10 ways to bore bullies out of hijacking your public meetings

For DC’s ANC2B, and any other public spaces besieged by mean people

I’m writing this not as an expert at public meetings, Sunshine or Open Meeting Law, or local politics. My latest political experience was as Vice President of my Student Senate for two years in college. That ended in 1998. Friends and the X-Files were still all the rage.

However, I do have very recent experience with being bullied by my neighbors and ANC Commissioner via my ANC’s own zoning processes, and therefore have some thoughts and observations about how to be less welcoming and hospitable to bullies, and, possibly encourage the participation of nicer, more thoughtful people at your meetings.

1. Niceness to a bully is like feeding a Gremlin after midnight. Don’t be nice.

I’ve now been to a few ANC meetings, some having nothing to do with my own zoning case. I’ve also listened to an audio recording of one that was particularly contentious and where someone was physically assaulted. I’ve heard that at one, a briefcase was thrown, though I have yet to get the whole story on that one.

What I’ve observed is that when people speak out of order, yell, or shout false accusations, the ANC Commissioners and Chair often get a kind of sad look on their faces. At times, more explanations are given to attempt to appease the person speaking, even when they are speaking at an inappropriate time or on a topic that isn’t germane.

These sad looks and appeasing explanations don’t deter bullies; they feed them.

“I’m winning,” the bully thinks. “I’m getting attention and commanding the room and everyone is powerless to do anything about it.” This is fuel for the bully’s behavior, which, like a child, is, at a very unconscious and primitive level, asking for containment. “Rein me in,” they are saying. “Who here can keep me under control?”

To douse the fire, you need to have a look of firm calm. You need to convey strength, not powerlessness. You need to appear in command. Not angry, but in command. Almost emotionless. But very present and aware.

And fewer words, not more. If a bully keeps ranting and is out of order, the only verbal response should be, “You are out of order.” Pause. Three seconds. “You are out of order.” Pause. Five seconds. “You are out of order.”

No explanation. No apology. No invitation to speak later.

Just, “You are out of order.”

Oh, and if anyone is assaulted, call the police. Immediately. Even if it’s hyperbolic because it was a “small” assault or the victim asks you not to, do it anyway. It sends an important and strong signal that the Commission takes violence and aggression seriously and will not tolerate it. The victim may decide not to press charges or to speak with them, and that’s fine, but still call.

2. Get a Parliamentarian. Use them.

I’ve reviewed ANC2B’s budget. It is a sad thing to behold indeed. The funds are far too limited, and certainly not enough to run such any political body effectively. It’s a wonder it runs as well as it does, really, given how little support it gets, in terms of Web site maintenance, space rental, lack of office space, etc.

That said, I would highly recommend looking into reallocating some funds for a professional parliamentarian or see if anyone would volunteer for the role. There are so many blatant violations of parliamentary procedure at ANC meetings, and Commissioners can be heard meekly saying, “Is this germane?” or “Out of Order,” but perhaps because they are elected officials who don’t want to alienate constituents or they don’t trust their own knowledge of parliamentary procedure, they don’t always speak up, and the Chair doesn’t always enforce the boundaries that parliamentary procedure can, when used well, guarantee.

It’s important for organizations to separate the role of Parliamentarian from the participating membership as it allows them to focus on the content of the discussions at hand, and separates the politics from the procedure.

Like small children, bullies are reined in, and often bored, by consistency and strong boundaries. A skilled Parliamentarian, even one in training or who isn’t perfect, provides this by consistently enforcing rules and expectations in a dispassionate way, free from the confines of needing to be re-elected or the accusations of bias or foul play that may afflict elected officials in a more political role. The Parliamentarian’s allegiance is to the order and efficiency of the meeting, and they have a rule book to fall back on if in doubt, which can cut through the animosity and accusations often barreled at political figures acting as their own Parliamentarians, as their political leanings and biases are known.

3. Transparency is key. Everything a bully does must be exposed.

It should be widely understood and made a norm that any information sent to an ANC Comissioner or affiliate of the ANC about another citizen will be shared with the person(s) being discussed and with the broader ANC. Most often, this would transpire with opposition contacting ANC representatives about concerns about a zoning project. Given that the goal of any zoning discussions among neighbors is to reach an agreement, the expectation of anyone writing or contacting an ANC Commissioner should be that their communication will be known by all parties involved. People are less likely to write or say bullying, slanderous or inappropriate things if they view their comments as public, not private, which will encourage more civil discourse. Nothing about a public process is private, and the ANC person receiving any such communications should immediately forward the emails to the Applicant or other interested and named person, copying the sender, to ensure that is is understood that everyone is engaged in an open dialogue and that no information will be protected or hidden from an Applicant. Any sender of an opposition email should welcome this as a means to furthering dialogue to lead to resolution. Only a bully wouldn’t welcome this, as their issue isn’t with the merits or concerns of the project, but is a personal vendetta against someone or a desire to engage in fighting and bullying in itself, which isn’t fostered by open dialogue and transparency.

4. Boundaries are your friend.

Be clear about when the public does and does not have a role in a process. If, for example, Meeting Minutes are not up for public comment or vote, do not put them up for public comment or vote. It may seem nice and inclusive and participatory, but actually, it’s confusing. Anything confusing emboldens a bully; it does not placate them. (See Gremlin Rule #1.)

5. Vote against bullies.

When it is clear that bullying is happening with an ANC process, it should be expected and understood that any signs of bullying diminish the seriousness with which claims of merit are taken. For example, if a bully submits a valid complaint about light, privacy or air regarding a zoning issue, but also slanders their Applicant neighbor unfairly and that is clearly and indisputably what’s happening, the ANC Commissioner(s) receiving the complaint should make it clear that while their concern has merit, the more they bully disparages someone else, the less likely the ANC is to take it seriously. This should be stated and repeated over and over, over email and verbally within meetings, anytime slander or bullying takes place.

Any complaints of opposition about zoning or any other matters that are not true should be disregarded and the record corrected. For instance, if an opposing neighbor comes into a meeting saying, “We have gathered 27 letters of opposition to your project,” it needs to be outlined by the ANC Commissioner leading that discussion that, in fact, 12 of those letters, for example, were dismissed as the basis of the complaints did not reflect the reality of the project being proposed. He might say, “Yes, but 12 of the letters were complaining about a 3-story deck, and there is no 3-story deck proposed, so those complaints were dismissed by us. In addition, four of the letters claimed the Applicant did no outreach, and we know that isn’t accurate, so those have been dismissed.”

Complaints, to be taken seriously, should have legitimate and concrete ties to the reality being discussed. This will help Commissioners make reasoned decisions without being gaslighted or confused by manipulative, loud, and busybody bullies, and encourage those participating in public processes to be accurate and factual about their concerns. It will also discourage wasting public officials’ and Applicants’ time and money with false or incorrect allegations and complaints. In the era of Fake News and bothsideism, this is critical if processes are to be fair and achieve the outcomes that align with the zoning law and intention of protecting neighbors and neighbor relationships.

Commissioners need to put weight behind these statements by, at times, voting with Applicants or for resolutions that the bully is trying to block, if the claims on the merits are at all murky. For instance, if the merits are at all confusing or unclear, or, in the voter’s mind “it’s a tie,” the pendulum should always swing in favor of the victim, not the bully. Otherwise, the bully’s tactics of obfuscation, slander, manipulation, and papering Applicants with expensive and unnecessary requests are endorsed, supported, and encouraged. Commissioner Aaron Landry, the ZPD Chair during our case, gave a master class in this when he said at the meeting, “Well, I would hope if we’re not sure what to do, that we’d NOT side with the bullies.” It didn’t work, but he was right if you want bullies to stop infecting your ANC.

The first principle of behaviorism is that behavior that is rewarded continues. Reward civility, you will get more civility. Reward bullies, even with neutrality, you will get more bullies.

6. If you can’t vote against bullies, be very clear about why.

In our case, I cannot for the life of me figure out how every ANC Commissioner except the one actively campaigning against our home addition didn’t support the resolution in support of our addition. I am biased, obviously, but on the merits it seemed to me that we clearly met our burden of proof, and then some. Factually. Obviously.

But, three Commissioners didn’t see it that way and that’s their prerogative. But, the fact that I don’t know why they didn’t see it that way is highly problematic. Their justification, in uniform, was, “I can’t get to ‘Yes.’”

What on earth does that even mean? You think the shade was too much? You worry they’ll grow one less tomato? You feel more entitled to decide how I built out my home than I am?

Further, I’ve heard all of these Commissioners speak and justify votes in a more compelling way. Usually they also asked questions along the way that would have forecasted their vote or somehow showed their thinking, none of which happened in our case.

All three of them witnessed the bullying we were undergoing firsthand, either writing or in meetings. There could be no way they doubted it. One even addressed it, firmly, one week prior, and again at the meeting. So they saw it.

Which is why, in our case, they needed to very clearly and articulately explain their votes. They needed to say, “Given the pervasive and disgusting bullying I’ve seen on the part of the opposition, it pains me to make this vote, but I have to because of my concerns about merit merit merit merit merit merit.”

And their reasons need to be iron clad, clear, and important. They need to be standing for something big, if they’re going to stand with bullies, and they need to make it clear what that is.

By not doing that, the message they sent was, “You were able to confuse us enough to be scared to take a side and I can’t even explain why I’m doing what I’m doing, but definitely use these tactics again as they really worked on me and you got what you wanted.”

7. Bothsideism serves the bullies. Be specific and clear when assigning blame for bullying.

When someone is being bullied, it is important to call them out directly and not refer to it as generally being in the room, as if it’s a vapor floating around. If both parties to a situation are being mean and slandering one another and bullying one another, then sure, say something like, “This situation is toxic.” But otherwise, being general about what’s happening and scolding both sides, as if the victims are party to the antics as well, only serves the bullies. It teaches them that they won’t be held accountable, they won’t be held responsible, and that if they can create a “toxic situation,” it will make everyone so frustrated with both sides that if they can yell loud enough and scream long enough, maybe they’ll get their way.

In our process, we saw this in action. At the ZPD Committee meeting, the Commissioners and Committee members were very clear about their intolerance for the bullying. They called it out, they addressed it, they named it, and by the end of the meeting, the Lead Bully was calling for peace and reconciliation, having realized her tactics hadn’t had the effect she had hoped and that maybe she should try being nice and personable. The bullying parties also presented very differently at the next meeting in front of the full Commission. They had learned that their tactics didn’t work so they used their lawyer to muddy the waters and confuse everyone. Still, it was a step up from the verbal abuse, slander and hostility the week prior.

Bullies learn and they respond to boundaries and clear feedback that their strategies are not working. They also respond in kind when their strategies do work.

The bothsidism was more pronounced in the final meeting, with one person — who has a vote on the Committee overseeing our process — consistently saying, “Well now we have two sets of facts” and no one refuting her.

THERE ARE NEVER TWO SETS OF FACTS. NEVER. THAT IS NOT HOW FACTS WORK.

Further, the bullying was constantly referred to as if it was happening on both sides, rather than coming blatantly from one side. Then, the votes reflected the confusion and unwillingness to take a stand against the bullying and a leaning into the confusion, and were split.

To be clear, the result of all of this was fine for us and our project, but it was sad to watch a clear cut opportunity to take a stand and to show bullies that their tactics are not acceptable and will not be rewarded, go to waste. As a result, I have no doubt they’ll be used again on future unwitting victims, and that the ANC’s limited time and energy will continue to be wasted as a result.

It’s best summed up by Desmond Tutu who spoke on much loftier things than DC zoning: If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

As the mouse in this situation, I concur.

8. Make elected officials choose between bullying and voting.

If voting Commissioners or Committee members with a vote choose to involve themselves as advocates and coaches of one side — particularly if the other side is an individual or family upon whom all of the costs of the process will fall — they should have to recuse themselves from voting or taking a position in any way in their role as a public official or custodian of the public trust.

For instance, from the beginning, our ANC Commissioner, who technically represents our family, was opposed to our home renovation, before he even spoke to us about it. He approached us one night at 10 p.m. in our alley — thinking we were our neighbors — to convey his alarm and how he was going to give “packets” about our massive project to our neighbors to warn them about it. This in no way conveys the neutrality, good will, or good faith stance one would expect from an elected official who represents you.

We would later know through email exchanges, behavior at our hearings, and our security camera that he was coaching not only our immediate opposing neighbors, but rallying opposition from blocks and blocks away from us — some of which was outside of his SMD.

As a result, not only was our own ANC Commissioner working against us, but we had no honest broker we could talk to about our project, the ANC process, or even who could help facilitate dialogue with our neighbors — as he’d already taken a side and was egging on the opposition.

Given that, he shouldn’t have had a vote on the outcome of our case as he was no longer acting in his role as Commissioner, but as a private citizen. He should also have had to, by procedural rule, refer us to another ANC Commissioner who could serve as our advocate and liaison to the process, as most Applicant’s have during their processes.

No such rule exists, I’m sure, so someone should write one.

9. Ignore the bullies; give attention to the victims.

When working with kids, it is recommended that with small children who can’t grasp real discipline or empathy, that when they hit or bite another child, you turn from the child who did the hitting and instead, focus on the hurt one.

“Are you okay?” “Do you need a Band Aid?”

Otherwise, you inadvertently teach the hitter that by hitting, they get attention, which all children want.

Bullies want attention, too. They want to be heard and taken seriously. It is important to help them learn how to do so.

So, for instance, if they are behaving in a bullying way, it would be wise in ANC meetings and forums to ignore the bully and what they said, as they will likely never agree with your feedback about their behavior anyway. Bullies are immune to the considerations or concerns of others, by nature. That is why they are bullies, especially adult bullies. Like, if you didn’t outgrow bullying at 18, you are not open to feedback about yourself.

Instead, turn to the victim and give that person the attention. You can say something like, “I’m so sorry this PowerPoint they made calls you ‘unhinged’ and falsely accuses you of stalking people. And says that you don’t know how to do family planning. That’s just weird, right? Like, who says that? Anyway, it must be really hard to have your neighbors say things like this about you in a public forum. I can’t even imagine being on the other end of that. How are you managing to stay so calm? I’d be livid. And hurt. So, I just want to check in with you…are you doing okay? Can I get you any water or do you need a minute to get some air? I really am sorry you’re having to listen to this, as the way you’re being talked about is really hostile and inappropriate.”

10. Get the City Council to give you some laws to protect you from bullies hijacking your meetings and processes.

Seriously, can we get something like the Ralph M. Brown Act?

In sum, ANC Commissioners, and particularly the Chair, set the tone for meetings and proceedings. The tone set needs to convey, strongly, “We do not talk like that here. We do not treat each other like that here. We may have to allow anyone to attend this meeting, but we do not welcome bullies and we do not tolerate un-neighborly behavior. When we see it, it will be named as such and stopped or ignored.

Your meetings will become extremely boring for bullies. But they will become safer and more interesting to the people you’d actually like to see there.