Posts
Good morning, we always welcome feedback - send an email to DCGovClip at gmail dot com. Also, if you're on Twitter, we'd love a mention. Finally, please share this with others and ask them to sign up for the weekday email list.
DCGovClips blurb:
Most people who work with DC government need to know the media buzz early. Most aggregates come out after 9 a.m. I think people need a news aggregate that can be read on a Blackberry or iPhone BEFORE you get to the office. So you can hit the ground running and know what's being said about DC government / City Council and other city-related items. Unlike Loose Lips and DeBonis, this includes no commentary... Just clips (and links to DeBonis and Loose Lips).
I'll send this in two ways by email: I'll embed the clips in the body of the email so you don't have to open any attachments. I'll also send it as an attachment.
Remember:
Blog (clips online): http://dcgovclips.blogspot.com/
Twitter: DCGovClips
Facebook: DC Government Media Clips
Best,
Karyn-Siobhan Robinson a/k/a DC Government Clips
DC Government/Council media clips for Tuesday, November 2, 2010.
Hosts of Gray's victory party owe city $860K in taxes - D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
Tuesday's ballot choices - Washington Post
The big question in the D.C. election - Examiner
Where the party's at - D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
Last-minute lobbying on elected AG ballot question - D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
Nickles, Thomas will battle in court - D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
D.C. election officials pledge smoother vote, earlier count - D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
Graham defends Wade against Mara's strong school board challenge - D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
Welcome to Hypothermia Season - Housing Complex (Washington City Paper blog)
Building a Better ANC - -Housing Complex (Washington City Paper blog)
ANC Candidate Drops Robo Calls - Loose Lips (Washington City Paper blog)
Why bother to vote in D.C. Gulag? - Examiner
The Education Manifesto - Wall Street Journal (OCTOBER 30, 2010)
Hosts of Gray's victory party owe city $860K in taxes
By Mike DeBonis
D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
November 1, 2010; 6:35 PM ET
The owners of Love nightclub -- where presumptive mayor-elect Vincent Gray and presumptive council chairman-elect Kwame Brownhave scheduled a victory party tomorrow night -- owe the city nearly $900,000 in unpaid taxes, WRC-TV's Tom Sherwood reported this evening.
The club is owned by Marc Barnes and wife Ann, who have long been prime shakers in the local nightlife scene. They have also been prodigious political fundraisers, hosting events for city officials. Gray has hosted yearly events at the Barnes' other club, the Park at 14th, to commemorate the annual Congressional Black Caucus conference. His campaign recently also hosted a volunteer event there.
In late July, the Barneses and their corporate entities filed for bankruptcy -- months after city authorities shut down love for three months following a New Year's Eve stabbing there. Last week, city liquor authorities approved the sale of the club to another impresario, Dean Smothers, whose club The Scene has been in tax trouble of its own. It is unclear if the deal has since been consummated.
According to bankruptcy court filings, as of Aug. 4, the Barneses owed the city $233,662 in personal income taxes, penalties and interest plus $630,381 in various business taxes.
"I don't really know a lot about Marc Barnes' financial challenges but he's always been someone you can work with," Gray said in an on-camera interview with Sherwood, adding that his campaign had gotten bids on hosting the victory bash.
The party will go on, Gray's campaign said in a statement.
After presenting his report, Sherwood emphasized that he had been tipped by "several close associates" of the soon-to-be mayor, concerned that the venue presented the "wrong image for Gray."
WRC anchor Craig Melvin had an additional question for Sherwood: "How is a business allowed to even operate when it owes that much in back taxes?"
Tuesday's ballot choices
Editorial
Washington Post
Tuesday, November 2, 2010; A18
THE FOLLOWING are The Post's recommendations in races and ballot questions for Tuesday's general elections in the District, Maryland and Virginia. Candidates and positions endorsed by The Post appear in boldface type. Candidates in uncontested races do not appear in the list below.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
U.S. House of Representatives
· Delegate: Eleanor Holmes Norton (D)
State Board of Education
· Ward 1: Patrick Mara
· Ward 5: Mark Jones
· Ward 6: Monica Warren-Jones
D.C. Council
· Ward 1: Jim Graham (D)
· Ward 3: Dave Hedgepeth (R)
· Ward 5: Tim Day (R)
· Ward 6: Tommy Wells (D)
· At large: David A. Catania (I)
Ballot Question
· Question 1: Election of Attorney General: No
The big question in the D.C. election
By: Freeman Klopott
Examiner Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/blogs/capital-land/the-big-question-in-the-dc-election-106487378.html#ixzz147AZibRK
Examiner Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/blogs/capital-land/the-big-question-in-the-dc-election-106487378.html#ixzz147AZibRK
11/01/10 7:45 PM EDT
The biggest question in Tuesday’s general election in the District is just how close the Republicans will come to winning in the ward races.
Of course, the Republican candidates say they will win. But even in Ward 3 -—where Republicans have one of their largest constituencies, and where Councilwoman Mary Cheh turned against the overwhelming majority of voters there by backing Vince Gray for mayor in Democratic primary race — the Republicans are likely to still come up short.
The GOP’s strategy in the District’s general election, however, was to show they’re a legitimate threat. Close races would be a victory. The party didn’t run a candidate for mayor, believing that doing so would get the Democratic base out in large numbers. The Democrats have responded with a get-out-the-vote effort.
If the Republicans can keep it close, their biggest gain may come in the March special election to fill the at-large council seat likely to be vacated by Kwame Brown when he ascends to the chairman’s seat. If the Democrats can’t get behind one candidate, the Republicans will have the opportunity to run against a broken field with a candidate made better known by running a close campaign against a Democrat in a ward race in November.
Where the party's at
By Tim Craig
D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
November 1, 2010; 3:36 PM ET
With Republicans expected to make significant gains in Congress in Tuesday's elections, District Democrats hunting for a celebration on Election Night might have no choice but to find a victory party sponsored by a local candidate for office.
In a city where three out of four voters are registered Democrats, it's a safe bet that most of the Democratic candidates running on the ballot in the District this year will emerge victorious. Still, even in the District, analysts will be on the lookout for a possible GOP upsets in the ward council races, particularly in Ward 3, where council member Mary M. Cheh (D) is locked in a heated contest with Republican David Hedgepeth.
But if you are looking to hit the party circuit, here is a run-down of where local candidates plan to hold their Election Night parties.
D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), the presumptive mayor, and council member Kwame Brown (D-At Large), who is expected to easily win election as chairman, are holding a joint celebration at Love in the 1300 block of Okie Street NE.
Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) will be watching the returns at Tunnicliff's Tavern in the 2000 200 block of Seventh Street SE, across from Eastern Market in Capitol Hill.
Council member David A. Catania (I-At large) will be hosting a party at the Duplex Dinner at the intersection of 18th and U streets NW.
Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) is hosting a 50th birthday and election party at Love, where he will apparently join forces with Brown and Gray.
Cheh (D-Ward 3) will be gathering with supporters at Morty's in the 4600 block of Wisconsin Avenue NW.
Hedgepeth will be watching the returns from the Roney Room on the first floor of 801 Connecticut Ave. NW.
The Write Fenty In campaign plans to gather at a local bar, although the location is still being ironed out.
Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who is widely favored to claim one of the two-at large seats, will not be holding a party.
The D.C. Republican Committee will be hosting a bash for local supporters at the M Street Bar & Grill in the 2100 block of M Street NW downtown.
Last-minute lobbying on elected AG ballot question
By Mike DeBonis
D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
November 1, 2010; 5:16 PM ET
It's flown pretty well under the radar, but the question being put to D.C. voters of whether to elect the city's attorney general is the subject of some last-minute campaigning.
Automated phone calls have gone out from groups supporting and opposing the change to the city charter, which would require an act of Congress regardless of the voters' will passing a congressional review period before becoming law.
Stumping against an elected AG is the National Black Church Initiative, a group led by the Rev. Anthony Evans, who was also a leading voice opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage in the District. The group sent robocalls over the weekend to an unspecified number of city households.
Evans said Monday morning that his opposition to an elected AG is mostly on fiscal grounds: "If the city continues to cut the budget, go after entitlements, our congregations are going to suffer," Evans said. "For us to authorize another major expenditure, it's just irresponsible." (For the record, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer has not foreseen a grave fiscal impact, though the current AG, Peter Nickles, disagrees, arguing the mayor will have to hire a new corps of lawyers to represent his own viewpoint.)
While Evans does not count himself a fan of Nickles, who wrote several key documents supporting the legalization of gay marriage, he argued that a mayor "needs to be able to count on his attorney general" and the city needs "four years of continuity," adding that he fears the "power-hungry attitude of some in this city."
Also issuing robocalls -- in addition to a sign-hanging campaign and some poll work -- is the "Yes on Amendment Four Committee." Paul Strauss, the city's elected shadow senator, is the most prominent face of the campaign, which he said is composed of "mostly lawyers and good government types."
Strauss argues for a switch to an elected top lawyer on self-determination grounds -- put simply, that District residents starved of congressional representation need all the democracy they can get. Like Evans, he played down the role that the controversial Nickles played in getting the matter onto the ballot.
"It's not about a person," he said. "It's about a process."
Nickles, Thomas will battle in court
By Tim Craig
D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
November 1, 2010; 4:53 PM ET
D.C. Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) has been ordered into court Tuesday morning for a hearing about whether he has to comply with a subpoena from Attorney General Peter Nickles over his fundraising activities.
Earlier Monday, Nickles filed a "petition for immediate enforcement" with the D.C. Superior Court over his request for documents related to Team Thomas, a nonprofit that Thomas operates that isn't registered with the Internal Revenue Service.
Nickles wants information on the group's donors and expenditures, which Thomas has not released to the public.
Nickles said a hearing has been scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in Superior Court.
"Since he is not willing to do it voluntarily or by subpoena, we now need a court order, which is extraordinary," Nickles said. "This is a very unusual situation where a council member has refused to provide a single document."
Thomas's attorney, Frederick D. Cooke, said he plans to fight Nickles's subpoena, arguing that he does not have the "authority" to demand the documents from a council member.
Cooke said Thomas plans to voluntarily release the information, but will not do so under pressure from Nickles.
"If it were not for this crazy litigation, he probably would have released it today," Cooke said. "We have never said to Peter and never said to anyone else, this is not information we did not want and did not believe should be public, but we do not believe Mr. Nickles has the authority to do this."
Cooke refused to explain his legal justification for arguing that Nickles did not have the authority to issue the subpoena. He said he will appear in court on Thomas's behalf and was unsure whether his client will also be there.
In a letter sent to Nickles last week, Cooke said the investigation into Thomas was politically motivated. Thomas has been a frequent critic of Nickles and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D).
"He wants to muscle in and prove to people he has power that I don't think he has," Cooke said in an interview.
Nickles scoffs at suggestions he's being vindictive, arguing that he's merely trying to keep public officials accountable for how they use their offices to raise money.
"Allegations have been made about contributions sought by an entity advertised on (Thomas's) Web site, and we asked for the documents, which is pretty ordinary," Nickles said.
Posted by Alan Suderman on Nov. 1, 2010 at 11:25 am
Loose Lips (Washington City Paper blog) http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2010/11/01/the-other-rally/
While most of the District’s attention was focused Saturday at the Mall, and why Sheryl Crow was trying to perform a duet with Kid Rock to a song she obviously didn’t know the words of, LL was at Shiloh Baptist Church for pre-election rally for Almost Mayor Vince Gray and most of the rest of the Democratic ticket (plus “independent” at-large Councilmember Michael A. Brown).
The gym at Shiloh was the same space Gray held his pre-election rally for the primary. That rally both a Latin-sounding band (complete with pan flute) and an overeager D.J. (complete with annoying sound effects interjected during speeches). That rally had the Rev. Walter Fauntroy preaching about how Gray was the embodiment of the civil-rights movement, and yesteryear’s civil rights heros would have voted for Gray over Still Mayor Adrian Fenty—if they were still alive. And finally, that rally had Gray dancing.
This rally had none of those accoutrements. Instead it had a steady parade of officeholders warning the 100 or so Democratic diehards who had bothered to show up that now is not the time to get lazy just before the election. In other words, remember to vote Tuesday.
“Watch out Democrats,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Some highlights:
· Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells solicited a lusty round of boos when he mentioned the Washington Post, and said their editorial board is “on the verge of being irresponsible” in advocating for local Republican candidates. Wells later complained on Twitter that he should have gotten more applause for keeping his speech brief.
· Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr., who is currently under an investigation that was essentially prompted by his Republican challenger Tim Day, told the crowd that the GOP has no other strategy other than attacking their opponents.”Democrats around the country and in this city need to start taking roll call and holding other Democrats accountable who don’t support Democrats,” Thomas said, who called the write-in campaign for Still Mayor Adrian Fenty, “tomfoolery.”
· And At-Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson ended his speech with this rousing call to arms: “Let’s get out there on Tuesday and kick some butt.”
For his part, Gray stuck to his stump speech about fighting for statehood rights. As others have noted, the statehood push has become one of Gray’s favorite and best-received talking points during his townhall meetings.
LL thinks the new Republican Congress set to take over after tomorrow’s elections (which, in the rest of the United States, will actually send voting lawmakers here) is very likely to want to put a statehood bill on the agenda; GOP leaders may even want to push that initiative into the a lame-duck session, just to get it sent to President Obama—who’s obviously very eager to sign it into law—as soon as possible.
D.C. election officials pledge smoother vote, earlier count
By Mike DeBonis
D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
November 1, 2010; 12:58 PM ET
District elections officials are promising that tomorrow's election will go much more smoothly election than the last one.
The Sept. 14 primary generated a host of complaints, beginning with polling locations that were late to open and ending with a vote count that lasted well into the wee hours, putting a damper on victory celebrations.
For one thing, the Board of Elections and Ethics is pledging that the parties will be able to get underway at a reasonable hour this time.
Rokey W. Suleman II, executive director of the Board of Elections and Ethics, said today that initial returns should be released by 9:30 p.m., with tallies updated at approximately 30-minute intervals until a final count is completed sometime before midnight.
Suleman said today that, for one, the board has perfected what had been a glitchy process in posting tabulated results to the board's Web site. But more importantly, he said, "significantly improved" training will mean that there will be fewer problems closing the polls once voting ends at 8 p.m.
Enticed by a cash bonus, all 143 precinct captains and a significant proportion of their assistants attended an eight-hour training course intended to supplement the training poll workers received prior to the September primary -- training that many workers and observers found to be inadequate given the new procedures and equipment being introduces.
The training, Suleman said, should also help polls open faster. Also, precincts will now call board headquarters to confirm that they are open in the morning; each polling place's status will be reported on theboard's Web site.
Historically, in every mayoral election since 1982, more city voters have voted in the general election than in the primary, which is considered decisive in most races in this overwhelmingly Democratic city. But one indicator of turnout -- the early voting total -- is lagging. While more than 22,000 voted early for the primary, only 12,320 had cast ballots in the two weeks of early voting through Saturday. (Voters can still cast early ballots until 4:45 p.m. today at One Judiciary Square, 441 4th St. NW.)
Suleman fingered the lack of a marquee matchup to drive early turnout. In the primary, which featured the showdown between Adrian Fentyand Vincent Gray, there were "two very well-financed campaigns that had great GOTV," he said, referring to "get out the vote" operations. The board, he said, is prepared for a heavy election-day turnout tomorrow.
Graham defends Wade against Mara's strong school board challenge
By Mike DeBonis
D.C. Wire (Washington Post blog)
November 1, 2010; 3:30 PM ET
Some Ward 1 residents found an interesting flier in their mailboxes last week: "Dotti Love Wade urges you to re-elect Jim Graham."
Forgive many Ward 1 voters for not knowing that Wade is the ward's elected representative to the State Board of Education -- leaving them scratching their heads as to why she's endorsing Graham, the ward's council member, who's quite well known after three terms in office.
The flier, of course, is meant to help Wade more than it is to help Graham, who is facing Republican Marc Morgan and Nancy Shia of the Statehood Green party for an almost certain fourth term. Wade also ran with Graham's support two years ago, proving his clout in the ward by comfortably winning election to the standard-setting SBOE over three challengers.
But the flier also highlights that fact that Wade is facing an energetic challenge from Patrick Mara, the 35-year-old consultant who made a splash two years ago by knocking off longtime at-large council memberCarol Schwartz in the Republican primary. Mara has made a big push in the nonpartisan school board race, spending months knocking on doors and pressing flesh at community events -- not to mention sending some mailers of his own. Meanwhile, Wade's campaign has been by most accounts listless -- according to the most recent finance reports, she has raised the least money of any board incumbent facing a challenger, and Mara has accused Wade, 68, of skipping campaign forums and other community events.
Wade said Monday that her campaign has been late developing because she's been focused on her work with the board, which includes the development of "common core" standards for science education, anti-bullying initiatives and nutrition standards for school food. The forums that she's missed, she said, she doesn't know about.
"Knocking on doors, that's all well and good," Wade said. "Our mayor knocked at doors. The real work is what I'm doing out there working in the schools. ... My challenger has no children of his own.
As for her fundraising, she said her 2008 election didn't have as many up-ballot candidates; this year, the mayoral and council races have siphoned off funding. "As a nonpartisan, the pickings are thin," Wade said. Through Oct. 10, she has raised $1,870 to Mara's $14,277.
Graham said Monday that Wade, who has been a lifelong Ward 1 resident and has attended public schools in the ward, will take advantage of her community roots to eke out a victory. "Those elements cannot be understated overstated," Graham said. "It's very different from just showing up a couple of years ago" -- a not-so-subtle knock at Mara, a Rhode Island native.
Graham added that he recently hosted a fundraiser for Wade; while she hasn't done a mailer -- often the most effective form of communication in a ward-level race -- "she's spending money to do other things." For one, this reporter spotted Wade and Graham cruising the Adams Morgan strip together on Saturday evening in a sedan featuring Wade signs.
In the past two elections, it's become common for incumbent council members to throw support behind their preferred SBOE candidates. In Ward 6, for instance, Tommy Wells is supporting Monica Warren-Jones over Melissa Rohan for the open seat vacated by Lisa Raymond. The races offer a good opportunity for ward politicos to throw their political weight around and build a network of support; on the other hand, there is peril for a politician that can't deliver his or her support to an endorsee.
Mara stands by his contention that Wade has been AWOL on the hustings, and said that he often finds himself having to explain Wade's positions to residents. "People call me to ask about her," he said.
Wade said that perhaps she is "not giving [Mara] as much attention as I should have," but admitted no regrets: "If my reputation doesn't carry me through this election, then that is God's will."
Welcome to Hypothermia Season
Housing Complex (Washington City Paper blog)
Brrr, nippy out there, isn’t it? Welcome to November, when the city’s winter plan for homeless services goes into effect, and all people must be housed when the mercury falls below freezing. The Interagency Council on Homelessnessapproved it just last week–much later than usual–after some controversy over the shelters that could (or could not) be made brought online.
Here’s the main hang-up: The plan depends heavily on being able to house homeless men, women, and children in apartments, so they don’t have to rely on emergency shelters. While agreeing on principle with the goal of housing more people, a representative from the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless opposed the plan on the grounds that the city’s plans to actually fund that housing are mostly just wishful thinking.
While winter homeless services are expected to be funded at the same level aslast year–$2.2 million–this year’s plan has fewer beds for single people budgeted. This year counts 1,585 beds (both apartments and shelters) for men, compared to 1,730 last year, and 523 beds for women compared to 592 last year. In response to last year’s undersupply of family units, however, there are supposed to be 439 this year, compared to 295 last year. As Jason pointed out this morning, D.C. General has almost reached its 135-family capacity (and they’ll now share a campus with the United Planning Organization’s opiate treatment center, which just moved from 33 N Street NE).
The plan includes this hopeful sentence: “Should the need for shelter exceed levels of capacity identified in this plan, the District will open additional facilities to address the need for shelter.” It’s not supposed to be as much of a doozy of a snow season, but since the Department of Human Services is still projecting 10 percent more people needing beds than last year, they can probably bet on needing to do so.
Building a Better ANC
Housing Complex (Washington City Paper blog)
When I first came to the District, having no reason to learn about hyperlocal government, I thought “ANC” stood for “African National Congress.” Upon learning more about the role of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, I was impressed: How beautiful, I thought, to have such intensely local representation in a place otherwise robbed of electoral influence!
For many residents, however, first contact with an ANC is often much more negative. A liquor license battle over a beloved establishment, for example, or objections to the addition of a back deck that requires a signoff from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Most often, ANCs make news by saying no.
There are reasons for this. As they’re currently set up, ANCs have basically three functions: One, to dispense grants. Two, to serve as a forum for complaints and a conduit of information. And three, to review new things (like proposed buildings, regulatory changes, and licenses) and render opinions to the relevant government agency.
It’s this last point where ANCs tend to make themselves most relevant. Developers wanting any kind of zoning relief must prostrate themselves before a board of sometimes very ignorant citizen legislators in order to gain their blessing and better their case before the city council or the Zoning Commission, each of which considers the local ANC to be the legitimate voice of any given community. In the best of times, this can result in a better project, when the developer and the ANC work together to address neighborhood concerns. In the worst of times, it can help stop a project altogether.
The problem is one of mandate. While groups like Main Streets, Business Improvement Districts, and civic associations have fundamentally proactive missions—to undertake projects that will improve their communities—ANCs are set up to be reactive, and they sometimes even react negatively to other groups trying to create positive change. This doesn’t preclude ANCs or individual commissioners from embarking on needed projects; ANC 2F’s Arts Overlay Review committee is a model of what an ANC can do to address difficult problems in their neighborhood, for example, and many commissioners are fierce advocates for their constituents’ concerns, from fixing streetlights to getting trash picked up on time.
But absent that kind of exceptional initiative, ANCs tend to sit on their butts and either rubber stamp or reject applications that come their way.
Matt Yglesias says the problem is institutional structure. Since ANCs have control over only a few things, he argues, they support strict zoning regulations that require more variances, thus increasing the value of their input on new building and new businesses. If parts of their real estate sales taxes went to a fund for use by the ANC, he muses, they might be more willing to say yes, rather than no all the time.
I don’t think the solution is simply to weight the decisionmaking calculus toward new development by extracting some sort of tithe from businesses. As Greater Greater Washington suggests, that presupposes that new businesses aren’t there to serve communities, but rather unwelcome invaders seeking to profit off their backs. What better way to set up an adversarial relationship from the beginning than to force a new business to pay tribute to the ANC?
Institutional design is important, though, and there are ways in which ANCs could be tweaked to make them greater assets to communities.
Firstly, there should be at-large commissioners for each ANC, just as the city has at-large councilmembers to balance out the ward representatives’ narrow, regional interests. At least, the chair of each commission should be elected from the whole sector; it’s quite bizarre to have a representative of one single member district be elevated to a position of such importance.
Secondly, ANCs could be required to undertake one large, sustained, proactive project every two years. The creation of a park, for example, or a new tutoring program, or a branding campaign—whatever addresses a big need that requires institutional support.
But the most critical way in which ANCs can be made more useful—and I’m sorry if this sounds trite—is simply to find ways to increase participation. It’s not like structure is the only reason ANCs tend to be anti-stuff, after all. There are plenty of anti people in every community, and when they’re the loudest voices, even the most perfectly designed institution will bend to their will. You really have no right to complain about an ANC’s activities if you’re not involved in the first place.
The first step in this process is already underway: Hyperlocal government was only waiting for the advent of hyperlocal media to become truly democratic. ANC issues are apparently too small to attract the notice of the city’s paper of record (the most the Post could muster this time around was a generic piece that said nothing of use about ANCs except that those running wanted to “improve their communities”). But neighborhood representative bodies can be perfectly paired with the burgeoning crop of blogs that have been covering them in a fair amount of depth. Some of the healthier and better-run ANCs are in places where blogs like Borderstan, Congress Heights on the Rise, JDLand, The Hill is Home, Georgetown Metropolitan (and Patch, and the Georgetown Voice) communicate to the broader public what happened at each meeting. Greater Greater Washington’s endorsements this cycle are actually a fairly important leap forward: Never before, that I’m aware, has such a widely-read news outlet that’s well set up for discussion devoted some degree of attention to every single race. On top of blogs, Twitter—most notably in ANC 5C—has been a way for those would can’t make it to meetings to still tune in to what’s going on in real time.
The other essential component is that ANCs must post agendas and relevant documents online at a well-functioning and easy-to-navigate website. ANC 6A is a model here: Each meeting has a package of letters sent, minutes taken, proposals reviewed, grants given, events planned. But other ANCs have little to no online presence, with no discernable way to find out what’s going to happen or what did happen at any given meeting without calling to harass the commissioner. There’s no point in having a representative body if constituents can’t find out what it’s discussing quickly and easily. (This applies to the city’s internet capabilities as well: Compare D.C.’s essentially non-functioning site to the one for New York’s Community Boards, which sets out everything you need to know about them in an attractive, easy-to-navigate format).
The city could also do more offline to increase awareness about every D.C. resident’s most direct form of representation. Every piece of correspondence from District government could include a short description of what an ANC is, and contact information for the local commissioner. Streetlight poles could have little tags that say, “You are in ANC X.” Washingtonians, from subletters to lifelong residents, should have no excuse not to know their rights.
Democracies never work without active participation. When the infrastructure is in place to give people who previously couldn’t be bothered a reason to get involved, ANCs can be a powerful force for positive change. Until then, they’re free to be as bad as we allow them to get.
ANC Candidate Drops Robo Calls
Posted by Alan Suderman on Nov. 1, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Loose Lips (Washington City Paper blog)
Capitol Hill’s ANC6B02 Ivan Frishberg, a political director for an environmental group, said he sent out robocalls targeted to people living in his single-member district to introduce himself and invite voters to a candidate forum hosted by a local blog, The Hill is Home. He said the call was also a way “to show people that I’m serious about being more engaged and accessible as a commissioner.”
Robocalls, though, tend to be features for races involving offices a little bit higher up the political food chain. LL asked how much he paid for the call, but Frishberg declined to say: “It was definitely affordable.” (Frishberg says he’s raised $1,500 for his campaign through small donations.) He added that it apparently took some work for the robocall firm, Winning Connections, to compile a list of 6B02 voters from their database. (It dawns on LL that maybe the call was affordable because there aren’t that many voters to call in an ANC election.)
Frishberg is in a 3-way race for the ANC seat. He’s facing a 10-year incumbent,Mary Wright, and challenger Vernon Mallu.
Why bother to vote in D.C. Gulag?
By: HARRY JAFFE
Examiner Columnist
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Why-bother-to-vote-in-D_C_-Gulag--1411218-106487563.html#ixzz147DC4yPx
Examiner Columnist
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Why-bother-to-vote-in-D_C_-Gulag--1411218-106487563.html#ixzz147DC4yPx
November 1, 2010
Seriously, nation, as Stephen Colbert might say, is there any doubt that Vincent Gray will win the general election today and morph from presumptive mayor to mayor elect?
That David Catania will win reelection to his at-large council seat?
And that Kwame Brown will win the general election for council chair?
Neither Catania nor Brown faces any serious challenger. Today's vote is an afterthought to the Democratic primary. It is a mere formality; in effect, a coronation.
Nation! This is a travesty, a perversion of democracy, more Soviet than American. Once again we are reminded that the capital of the most powerful democratic nation on the globe is a one party town: Democrats rule, by outnumbering Republicans 10-1 in registered voters.
Where's the Tea Party when you need one? Why can't we have a serious, loyal opposition in the District? Across the line in Maryland, voters will choose today between Martin O'Mally, the incumbent Democrat, and Robert Ehrlich, the re-incumbent Republican. What a luxury. Why can't we have a real race?
I know, I know -- voters have alternatives, but are they real and attractive?
Of course voters can write in Adrian Fenty's name for mayor. And perhaps a few thousand might cast protest votes against Vince Gray. But this write-in effort is underfunded and disorganized. Heck -- the candidate hasn't even endorsed it. Or said he would serve if elected.
Word in the back rooms of Upper Caucasia is that Boy Mayor Adrian is planning to spend the next few years reflecting and retooling for another mayoral run in 2014 -- as an adult! Wishful thinking, perhaps, but you heard it here first.
And God love the Statehood Green Party. Great ideas, thin candidate corps, little traction in these parts.
For those of us who cling to the two-party system, I see hope in the D.C. Republican Party. The local GOP chose not to run a candidate for mayor, in part because Fenty was so Republican. Likewise, it chose to sit out the races for council chair and at-large.
But serious and attractive Republicans are campaigning against incumbent Democrats in the four ward races: 1, 3, 5 and 6.
"It's the most competitive we've ever been since Home Rule," says Paul Craney, the party's executive director. "Obviously, it would be nice to win an election."
Carol Schwartz remains the one and only true Republican who could win a local race, but she lost her council seat two years ago, in part because the GOP and businessmen ate their own -- and knocked her off.
The GOP's best chance for a win will be in Ward 3, where Dana Hedgepeth is aiming to dethrone incumbent Mary Cheh. Hedgepeth is a long shot, but Cheh bucked her constituents and backed Gray rather than the beloved Fenty.
"There's a perfect storm brewing in Ward 3," Craney says.
No storm can keep me from the polls. The choices may be few, but I rarely fail to exercise my basic right. And I certainly want to cast a ballot for an elected attorney general.
Mike DeBonis: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/debonis/2010/11/demorning_debonis_nov_1_2010.html
Loose Lips (daily column): http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2010/11/01/loose-lips-daily-mini-snickers-edition/
The Education Manifesto
Michelle Rhee and Adrian Fenty on what they learned while pushing to reform D.C.'s failing public schools.
Wall Street Journal
OCTOBER 30, 2010
Our time in office and in charge of the school system of Washington, D.C., is quickly drawing to an end. Monday is Michelle's last day as schools chancellor, and Mayor Fenty failed to win the Democratic primary last month. A new mayor will be elected next week.
During our nearly four years in office we pressed forward an aggressive educational reform agenda. We were determined to turn around D.C.'s public schools and to put children above the political fray, no matter what the ramifications might be for ourselves or other public officials. As both of us embark on the next stages of our careers, we believe it is important to explain what we did in Washington, to share the lessons of our experience, and to offer some thoughts on what the rest of the country might learn from our successes and our mistakes.
Public education in America, particularly in our most troubled urban neighborhoods, has been broken for a long time, and nowhere more so than in our nation's capital. When we took control of the public schools in 2007, the D.C. system was widely considered the lowest-performing and most dysfunctional in the country. Schools regularly failed to open on time for the new school year, due to leaking roofs and broken plumbing. Textbooks and supplies arrived months after classes began—if at all. In the 10 years before we came into office, the district had gone through six schools chiefs.
At Sousa Middle School, in one of the most impoverished wards of the city, fewer than 16% of the students could read and do math at grade level. The lights were broken, and graffiti covered the walls. Kids ran through the hallways and skipped classes with impunity. The federal government had flagged it as a failing school in the highest state of alert under No Child Left Behind, in need of a complete overhaul.
For years, elected officials had promised parents and students that they would "fix the schools." But they failed to deliver, and the families of D.C. were left with finger-pointing and unkept promises. It wasn't that our predecessors were incompetent, or that we were the smart ones who had all the answers. Far from it.
But the political structure wasn't set up for a mayor and a schools chancellor even to make the kinds of decisions that were necessary. Once that new structure of governance was in place (D.C. instituted mayoral control of the public schools in 2007), we were able to chart a new course: to make all of the politically unpopular choices that had been put off for decades. With student achievement almost as low as it could go and enrollment dropping every year, our students had no time for us to tread softly. So we moved ahead with all the urgency that the problem deserved.
The great tragedy of the education debate in America is that most people know at least the basics of how to turn around our urban school systems. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that underperforming teachers will not produce a new generation of rocket scientists. Or that you're not setting up hard-working teachers for success when you don't pay them on time or give the kids a functioning air conditioner when it's 100 degrees inside and they are expected to focus on physics. It's also no secret that some principals perform brilliantly while others lack the skills to make a school succeed.
Nonetheless, year after year, our schools have been run for the benefit of the adults in the system, not for the benefit of the kids.
In September 2009, for example, we faced a significant challenge after a budget cut. To deal with the shortfall, the City Council had recommended that we cancel our summer school program. We knew, however, that getting rid of summer school would mean lower graduation rates and fewer students being on track academically. We looked at the numbers, and the school district was overstaffed for the number of students we served, with a teacher to student ratio of about 16-to-1. It is never easy when people lose their jobs, of course, but for us, the choice was clear: By cutting some staff, we could keep intact a critical program for our students. So we decided to conduct layoffs.
School districts traditionally lay off teachers using what's called the "last in, first out" principle, with the newer teachers let go first. But this is a classic example of putting the interests of adults above those of children. There were heroic veteran and new teachers alike doing great things for kids every day in their classrooms. In any industry or organization, keeping employees based only on their years of service, regardless of their contribution to success, is simply not good policy. So we decided to allow principals to make the layoffs based on the quality, value and performance of their staffs.
This did not sit well with many in the city, to put it mildly. In particular, it outraged the unions—and not just the teachers union. At a rally in D.C.'s Freedom Plaza—fully outfitted for the occasion with a stage, lighting and port-a-johns—the leaders of the Washington Teachers Union and the American Federation of Teachers were joined by Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO. They denounced us for making children victims and guinea pigs. A few thousand demonstrators showed up, some of them holding signs with statements like "This is not Rheezistan," accusing us of tyranny and union busting. Hundreds of school districts across the country were laying off teachers at the time, but the union establishment protested en masse only in D.C., where for the first time someone dared to question an entrenched practice that had only served the interests of adults.
But the longest and most difficult of our fights was the effort to reshape the district's teachers' contract. As in many other cities, D.C.'s contract tied the hands of principals, administrators and, yes, even teachers. Staff reductions at the school level had to occur exclusively by seniority. In practice, tenure often meant a job for life, regardless of performance. Teachers could be placed at schools without the consent of principals. Pay scales were more or less locked in place, determined by years of service and credits in professional enrichment courses—completely delinked from the impact teachers were having on their students' learning.
We bargained with the teachers' union for 2½ years and won significant concessions. How did we do it? By striking the sort of grand bargain that could serve as a model for other troubled school districts. The formula is really quite simple: more money and resources, in exchange for more accountability from teachers.
The union took some time to accept this trade-off. In 2008, we put a proposal on the table that we considered rather bold. In exchange for giving up tenure and linking pay to performance, teachers would be able to earn up to $130,000 a year. At first, union leadership was dead-set against it and simply refused to allow their members to vote.
We did not give up that easily. D.C. went for more than two years without a new teachers' contract, but we kept at it. Since the city did not have the money for a significant raise, we implored several foundations to consider providing the resources to enact a groundbreaking contract. The funders, including the Broad Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, were clear that they would put up the money, but not if they were only backing a marginal improvement. The contract had to set a new precedent.
That D.C.'s teachers finally endorsed this revolutionary new contract shows that they, too, are ready for change. When we were negotiating with the union, we heard one thing over and over again from the leadership: "Our members are never going to accept this." In truth, when the union finally allowed them to vote, the teachers passed it overwhelmingly, by 80% to 20%. Given the chance to be treated as professionals and to be rewarded for their achievements, they grabbed it.
Our contract with the teachers achieved a number of breakthroughs:
• It rewards great teachers who accept a higher level of accountability with some of the highest teacher pay in the nation—up to twice as much as they were previously making.
• No longer do educators have a job guarantee for life. Ineffective teachers are immediately dismissed from the system. Minimally effective teachers do not receive a pay step increase and have one year to improve their performance. If that doesn't happen, they are subject to termination.
• If layoffs are necessary, the decisions about whom to dismiss are based on quality and performance instead of seniority.
• We also instituted a comprehensive system for evaluating teachers, including growth in student achievement as measured by standardized tests (so that teachers who take on the toughest students aren't unfairly penalized), observation of their classroom practices and assessment of their contributions to the school community.
Though it's obviously too early to judge the results of this new contract, we can take pride in some of the other results from our four years in office. Washington went from being the worst performing school district in the country to leading the nation in gains on the national gold-standard test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. It was the only jurisdiction in which every student subgroup raised its performance. Graduation rates have increased, and this fall the D.C. public school system saw its first jump in enrollment in 41 years.
The improved achievement of our secondary students was unprecedented in D.C.'s history and unparalleled anywhere in the country, with an uptick of 14 points in reading and 17 points in math in three short years. SAT scores of District students are also rising: up 27 points this year, on average, with a 40-point jump for African-American students and a 54-point jump for male students.
At Sousa Middle School, which was failing when we took office, there is now a dynamic new leader, who is disproving the myth that kids in poor neighborhoods are doomed to fail because of race or poverty. Within months after Dwan Jordon took over, we started to hear from parents that something was different, and in just one year, Sousa gained 17 percentage points in reading proficiency and 25 in math, meeting federal benchmarks for progress for the first time in the school's history. This means that Sousa more than doubled its student proficiency rate in math, and increased its proficiency rate in reading by 70%.
On a recent visit to the school, it was clear why. Before, the students had not been engaged, and walked around with iPods blocking out the dismal environment. A year later, they were in uniforms, and they swarmed excitedly around visitors to talk about the school, their work and their goals. The school had been renovated, and the staff had motivated students to take pride in the new environment, keeping it a clean and positive place for learning. When we told teachers at Sousa that we didn't expect such huge gains every year, they replied that "the horse is out of the barn now."
We are very proud of this progress. But it's clear now that a failure of politics—if not of policy—has cut short what otherwise could have been an even more sustained campaign for reform in the District. We pushed for and achieved significant change, but we understand why many in the community felt that we did not communicate with them effectively. We did not explain why we were doing what we were doing well enough. We did not do enough to engage the local leaders and neighborhood activists who needed to be at the forefront of the fight.
We believe that the people in D.C. who want change were, and still are, the majority. But they face special interests—unions, administrators and opportunistic politicians—who are vocal and committed. These organized interests have a significant advantage over the public officials who are willing to do what is unpopular but right for the students. We see this not only in the District, of course, but nationwide. We need reform groups of our own, as powerful as these others but representing only the interests of schoolchildren and ready to take political action.
If we are to serve our most disadvantaged students well, politicians need to stand up. On the campaign trail, candidate Barack Obama was booed by teachers unions for supporting merit pay. In office, he has largely stood his ground, offering financial incentives for states to expand charter schools and tie pay to performance. But too often the president has been a lone voice on education issues. Too many politicians remain tied to the past—and to the money and political muscle of the teachers unions.
Not everything we did in D.C. can be replicated nationally, but much of it can be. We closed dozens of low-performing schools, streamlined the bloated central office bureaucracy, and replaced two-thirds of our principals. None of this will be easy to do politically. But we see little choice. Our failing schools are not just an injustice; they threaten the nation's competitiveness, its future and its very integrity.
Four years ago, we both found a cause that inspired us to work hard every day. Reformers nationwide need to take up that mantle. Now is not the time to go soft on tough decisions. Fixing our schools will require courage and persistence, but young lives are at stake. What could be more worth the risks?
—Michelle Rhee and Adrian Fenty have served as Washington, D.C., schools chancellor and mayor, respectively, since 2007.
SIDEBAR: The D.C. Timeline
· JUNE 2007: Mayor Adrian Fenty appoints Michelle Rhee schools chancellor. Over the next year, she closes a number of schools, fires principals and central office employees, and offers buyouts to low-performing teachers.
· JULY 2008: D.C. test scores on reading and math rise across the board.
· JUNE 2010: After nearly three years of negotiation, the D.C. teachers union accepts a groundbreaking contract that institutes pay for performance and ends tenure.
· JULY 2010: Ms. Rhee fires 241 teachers and puts 737 on notice for being rated "minimally effective."
· SEPT. 2010: Mr. Fenty, who campaigned on a record of education reform, loses the Democratic primary.
· OCT. 2010: Ms. Rhee resigns.
SIDEBAR: School by the Numbers
7,000
...students drop out of high school every school day, for a total of about 1.3 million students a year.
12%
...of U.S. public high schools (about 2,000 schools) produce nearly half of the nation's dropouts and 58% of African-American dropouts.50%
...of incoming ninth graders in urban, high-poverty schools read three or more years below grade level.39%
...of high school students reported spending one hour or less a week reading or studying for class in 2009.23%
...of new American teachers come from the top third of their graduating class.14%
...of new American teachers in high-poverty schools come from the top third of their college class.100%
...of teachers in Singapore, South Korea and Finland come from the top third of their college class.Sources: Alliance for Excellent Education, High School Survey of Student Engagement, McKinsey & Co.
No comments:
Post a Comment