themail.gif (3487 bytes)

November 1, 2009

Burden of Proof

Dear Provers:

We’ve had a week of startling revelations about two of the latest Fenty administration scandals. We’ve heard how the administration manipulated city funds so that it could steer construction contracts to cronies and hide the contracts from the city council and the public. We’ve heard how Chancellor Rhee fiddled with the DC public schools’ budget so that she could fire a few hundred teachers and other employees. Rhee testified at a city council hearing that she didn’t plan the Reduction in Force, that she didn’t intentionally hire several hundred more teachers than she needed over the summer in order to break the union contract. No, she insisted, she wasn’t being malicious; she had simply been incompetent, bumbling, and unable to plan ahead. She had the right to ignore the legal budget of DCPS that the council passed and the mayor signed because she was the head of the agency, and that meant she had the ultimate power. The city council had approved her nomination, so from then on she wasn’t accountable to them or anyone else for her actions. And she used, over and over again, the magic words, “for the children.” As long as she was doing it “for the children,” she could do whatever she wanted with the budget, with the staff of DCPS, with the teachers, the principals, and the students. She didn’t have to report to the council and her budget officer didn’t have to report to the Chief Financial Officer. The only way she could think of to improve management of DCPS was to make a vague promise to in some way “improve communications.” (See Chancellor Rhee’s and Chief Financial Officer Gandhi’s testimony at http://www.dcpswatch.com/rif, and the video of the hearing at http://octt.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/october2009/10_29_09_COW_1.asx, http://octt.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/october2009/10_29_09_COW_2.asx, and http://octt.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/october2009/10_29_09_COW_3.asx.

If these weren’t scary enough, we’ve had Halloween and the transition of the trees to fall colors. We’ve had all this going on, and yet the only thing most people have wanted to write about to themail is the same-sex marriage bill. I’ve published replies to several messages in this issue; if anyone wants another round on same-sex marriage, please send your message in by Wednesday’s issue. But if you want to write about the fall leaves, that would be even better.

Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com

###############

Returning to the ’Hood
Jonetta Rose Barras, rosebook1@aol.com

A fight appears to be developing in Ward 2 over the future of public schools in that wealthy part of town. Some parents want to end the practice of out-of-boundary enrollment. Their position is better summed up by the slogan, “Ward 2 schools for Ward 2 kids.” But other parents, many of whom are black or Hispanic, assert their children would be adversely affected by such a policy.

Ground zero appears to be Hardy Middle School, located at 34th Street and Wisconsin Avenue. The building is brand new, although it took years and the involvement of Allen Lew, the city’s school facilities czar, before the renovations were completed.

“I think it’s the new building,” one source, who requested anonymity, said, explaining that the renovations have given Hardy the feel of a private school. “And then there is the recession. People who once sent their children to private schools can’t afford that any more.”

###############

Easy to Confuse These Two Things
Phil Shapiro, pshapiro@his.com

About twenty years after the world wide web was invented, the Washington Post is not so sure about the difference between a web site address and an E-mail address (see http://tinyurl.com/yjomqlj).

Admittedly, I get these confused quite often myself. Is there someone who can explain — in simple terms — the difference between a web site address and an E-mail address?

###############

Basic Rights
Malcolm Wiseman, mal@wiseman.ws

You respect human beings, not voters. Messrs. Catania, Evans, and Gray are doing a great job in leading on same-sex legal union. I hope they and the DC council are successful in this broadening of individual rights. Or, let’s have a vote on whether unmarried gays can own a home together or co-benefit tax-wise. Let’s vote to make them rent. No! Basic rights are not something we vote on (and off). You make sure the law acknowledges, defends, and continuously expands heretofore denied or constrained rights. The government needs to have a damn good justification for denying a particular human behavior or declaring it illegitimate.

Rights is the name put on the package of family jewels that we collectively loan to our government and allow it to administer. It’s the list of activities we regularly enjoy and must have to be happy individually. We already had them before the government existed. They should protect, not restrict or even define the borders of our activities that do not cause intentional or direct harm to others.

Let customs come from the people, not from their government. Equality of treatment and protection, that’s all we need from them.

###############

The Voter Ballot Initiative on Marriage or Bust
Robert “Bob” King, grassrootsdc@gmail.com

So many were terribly disappointed and surprised with Councilmember Jack Evans’ outburst in his opening remarks at the hearing on same sex marriage. He threatened the witnesses before the first one was even called to the microphone. A weak person who was not as committed to the cause may have been intimidated and possibly walk away. Having been active in the community and in the Civil Rights Movement, I was used to such calculated demonstrations of support to feign anger to galvanize supporters and to look tough on the issue. He tempted many to want to say, “Bring it on.”

The council, mayor, delegate, and maybe in the Board of Elections leave one little choice but to go to the next steps in the legal process. For the appointed Elections Board, it is off to the courts as allowed by the law and outlined in the referendum and initiative process. For the elected officials, it is to Congress. The council, mayor, and delegate have indicated that they all support same sex marriage. There is no recourse but to change the venue for the discussion, as is done in the court system when a fair trial cannot be accomplished in the current hostile environment. Councilmembers indicated that the council was just going to revise the bill where it touches on the domestic partnership part. The council hearing and witness lists were stacked with gay activists presenting stories about their lives. Two councilmembers let it be known how happy they were to see the definition of marriage change as it affects them personally.

Like it or not, the District of Columbia is under the rule of Congress to a degree. Home Rule is limited. What do you do in an instance like this? Just stand? Or do you seek the right to a vote on marriage from Congress, as individuals and groups do regularly seeking a vote in Congress for the District of Columbia? This action does not take away from the fight for statehood. It only demonstrates how important the right to vote is. It shows how precious citizens take voting rights and the institution of marriage, both the basic fabric of our society. Also, it was disheartening to hear councilmembers say that there are other issues that are important that citizens need to address, as if redefining marriage without the vote of the people wasn’t one of the most important, most contentious issues of the decade. Why else would there be a witness list of nearly three hundred for the council hearing and about one hundred for the Board of Elections hearing? It should be noted that the Board is comprised of two members appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council, when there should be three members. That is a situation that has existed this way for several months and should have been resolved by now. People pick their own battles, and many feel marriage is a war worth waging. The same effort will be applied by those that want a ballot vote in 2010 on same sex marriage as will be needed when forces come forth demanding equality for polygamous marriages.

The council just doesn’t get it. All citizens want is the right to vote on the issue. Whatever the verdict is at the polls is what must be accepted. Those eleven councilmembers that believe that same sex marriage is the right way to go are not being challenged for their belief system. Some others believe differently. The council refused to do a Council Advisory Referendum to put the issue on the ballot, so the citizens have to. And we want Congress to turn the proposed legislation back to the city for a vote. Let the people vote. Let the people vote on the definition of marriage. That’s all we ask. To do otherwise is a slap against voting rights and disrespect for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Let the people vote, one way or another, at the ballot box on Election Day 2010.

###############

Respect for Voters
Qawi Robinson, qrobinso@lycos.com

Your intro [themail, September 28] was brilliant and exposed some of the councilmembers’ motives. This was never about civil unions, benefits, next-of-kin hospital visits, etc. This is about a government body sanctioning and endorsing an anti-religious construct. Marriage is secular too, but its origins are deeply religious. How can you make homosexual marriage, something that the majority of faiths, religions, etc., agree against now apply to the same followers through government? You can’t. The Constitution protects freedom of religion last time I checked. Catania, Evans, . . . , heck, the whole bunch need to go. Morality and religion are not things that can be legislated, amended, etc. The respective God of each religion has defined marriage. To redefine it is basically letting the government tell us what to believe. If this does go to Congress for an appeal, Ms. Norton will resist the will of the people again.

###############

Respect for Voters
Richard Rogers, rrwashingtondc@verizon.net

Did you appear for the hearing and give testimony or just publish a sneaky comments on the Internets?

#####

[I watched the hearing on the Internet tubes, but I don’t think my comments were sneaky. they were published openly. — Gary Imhoff]

###############

Hypocrite
Phillip Spaulding, phillipspaulding@yahoo.com

[From Gary Imhoff, themail, October 28:] “If it [the city council] really felt respect for the citizens of the District of Columbia, it would allow them the right to vote on the definition of marriage, rather than telling them they are too hateful, bigoted, and stupid to be trusted with the vote.”

Really? So I assume, then, that you think a “vote on the definition of marriage,” specifically the question of whether interracial marriage should be legal, could and should have been put to a public referendum in Virginia circa 1967? Indeed, many of those opposed to interracial marriage opposed it for religious reasons. Hypocrite.

#####

[I don’t understand why Phillip Spaulding thinks this would be a hypocritical position, since I’ve already written that I don’t think that same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are analogous. Here’s what I wrote in themail on June 3: “Proponents of ‘marriage equality’ frequently compare same-sex marriage with interracial marriage, but that’s not a good comparison. It’s always been the common human custom for people to marry within their own groups, whether those groups are defined geographically, linguistically, religiously, politically, or racially. But marriages between people in different groups also occurred frequently whenever and wherever groups mixed in any significant numbers. Over history and across the world, forbidding those intergroup marriages legally has been the exception rather than the rule (though the taboo has been more strictly enforced across religious lines than across geographic or racial ones). The abolition of laws in the United States against interracial marriages confirmed common human tradition and experience, rather than rejected it.”

In any case, considering interracial marriage as a separate situation, it’s an interesting question whether legalizing interracial marriages in Virginia would have been achieved more easily through a legislative vote or a popular vote. I’m willing to speculate on that, even though the case is counterfactual. (Loving v. Virginia settled the case by court decision and Virginia doesn’t have an initiative and referendum process.) My reading of the political climate of Virginia in 1967 is that the late sixties were a period of extremely rapid change in race relations, and that Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act was an embarrassment to a lot of Virginians. (Nationwide, the reason the Loving case had such an impact was not that it affected the actual marriage arrangements of a lot of people, but that it was a shock to most people that a state still had an interracial marriage ban on the books in the late 1960’s, and that it enforced it.) Interracial marriage would probably have been on the cusp of acceptance in Virginia in 1967. If there had been a year to two of political debate before the issue came to a vote, it may very well have won a popular vote. I assume the point of Phillip’s question is that he thinks decisions made by legislatures are better and wiser than those made by direct vote. In this case, I believe he would be wrong. I doubt that legalization would have won in the legislature until several years later. In other words, I think that a popular vote would have legalized interracial marriages before the more cautious legislature would have. Neither legislative nor popular vote decisions are always right (in the sense that they always agree with me, or with you), but I trust the voters to do the right thing more than I trust legislators. What remained of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 after the Loving decision was overturned by the Virginia legislature by 1975, and that was probably delayed by a few years just to show defiance to the Supreme Court, so I think it’s fair to speculate that without court intervention interracial marriage would have been legalized in Virginia, even by the legislature, before 1977, if not in 1967.

By the way, most state laws against interracial marriage were not strictly enforced. Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act was one of the strongest and most strictly enforced. Some religious leaders may have supported it, but the motivation behind it was not religious, but instead secular and in fact scientific — the theory of eugenics, which was promoted politically mostly by liberals and progressives, and which was also the main motivating force behind the movements to legalize birth control and abortions. Isn’t history ironic? — Gary Imhoff]

###############

A Little Consistency and a Few Answers, Please
Martin Austermuhle, martin.austermuhle@gmail.com

Councilmember Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) made a very good — and respectful — point when he opened the hearing on the same-sex marriage legislation last Monday. Why all the commotion over a vote now? Why not when Mayor Adrian Fenty proposed the school takeover? Or how about when the DC council voted to spend $700 million on a new baseball stadium? While opponents of same-sex marriage at the hearing called the legislation one of the most important public policy decisions of our times, it simply isn’t. Why? Because when you weigh the benefits against the drawbacks for the majority of District residents, it just doesn’t come close to rising to the level of importance of many other issues that we trust our elected representatives to vote on. The stadium? That was $700 million that the council put on the city’s credit card, effectively raising our debt-to-revenue ratio, which we all know can have an impact on the city’s financial standing and future ability to borrow. The school takeover? Gary, I shouldn’t have to tell you how that has affected many schools, children, teachers, and administrators.

But same-sex marriage? Really? You’re telling me that allowing loving same-sex couples to enter into a legal contract will somehow negatively impact District residents? Will heterosexual couples no longer be able to marry? Will existing heterosexual marriages be worth less? Please. When you balance those benefits and drawbacks, allowing same-sex couples to marry becomes one of the least important public policy decisions of our time. That’s why it’s fundamentally dishonest and misleading for proponents of a referendum to be yelling so loudly for their votes to be heard, when those same cries are rarely heard when much bigger issues have come before the council.

As for the point Councilmember Evans made, I’m actually shocked that you’d disagree with him, Gary. He simply warned of the dangers of running to Congress to overturn a local decision you disagree with. Sure, the constitution grants Congress executive authority over the District, but that does not mean that every single one of our local decisions should be vetted or second-guessed by representatives that do not live here, do not respond to our concerns and cannot be voted out of office by us. Period. It was disheartening to see opponents of same-sex marriage threaten to take their case to Congress. Why? Because that move would signal in what low esteem they truly hold the District, its residents, and its locally elected representatives. Did you advocate having Congress overturn the school takeover? The stadium funding? Why not? The principle of Home Rule here is more important than the politics of whether or not you agree with a decision made by our duly elected representatives to extend the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

Finally, I’d like to close with an opinion on the hearing. We apparently saw very different hearings, Gary. I saw proponents of same-sex marriage — black and white, religious and secular — speak of love, equality, and devotion. They rarely raised their voices, and generally refrained from insulting or attacking their opponents. (Which was in stark contrast to the sparsely attended public rally the Sunday prior at Freedom Plaza, where some same-sex marriage opponents made it clear where their opinions are coming from. See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHpvIK295TA&feature=player_embedded). Supporters of same-sex marriage asked a simple question that I believe you and the opposition have yet to answer: why not? Without citing the Bible, which assumes that our government follows only Biblical mandates, can someone tell me what harm can come from the District allowing same-sex marriages?

#####

[I can see how Councilmember Mendelson’s comments may mislead some people who don’t know much about or who don’t remember DC’s political history. However, they’re wrong. Mayor Williams’ plan to reconstitute the Board of Education so that he appointed half its members was quite unpopular with the public, although it was supported by the mayor and a majority of councilmembers. There was a referendum vote to overturn it; that referendum lost by only a few hundred votes. Phil and Martin and I may agree that Mayor Fenty’s takeover of the school system was a bad idea that has worked out badly, but the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, which initially accepted a proposed referendum to overturn it, then did a turnaround and decided it was ineligible for the ballot; that decision was upheld by the Superior Court. Phil has been unable to convince his fellow councilmembers to overturn it (every councilmember who spoke at Chancellor Rhee’s hearing on Thursday pledged fealty to it); Martin has not been able to convince his colleagues at DCIst to criticize Rhee’s bumbling; and all of us together have not convinced enough people that the city would be better off if the schools were controlled by a publicly elected school board instead of a dictatorial mayor and a Chancellor who believes herself to be above the law. As for the baseball stadium, the great majority of the public, along with Phil, Martin, and I, believed that it was a wasteful misuse of public funds, but no amount of public outrage could overturn the city council’s decision; the city’s law on initiatives and referenda does not allow ballot measures on budgetary matters. But thanks to Martin for pointing out that a public vote by referendum would have arrived at a better decision than the legislature reached.

Martin’s attempt to pass off same-sex marriage as an unimportant and trivial issue is surely not meant to be taken seriously. If he believed that, he would not argue about it so persistently and passionately. Councilmember Cheh said of it that, “This is the most important civil rights issue of our era,” leaving it unclear whether she thinks that the Civil Rights Movement was less important than same-sex marriage or whether she believes that the Civil Rights Movement was before her era. Regardless, I believe that families and the marriages that define them have been the main building block of civilizations and societies, the foundation of their stability, throughout millennia and around the globe. (There are those who disagree, of course; one of the people who testified in favor of same-sex marriage said that as a feminist lesbian since the 1960’s, she was not sure that she approved of the institution of marriage at all.) Marriages have taken a few different forms, the main variants being monogamous and polygamous, but no society has existed without families and marriages, and same-sex marriages have never been given formal societal recognition anywhere. It may be that history has nothing to teach us about families, and that we are indeed wiser than all former generations and free to remake marriage as we will, without consequence. It may be true, as Communists believed, that there is no human nature, but that “human nature” is malleable and simply a product of the state, and the state can make a “new man.” It may be that Andrew Sullivan, who first proposed formal legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the 1990’s (Virtually Normal, 1996), is the most insightful and well-balanced philosopher of human nature, law, and sociology who ever lived. But, absent further evidence of any of these being true, I’m not ready to accept Martin’s assumption that the burden of proof is on those who oppose an unprecedented and fundamental change in human society, rather than on those who propose the change.

With regards to appealing a city council decision to Congress, Martin is just wrong. Citizens should always have the right to appeal a government decision to a higher authority. Citizens of St. Louis, if they disagree with a decision by their city council, can try have to the Missouri state legislature overturn it, even though most of those legislators do not live in St. Louis and cannot be voted out by residents of St. Louis. Why should citizens of DC have less right than citizens of St. Louis or of any other city to appeal decisions made by their city governments? Congress is in the position of our state government. It shows no disrespect to this city or its citizens to appeal a city government decision to Congress; it doesn’t even show low esteem for the city government (though Martin may admit with me that our city government hasn’t always earned high esteem); it simply shows disagreement with that decision.

Finally, Martin stacks the deck in comparing the good behavior of same-sex marriage proponents who were celebrating getting what they wanted at a formal council hearing (but who still used condescending and dismissive language toward their opponents), to the raucous behavior of traditional marriage proponents at an outdoor public rally. Would he compare the language that same-sex proponents use on Internet bulletin boards about their opponents (overwhelmingly insulting and attacking, often vile and ugly, certainly never loving) to the generally respectful language that traditional marriage proponents used at the city council hearing? — Gary Imhoff]

###############

CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS

Dupont Circle Park: A Great Urban Green Space, November 2
Robin Diener, president@dupont-circle.org

Please join us to hear Susan C. Piedmont-Palladino speak about the significance of Dupont Circle as an urban green space. Monday, November 2, 7:30 p.m., at St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 1772 Church Street, NW.

Susan serves as a curator to the National Building Museum and is also an architect and Professor of Architecture at Virginia Tech’s Washington/Alexandria Architecture Consortium (WAAC), the College’s urban campus. She received her Master of Architecture from Virginia Tech and her Bachelor of Arts in the History of Art from The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. Before joining Virginia Tech, she taught at the University of Maryland and the Catholic University of America.

Susan is the former national president of Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility, served on the design committee for the National Peace Garden Foundation, and has been a consultant to the Department of Energy for the Solar Decathlon. Light refreshments will follow the meeting.

###############

National Building Museum Events, November 3-5
Sara Kabakoff, skabakoff@nbm.org

November 3, 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m., Book of the Month: Jacob Lawrence in the City. Join us in the Building Zone for an interactive reading of Susan Goldman Rubin’s Jacob Lawrence in the City. Readings at 10:30 and 11:30 am. Free, drop-in program. Recommended for ages 3 to 5.

November 3, 12:30-2:00 p.m., Community in the Aftermath: Bayou La Batre Project. Bayou La Batre, Alabama, won a $15.6 million FEMA grant to build one hundred furnished housing units for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Janey Galbraith, the city’s grants consultant, discusses the project’s progress, and its overall impact on area recovery efforts. Vince LaCoste, Polysurveying, and Chris Sylvester, The Mitchell Company, discuss the design and construction of this new neighborhood. Free, registration required. Walk-in registration based on availability.

November 4, 12:30-1:30 p.m., Building in the 21st Century: Human Responses to Green Design. While LEED criteria certify the “green” status of a building, standards are not yet in place to measure the impact of “green” design on human neurological, psychological, and physiological behavior. Frederick Marks, director of science and technology at AC Martin Partners, Inc. discusses and analyzes human responses to the built environment. Free, registration required. Walk-in registration based on availability.

November 5, 6:30-8:00 p.m., Vincent Scully Prize: Christopher Alexander. Architect, builder, and scholar Christopher Alexander accepts the eleventh Vincent Scully Prize and presents an original talk that explores the need for a new production system for buildings, communities, and neighborhoods. The presentation concludes with a panel featuring Mr. Alexander, Boston Globe architecture critic Robert Campbell, and Michael Mehaffy, research associate at the Center for Environmental Structure. $12 member, $12 students, $20 nonmembers; prepaid registration required. Walk-in registration based on availability.

All events at the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square Metro station. Register for events at http://www.nbm.org.

###############

Gray at Ward 4 Democrats, November 4
Deborah M. Royster, deborah.royster@comcast.net

I am writing to remind you that the next monthly meeting of the Ward 4 Democrats will be held on Wednesday, November 4, at 7:00 p.m. at Emery Recreation Center, 5701 Georgia Avenue, NW. DC Council Chairman Vincent Gray will be our guest speaker for the evening, and he will discuss legislative issues pending before the Council of the District of Columbia. In addition, Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser will provide her regular monthly update of key legislative and other community issues affecting Ward 4 citizens. The meeting will begin promptly at 7:00 p.m. If you would like to receive regular notice of monthly meetings, please join the Ward 4 Democrats listserv at: ward4democrats@yahoogroups.com.

###############

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.

All postings should be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be printed, and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief paragraphs would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can be put into each mailing.

 


Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)