Maret followed through on their plan to destroy 60+ trees on the ECC field throughout the month of February. They did this even though they still do not have written approval for their sports complex from the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment or a building permit from the city. It only takes a few minutes to cut down a tree that has been growing for a hundred plus years.
On Wednesday, April 5, the BZA considered a motion brought by Friends of the Field to reopen the record of Maret’s case #20643 to add the new opinion of Attorney General Brian Schwalb that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by Maret and ANC 3/4G in March 2022 was void or voidable. The MOU is at the heart of FoF’s disagreement with our own ANC; it is one-sided, provides too little protection for the neighborhood, and guarantees no enforcement. In rejecting our motion, the BZA said the OAG letter was already in the record. As a secondary matter, the BZA dismissed a renewed motion to “stay” its own ruling. The Board said that since there is no order yet (after a full year), there is nothing to stay. Net result: the OAG letter stands, and the order in the Maret case is expected to be issued soon.
On January 17, 2023, ANC 3/4G requested the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to rule on the legal status of its March 2022 MOU signed with Maret regarding the conditions of building and operating their sports complex at ECC. Briefly, the OAG said the MOU was either void ab initio (from the start, from first principles) or “voidable.” They said the ANC had exceeded its authority. This means that the validity of the MOU is questionable. It also enables us to pursue actions to have the MOU declared void, and to question the BZA's approval of the ANC's recommendation.
FOF COMPLAINT IN DC SUPERIOR COURT
Based on that same OAG opinion, Friends of the Field filed a complaint in Superior Court asking to have the ANC/Maret MOU declared void. This bears on larger questions of what ANCs are and are not authorized to do. No hearing date has been set.
FoF asked OANC to advise on the status of “the Oath” that ANC Commissioners swear when taking office. Specifically, we asked the office that oversees all ANCs to clarify a phrase in the oath that some people suggest prioritizes a district-wide perspective on matters before an ANC over Commissioners’ obligation to their local constituents. ANC 3/4 G commissioners referenced this concept to justify their support of Maret’s placing their sports complex in our neighborhood. The reply from Kathy Williams, Esq., Special Assistant to the Executive Director of OANC, could not have been clearer. “The Oath” is a ceremonial necessity – it does not confer powers or authorities not granted in the statute establishing ANCs. Commissioners are meant to represent their neighborhoods. ANCs are meant to assure that the District as a whole is best served when all neighborhoods are well served.
