶ https://sungazette.news/editorial-arlogance-rears-its-ugly-head-once-more/

²⁹⁷ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWJ-nOGt-6Y&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2767

²⁹⁸ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTEgabplks&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=4900

²⁹⁹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTEgabplks&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=11615

³⁰⁰ https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/05/042518-JFAC-Letter-N-Bagley- Ballston-VA-Square-April-25-2018.pdf

³⁰¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTEgabplks&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=11899

³⁰² https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTEgabplks&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=12393

³⁰³  https://commissions.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/JFAC-Ph-3-Feb-28-2018-R1.pdf

³⁰⁴  https://commissions.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/ES-Boundaries-Draft-WS-Final.pdf

The County schedules critical engagement during or near holidays.

The Court House West Special GLUP Study³⁰⁵ process conducted the only Virtual Open House on Thursday, September 1, 2022. This was the Thursday before Labor Day during a period when even the County Board was on recess. The online engagement session was scheduled for Dec 14, 2021 – January 9, 2022.^{306, 307, 308} The online engagement for Clarendon Sector Plan update was Dec. 18, 2020 – January 8, 2021³⁰⁹. This holiday timing limits the ability of people to participate. The feedback on the Pentagon City Sector Plan was due on December 31, 2021³¹⁰.

A Digital Broadband study survey was mailed to some Arlington household mid-August, 2022. The written surveys were due to be returned by August 31, 2022. Again, this timing was during the Board’s recess and at the end of summer. The limited timing limited engagement. Further, a digital “e-Checkup³¹¹” was offered without clarity of the prior written survey.

As the result, engagement was limited because many people were still on vacations or celebrating holidays.

³⁰⁵ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/General-Land-Use-Plan/Studies/Courthouse-West

³⁰⁶ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/General-Land-Use-Plan/Studies/Courthouse-West

³⁰⁷ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4123&meta_id=212225

³⁰⁸ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=1754&meta_id=212568

³⁰⁹ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/Clarendon-Sector-Plan-Update/Documents

³¹⁰ https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/projects/documents/pentagon-city-planning-study/pentagoncitysectorplan_final_for_print.pdf

³¹¹ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/Community-Planning-Housing-Development/Digital-Equity/Broadband-Study

The County may schedule only daytime sessions.

Many engagement timeframes allow for participation of limited members of the population. This may mean only daytime, only evening, only weekday, only weekend or an assortment of times poorly scheduled.

Please refer to the below Twitter post by Chris Slatt, Chair of the Transportation Commission. Mr. Slatt apparently noticed that all the listed engagement sessions are between 11 am and 5 pm. This limited timeframe may prevent members of the community from participating in any of the similarly timed sessions. While the times may be more convenient for staff, the times may not be convenient for a majority of the community.

Arlington County’s Ombuds is not independent, nor neutral despite the title’s requirement and expectation to be such.

The ombuds is tasked with “handling complaints made concerning County services or activities”. However, the Ombuds reports to the County Manager³¹², who is able to influence Ombuds outcomes and diminish the Ombuds’ role as a neutral party to resolve disputes. Per the Oxford English Dictionary, an Ombuds is “an official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities.”

It is a conflict of interest for the County Manager to oversee this function, which often involves issues with County functions or services reporting to the County Manager. In addition, the County Manager has responsibilities for the Ombuds’ performance evaluation and pay.

Therefore, the County Manager is able to assert influence on outcomes and the Ombuds is unable to impartially represent the views of the community when there is a dispute with County policies, processes, and/or actions.

³¹² https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/CMO/Constituent-Services

There appears to be increasing use of Consent Agenda even when the item is not “non-controversial”.

The County’s September 2022 Regular County Board Meeting had 43 items on Consent Agenda³¹³ the October 2022 Consent Agenda had 30³¹⁴. The items were approved en masse with limited, if any, discussion. In the past, the Community was able to have an item removed from Consent Agenda. However, current rules allow only a Board Member remove an item from the Consent Agenda.³¹⁵

An increasing number of County actions are being taken with no on-the-record discussion, limiting transparency. Consent agenda³¹⁶ is intended to be used for “non-controversial” topics. Even when the Staff reports that the community, Civic Association(s) and/or Advisory Groups have voiced concerns, the consent agenda is used. The community and civic association concerns by definition mean that it is controversial and not eligible for consent agenda. However, an apparent lack of clear, written, detailed criteria means that controversial topics are being added to the Consent Agenda, reducing public trust in the processes. The Board has privately stated that they are aware that consent agenda is being misused but the same actions persist.

³¹³ http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=1754

³¹⁴ http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4145

³¹⁵ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/County-Board/County-Board-Meetings/2022-County-Board-Meeting-Procedures

³¹⁶ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/County-Board/County-Board-Meetings/2022-County-Board-Meeting-Procedures

Closed Sessions are not properly documented.

As of mid-October, 2022, there are still no minutes, audio or video links related to the Closed Sessions³¹⁷ on August 16, 2022; May 12, 2022; July 13, 2021; or January 6, 2021. There are a number of previous dates reflecting the same. Other dates are inconsistent as to the availability of information.

Rather than announcing Closed Sessions in advance, Arlington sometimes includes them in another meeting.³¹⁸ These sessions are especially hard for the public to find because there is no public announcement nor record on the County’s Closed Sessions list.^{319, 320}

Additionally, Closed Sessions documentation appears to not have recorded all of the closed sessions conducted, even if the Closed Session was announced to the public. The most obvious example is that the record reflects that Board would have gone almost a year (July 9, 2019 to July 2, 2020) without a closed session. Yet, during this period, there were public notices of Closed Sessions, including implied sessions related to personnel matters.³²¹

In an effort to increase transparency and public confidence, the Board should ensure that Closed Sessions include proper public notification and documentation (minutes, video and audio).

See also Section 13.1.5.

³¹⁷ http://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2

³¹⁸ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y7L5WEtQN8&t=16521s

³¹⁹ http://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2

³²⁰ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWqR4Rw-XKU&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=9909

³²¹  https://www.arlnow.com/2020/02/13/county-board-considering-next-appropriate-steps-for-christian-dorsey/

The County has developed a Six Step Guide to Community Engagement for Capital Projects. The Six Step Guide, if used, helps to ensure that a written project definition is created, stakeholders are identified, engagement level expectations are defined, engagement and communications strategies are created and implemented, inputs are reviewed and analyzed, projects are closed out and after-action reviews are conducted to determine and document lessons learned and enable improvements. ^{322, 323}

A Community Engagement framework for non-capital projects does not exist though the same concepts apply. The County has not focused on identifying all stakeholders, engagement levels, how to reach the entire community, or how to gather lessons learned and regularly continuously improve. The PLACE³²⁴ engagement guide appears to have been applied more universally.

As the result, stakeholders, roles, engagement levels and other items are not always considered. The level of engagement is not consistently applied across project types. The engagement documents do not appear to be regularly posted if they are created, even for capital projects.

³²² https://arlingtonva.s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/03/Six-Step-Public-Engagement-Guide-for-Capital-Projects.pdf

³²³ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAQtHGlcI8A&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=5197

³²⁴ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&clip_id=2438&meta_id=105775

County’s structure makes it difficult for the community to participate in engagement opportunities, i.e., short time frames, little notice, one participation time and/or language.

There is no set minimum timeline and method for advertising and promoting public input and participation request. The County does not list all engagement opportunities on the County’s website³²⁵ and/or provides a very short notice or time to engage. As the result community has very short timeframes to engage or does not receive advance notice to participate in meetings. People who want to participate are unable to plan (work, childcare, life, transportation) to participate in the meeting, much less prepare.

³²⁵ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Topics/Engage

Meeting materials are not always posted in advance.

While meetings require advance notice, often meeting materials are posted without enough advance notice to allow commissions and/or the public to opine verbally or in writing. In fact, some meetings include adding meeting materials at the last minute or later.

Adding an advance-posting policy would help with both transparency and confidence in government. While two articles^{326, 327} limit the application, broader application of the rule would enhance community participation, leading to better results³²⁸.

³²⁶  https://www.arlnow.com/2017/02/16/peters-take-improve-civic-engagement-by-adopting-a-72-hour-rule/

³²⁷ https://www.arlnow.com/2021/04/20/the-right-note-more-transparency-please/

³²⁸ https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/Commissions/Documents/Advisory-Group-Handbook-2014.pdf Introduction