In the spirited final days of the Cleveland Park Citizen's Association campaign season, an interesting gaffe may provide insight into one of the clear distinctions between the slates.
The Unity team has been running on a philosophy where "we're independent and come with different points of view, and provide a check-and-balance on any single perspective".
However, in some exchanges on the Association listserv, the issue of honking horns while driving over speed humps arose as a topic of discussion. One of the candidates responded:
To set the record straight, no one on the UNITY slate was a proponent of speed bumps. Any traffic calming measure needs to be considered in relation to traffic problems in the whole neighborhood.
A quick reply added:
Dammit! I thought we agreed (well, were correctly instructed) not to respond!
Your first sentence won't help; At Monday's ANC meeting, Karina Ricks of DDOT convinced me (and many others) that your second sentence is wrong.
Regardless of whether one supports speed humps or agrees with the DDOT policy, the portion highlighted seems instructive. As one CPCA member notes"
Instructed? With independent, diverse individuals?
This seems like the same top-down management of the current CPCA leadership -- and it appears as if the Unity Slate is embracing the same management style.
The idea that a diverse group or residents with divergent opinions representing a community is a great one. However, the Reform slate came together because of a similar "top-down" (PDF) approach by the current CPCA leadership, as demonstrated in the heated Giant debate. The revealing post on the CPCA forum suggests a similar managerial style to which both sides had provided rhetoric to combating. The demonstration that Reform Slate members openly diverge on the speed hump issues shows an honest openness which is appears to be indicative of a refreshing approach to leadership.