Severability
Dear Severers:
Sinclair Skinner, Mayor Fenty’s close friend, was campaigning with
the mayor later in the week, but on Thursday he spent a few hours
explaining his company’s business and business practices to Robert
Trout, the special counsel who had been hired by the city council find
out how Skinner got lucrative subcontracts to do work for the city, and
to determine what work he actually did (http://octt.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/April2010/04_15_10_LIBRARIES.asx).
The problem was, Skinner couldn’t explain anything because he couldn’t
remember anything. “I don’t recall,” was Skinner’s answer to
most substantive questions, and it was the watchword of the Wilson
Building on the day he testified, or avoided testifying. Skinner
emphasized how small his business was, consisting of just himself and
one employee, yet he couldn’t remember how he got the contracts, whom
he spoke to, or what the discussions were. He couldn’t remember a
check for over a quarter million dollars that his company got last year,
or what work the company did to earn it. He couldn’t distinguish
between two people he worked with, because he couldn’t tell them
apart, until Trout asked whether he met with the father or the son —
which caused Skinner’s own lawyer, A. Scott Bolden, to laugh at him.
How could Bolden have been so cruel? His client is obviously afflicted
with one of the most severe and complete cases of early onset Alzheimer’s
on record; he is to be pitied, not mocked.
#####
Critics of HR 157 complain below and in the Post’s editorial
today that the cost of “DC Voting Rights,” which is what they call
giving a floor vote in the House of Representatives to Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton, is too high if it would prevent the DC government from
denying Second Amendment rights to its citizens. They are especially
aggrieved that the courts would be likely to invalidate the portion of
the bill that they like (“DC Voting Rights”) as unconstitutional,
and that citizens of DC would be left with their full Second Amendment
rights instead. Critics should read the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111YxvAPt::)
before they make this criticism. Section 4 of the bill is a “nonseverability”
provision. Most bills have a severability provision, so that if one
clause is declared unconstitutional, the others will still have the
force of law. The “nonseverability” provision reads, instead: “If
any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, is
declared or held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of
this Act and any amendment made by this Act shall be treated and deemed
invalid and shall have no force or effect of law.” If the courts
invalidate the provision giving the DC Delegate a floor vote in the
house, it will also have the effect of continuing the DC government’s
denial of Second Amendment rights to its citizens.
#####
Mike DeBonis, the City Paper’s Loose Lips, has an excellent
column this week (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/38736/the-transparent-trap)
on the demise of one of Mayor Fenty’s good innovations, the CapStat
program. CapStat, modeled on a Baltimore program, measured city programs
against explicit, detailed standards. The results were published on the
city government’s web site. Agency and Department directors
participated in videotaped question and answer sessions with the mayor,
and the sessions were broadcast on the mayor’s cable station. But the
program has now been hidden behind a wall of secrecy; the results are
not made public, and the CapStat sessions are no longer broadcast.
DeBonis traced the cover-up to contumacious Attorney General Peter
Nickles, a consistent opponent of government transparency and openness,
whose rationale to DeBonis is that the sessions were part of the “deliberative
process,” and therefore secret.
Here’s an alternate explanation, from agency and department heads
and staffers who have participated in recent CapStat sessions. Their
take is that the CapStat sessions have become increasingly ugly and
contentious, and that the mayor and members of the Executive Office of
the Mayor have become intent on disparaging and humiliating anyone not
in the EOM. They believe that the CapStat sessions have been hidden
behind a wall of secrecy because they give such an unflattering picture
of the mayor and his aides.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
The Sorriest Moment in DC Voting Rights
History
Timothy Cooper, Worldrights@aol.com
DC Delegate Norton’s decision to bring her foolhardy voting rights
bill to the floor for a vote next week — a decision cheered on by DC
Vote, LCCR, and others — represents political opportunism at its most
craven and, yes, most dangerous. Last week, a New York Times
editorial called Norton’s initiative, “a cynical, sickening
compromise.” The Washington Post labeled it a price “too
high.” It appears that Ms. Norton has lost all sense of good judgment
as she is ready, willing, and able to trade local citizenry safety for
her constitutionally suspect single vote in Congress. And one which will
likely lead the city to no additive vote in Congress and less
restrictive gun laws after a vigorous constitutional challenge. If there
was ever a reason to be truly cynical about self-serving politicians,
this is it.
Ms. Norton has shockingly placed her own political ambitions and her
next reelection campaign ahead of the security of ordinary people by
supporting the passage of legislation that will make legal and
accessible to young adults living in the District the very same kinds of
weapons — 9mm Glocks and 22P Walthers — that were used in the
Virginia Tech massacre. And that’s just for starters. AK-47s? Not a
problem. They’ll be able to buy them, too. Whatever is Ms. Norton and
DC Vote thinking? Have District of Columbia taxpayers shelled out
millions of dollars to DC Vote over the past few years to have it now
endanger our lives with this loony proposition? Has the District elected
Norton ten times to have her propose achieving such ignominious results?
Good grief. Does the voting rights brain trust actually believe that
winning minimal representational rights in Congress ranks higher on the
scale of achievement than protecting public safety and ensuring the
right to life?
Norton’s bill is a public disaster. New leadership and better ideas
are required to move the voting rights cause forward. This is the
sorriest moment in two hundred years of DC voting rights history.
###############
Death Should Not Be an Option
Sam Jordan, samunomas@msn.com
I share my condolences with Kenneth Barnes [founder, ROOT], and all
others who have lost loved ones from gun violence. I support
wholeheartedly your aversion to the “one-vote-for-gun-rights” trade
off Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC Vote and the Leadership
Conference for Civil Rights are poised to offer Congress for passage of
the DC Voting Rights bill. Perhaps, most important in the debate
inspired by the bill is the failure of the measure’s sponsors to
concern themselves with the wishes of the people of the District. In
1982, by a substantial majority, the constitution for the state of New
Columbia was ratified. It is still the only official, citywide
registration of voter sentiment on the matter. Promoters of the DC
Voting Rights bill have yet to explain why they have not taken their
proposed legislation to the electorate. The answer may be found in the
terms and mechanics of the bill itself. It appears to offer little of
value to the people of the District.
A voting seat in the US House of Representatives for the District and
an additional seat for the state of Utah provide the defining
architecture of the bill. No persuasive rationale is offered for the
gratuitous seat granted to the state of Utah. If passed, the bill will
accentuate the District’s continuing crisis in democracy. Furthermore,
the additional seats will be grossly dissimilar. An analysis of the DC
Voting Rights bill reveals six critical shortcomings: 1) a single vote
in the House of Representatives will give the District no additional
control over our local affairs, although greater local control is the
goal of democratic representation; 2) Congress will continue to exercise
its discretionary authority over the District’s budgetary,
legislative, and judicial matters. No Congressional district in the
country is exposed to such arbitrary intervention; 3) there will be no
DC delegation of Senators and Representatives and, unlike Utah, DC will
have no additional Electoral College vote. As a result, the seat will
carry little legislative negotiating leverage; 4) the bill does not
acknowledge the action taken by the people of the District in 1982 when
voters ratified a constitution for the State of New Columbia; 5)
Congress can repeal DC voting rights at any time. Statehood cannot be
repealed; 6) should the DC Voting Rights bill be enacted then challenged
successfully in court, severability provisions may permit Utah to keep
its additional seat because it is a state. In addition, the gun
amendments may also become local law. In that scenario, the District
will be left with no vote in Congress, further loss of local control and
burdened with the mayhem of easily available guns.
In spite of President Obama’s stated support of the DC Voting
Rights bill, Congressional representatives vulnerable to the pressures
applied by the National Rifle Association have promised to attach an
amendment that will erase the gains the District made in 2008 when DC
council and the mayor enacted restrictions on gun ownership,
registration, and portability. These restrictions enabled the District
to experience its lowest number of deaths by gun violence in almost
forty years. As Kenneth Barnes has asked, should the District surrender
any further control of its local affairs in exchange for a symbolic,
second-class vote in Congress? When will DC voters be trusted to decide
what is in our best interests? Death should not be one of the options
offered by the DC Voting Rights bill.
###############
DC Vote Responds to President Obama’s
Support of DC Voting Rights
Alexandra Ludmer, aludmer@dcvote.org
President Barack Obama publicly announced his strong support for DC
voting rights on Friday. We would like to wholeheartedly thank the
president for serving as a champion for this important issue as we
continue our long fight for District voting rights. We are greatly
encouraged by his show of support, and are optimistic as the DC Voting
Rights Act is scheduled for a vote on the floor of the House of
Representatives next week.
DC Vote and our coalition partners have worked tirelessly over the
past year, including sending more than forty-one thousand petitions to
the White House, and we believe our message was heard and now amplified
by the President’s statement. We are also extremely grateful for the
steadfast support and leadership of Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
(D-DC) as we celebrated DC Emancipation Day on Friday and look forward
to final passage of the bill.
###############
This has been a rough week for me, trying to explain and convince
people that regardless of whether there was a DC Public Schools surplus
or not, the fired teachers were not going to be reinstated. My sister
said, “You were on the Board of Education in the ’90’s. Whatever
happened then doesn’t apply now.” But I knew with the wisdom I
gained for my short time on the board that when the DC government has a
deficit, all city agencies play an integral part to help it recover. My
sister, like most residents, was caught up in the media frenzy. I knew
from experience that if the so called surplus were evidenced before the
RIF, the council would still request the surplus and an additional
amount from the school system (if needed) to help offset the city’s
deficit. This is exactly what happened to DCPS during the Sharon Pratt
Kelly era and in the following term under Marion Barry, who inherited
debts caused by her administration. All agencies had to meet the demands
the council put forth to close the deficits, regardless of whether there
was a surplus in that agency or not. With a sizable surplus, DCPS was
forced to RIF, close vocational and adult education schools, cease the
hot lunch program, and furlough administrative staff. Whatever it took
to make the District government solvent was our ordered mission.
Recently, I watched as the mayor appeared on several networks
answering the same question over and over again. “Will the 266
teachers fired be returned?” Without flinching the mayor replied
without hesitation, “No.” Next, Councilman Harry Thomas spoke to
articulate his position about introducing legislation that will “demand”
the reinstatement of most of the teachers. But the fact of the matter,
regardless of his pontification, is that the council gave full powers to
the mayor and there’s nothing they can do about the RIF except hold
another hearing for a dog-and-pony show. Next, the chief financial
officer claimed the reported surplus is not a reality. This also points
to the inefficiency of the council’s check and balance system. What is
the purpose of our city council with relation to the school system? How
does it conduct oversight without checking all budgetary matters? This
council may have lots of name recognition, but in my opinion as a
resident this is one of the weakest and worst councils in our short
elected history.
Now Vincent Gray hurls demands to the mayor with full knowledge that
the council has no power. In one of the important hearings, in February
2007, New York City Councilman Charles Barron warned the council not to
give absolute power to the mayor over the school system. Barron knew
firsthand how things would add up, considering NYC’s school system was
living through the same horrors. “I warn you, absolute power yields
absolute corruption,” said Barron. The council, in its arrogance and
ignorance, gazed at their counterpart in disgust. Now that the “chickens
have come home to roost,” the culprits and designers of the takeover
attempt to distance themselves from the activities of the school system.
On the contrary, the lack of proper oversight of the school system by
the council is what has led to this recent fiasco. While the focus has
been on a possible surplus for future teacher raises, hundreds of DCPS
bus drivers and attendants wait for retroactive pay that was approved by
the council two years ago.
###############
Michelle Rhee: Time to Call It Quits
Richard Urban, Rurban@RUforDC.com
Michelle Rhee reported to the DC city council on Tuesday that she
knew in February that there were surplus funds available. However, she
did not report that information to the council. This revelation comes on
the heels of the contention that Ms. Rhee knew very well that teachers
would have to be laid off (266 were laid off) to accurate her hiring of
nine hundred new teachers. Michelle Rhee has shown contempt for honesty
and transparency.
In November 2007, ULTRA Teen Choice, the nonprofit that I co-founded,
was told to stop our programs at DC Public Schools (http://www.ultrateenchoice.org/c_LSRT_&_DCPS_emails_631_English.htm)
because “there is a moratorium on all outside health providers.” It
turned out that there was no such moratorium. I attempted to ring the
alarm bell about an administrator who subverts rules and due process to
suit her own agenda. It turned out that Ms. Rhee was upset that I did
not support new health standards that required teaching that same sex
relationships are normal, beginning in the sixth grade. This spring, I
found out that Ms. Rhee, instead of following DC law, which specifies
that after-school providers that work with DCPS do not have to have
their own liability insurance, forces providers to carry a million
dollars in liability insurance. When I brought up the point that DC Code
does not require this insurance, the out-of-school time office simply
said that those were the rules that the Chancellor was applying, law or
no law.
Ms. Rhee has repeatedly shown contempt for oversight, transparency,
due process, parental rights, and teachers rights. In the name of
supposed reform, she has created distrust among administrators and
teachers. She has blocked many community organizations that want to help
youths in DC Public Schools from working in the schools. At Ludlow
Taylor elementary school, she met with parents who didn’t have
children in DCPS while ignoring parents whose children were currently
enrolled there. Ms. Rhee has accused teachers in DC Public schools of
sexual misconduct, while covering up for her fiancee, Kevin Johnson, who
was accused of making sexual advances on AmeriCorps students under his
supervision (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/21/hill-report-names-dc-schools-chief/).
It is time for Michelle Rhee to call it quits, and for DC Public Schools
to be returned to the control of an elected school board.
###############
Here’s a question regarding the shifting budget numbers for the
city and for DCPS (“Deception” in themail, April 14), where a large
deficit becomes a large surplus a few months later in a time of revenue
hardship.
If I remember correctly, Mayor Fenty (and presumably Peter Nickles)
have had a policy of not providing city employees to testify on many
matters before the council, even when the council asks specifically for
their testimony. I’m not an insider on this, so I can only ask a
question, and hope someone more in the know can answer it: to what
extent has the failure of the city government to provide individuals to
testify caused the council to be unable to figure out what the real
budget numbers were? Or is the council’s ability to fully understand
budget projections inadequate, even with greater cooperation from the
mayor, to have uncovered the apparently manipulative budgetary behavior
on the part of DCPS?
It is important to know which of these is true — and I have no
preconceived notion of which alternative is most at fault here (could be
both). If the problem is mayoral refusal to provide witnesses, a council
with backbone could pass legislation dealing with the issue. If the
problem, ultimately, is the council’s capability, a different solution
is needed. Knowledgeable opinions, anyone?
###############
Lack of Accountability of DC’s CFO
Mary C. Williams, mslaw1121@aol.com
Why should anyone believe what Chief Financial Officer Gandhi says?
His record has shown that he can’t manage the city’s finances.
Shortly after the final tally of Harriet Walters’ historical tax
office embezzlement scheme was revealed to be about $50 million, DC’s
Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi was quoted as saying that this
amount was insignificant when you consider that the city had an annual
$2 billion budget. He appeared to be downplaying Walters’ theft as a
minor blip on the financial scene in this city. And when this city
undertook a study of the controversial financing of the National
Baseball Park, it was Gandhi’s $462 million budget figure that
convinced officials that it could be done for such a “reasonable”
amount. And as the housing market began to collapse all around us in
2007, it was Gandhi who assured the residents that DC revenues were not
going to be adversely affected by the downward turn that hit almost
every other major city in the world. What about the fact that a company
that employs his son has a very lucrative contract in this city? And
now, the CFO is denying that his office provided the school district
with bogus financial data that has been at the center of our latest
education controversy. I wasn’t surprised to hear that the CFO
provided the erroneous financial data to the School District. Gandhi has
a long record over the last ten years of producing and magically
eliminating large sums at his personal whim. To date, Councilmember
David Catania has been the only elected official who has consistently
called Gandhi out on his voodoo economics and questionable financing
practices. Given this record, how can anyone believe what Gandhi says?
We know that we can’t count on the city’s annual private audit to
serve as a check and balance of the CFO; remember that Harriet Walters
would have gotten away with her grand theft for many more years if she
hadn’t brought in all of her relatives, who then got greedy. It was a
bank official who sounded the alarm and prompted the investigation. Isn’t
it time that Gandhi be made to account for his actions?
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
Nuisance Bill Criminalizes DC Residents,
Pushes Gentrification, April 19
Parisa B. Nourizi, parisa@empowerdc.org
Turn out Monday, April 19, 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m., at the Wilson
Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Keep the DC council from
criminalizing workers, youth, and the homeless. Tell the DC council to
withdraw portions of a bill that would allow private citizens to go
after people whom they think are “public nuisances” in DC court.
Under the Neighborhood and Victims Rights Amendment Act, any community
group would be able to file a lawsuit or obtain an injunction against
someone they think constitutes a “nuisance” — a concept so broadly
defined it could cover many lawful activities, such as hanging out on a
corner with friends or waiting for work in a park or parking lot. There
are already laws on the books in DC prohibiting loitering. This proposal
will only put the law in the hands of vigilante groups who seek to
harass vulnerable members of the communities. Contact Ruth Castel-Branco,
DC Jobs with Justice, rcastel@dclabor.org,
or call 974-8281 if you would like more information.
###############
Africa Gathering is an exciting two-day event that brings
technophiles, thinkers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and everybody else
together to talk about positive change in sustainable development,
technology, social networking, health, education, environment, and good
governance in Africa. Come and join us and our excellent speakers to
network, be inspired, and have fun!
Africa Gathering will be held at the Letelier Theater, 3251 Prospect
Street, NW, Upper Courtyard, on Friday, April 23, 5:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.,
and Saturday, April 24, 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. For tickets, go to http://agdc.eventbrite.com;
for more information, go to http://www.africagathering.org/dc.php.
###############
National Building Museum Events, April 24
Johanna Weber, jweber@nbm.org
April 24, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., Construction Watch Tour: District
Department of Employment Services. Located on Minnesota Avenue in
northeast DC, the District of Columbia’s Department of Employment
Services will help spur economic development in Northeast. Forrester
Construction’s project manager Aaron Johnson leads a tour of this
225,000 square-foot building, which is seeking LEED Silver status. $25,
Members only. Prepaid registration required.
April 24, 11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Meet the Artist: Andrea Panico.
During this special trunk show, meet jewelry designer Andrea Panico of
Pico Design and see items from her collection Little Architecture —
modern jewelry for design conscious women. Free; no registration
required. Trunk show will be held in the Museum Shop. Both events at the
National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square Metro
station. Register for events at http://www.nbm.org.
###############
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.