themail.gif (3487 bytes)

September 19, 2010

The Narrative

Dear Narrators:

The narrative on the Fenty-Gray race is being written now, and it is being based largely on two falsehoods that were at the core of the Fenty campaign. The first falsehood is that Chancellor Rhee’s effort to drive experienced teachers out of the DC school system, on the assumption that older teachers were the primary problem with an ineffective urban educational system, represented “educational reform.” Rhee became a national symbol of educational reform and, at least in the national press, the success of her methods was unquestioned. Therefore, the narrative goes, if the children in DC schools demonstrated against her when she fired and replaced some of their favorite teachers, if the parents of children in DC schools judged that they didn’t like her methods and her attitude toward them, then those opponents didn’t care about education itself. In the local and national press, it became a racial narrative; in fact, it became a racist narrative. Black people, who didn’t value education and who didn’t want their children to be better educated, voted against Fenty because they were angry that Rhee was improving their schools.

That this foolish argument should gain any traction is astonishing, but it has become the dominant story in the local and national press. Because both the political left and the political right have accepted the top-down, autocratic model of “educational reform” as valid, press accounts from both the left and the right have characterized public resistance to it as evidence of the self-destructiveness of a backward race, and public comments on those articles in both the liberal and conservative press have made the argument explicitly.

Here are a few typical articles from across the political spectrum:

Mona Charen, syndicated columnist, “DC Voters Betray Their Kids,”
Linda Chavez, syndicated columnist, “Washington’s Racially Polarized Election,”
Jennifer Rubin, “Who Will Get Michelle Rhee?” Commentary,
Seyward Darby, “What Will Happen to DC Schools If Michelle Rhee Leaves?” The New Republic,
Howard Kurtz, “The Mayor, DC, and Race,” The Washington Post,
Ben Smith, “Teacher’s Union Helped Unseat Fenty,” Politico,
Michael Lomax, “Is DC Mayor Adrian Fenty’s Loss a National Defeat for Education Reform?” The Root,
Ian Urbina, “Washington Mayor’s Loss May Imperil School Reform,” New York Times,
Andrew Rotherham, “Fenty’s Loss in DC: A Blow to Education Reform?” Time Magazine,,8599,2019395,00.html
Alan Greenblatt, “Fenty Lesson: Mayors May Pass on School Reform,” NPR,

Natalie Hopkinson in The Atlantic,, has written the most accurate analysis in the national press, probably because she’s a mother who had school-aged children in Washington, and therefore was watching the local schools closely. “There is pushback against the movement to treat public institutions and the precious people in them like factories. And when the impacted public is treated as an obstacle and not a partner to urban reform, it gives the whole effort [a] colonial and paternalistic smell,” she writes.

The second false narrative being advanced is that, merely because of their ages, Fenty represented the future and Gray the past. Forward looking people, those who want progress and improvement, will of course support the younger candidate. Therefore, people who supported Gray don’t want Washington to progress; they want to return to everything bad that has ever happened in DC politics in the past. Marion Barry has become the symbol of this argument. Barry endorsed and campaigned for Adrian Fenty against Linda Cropp in 2006, which wasn’t supposed to reflect on Fenty in any way. But, since in the last month of this year’s primary campaign Barry endorsed Vincent Gray against Adrian Fenty, the narrative now supposedly stamps Gray indelibly as a tool of a corrupt past. This was a major argument of the Fenty campaign. It didn’t convince and impress the electorate; it’s not worthy of being revived now to explain Gray’s victory. It’s merely a continuation of the campaign, a way to discredit Gray and make it harder for him to govern and for Fenty’s supporters to accept him.

Gary Imhoff


Down for the Count
Dorothy Brizill,

Last week’s primary election was the most costly in DC history. For example, in the last report filed with the office of Campaign finance prior to the September 14 primary (that is, the eight-day preprimary election report filed September 7), the Fenty 2010 Committee indicated that it had raised a total of $4,917,864 — the most that any political candidate has ever raised in the District. The Gray for Mayor Committee, in its September 7 report, indicated that it had total receipts of $1,757,345.

The latest vote tabulation report from the DC Board of Elections and Ethics (September 17, 2010), indicates that Vincent Gray received 66,526 votes (54.33 percent) to Adrian Fenty’s 54,424 votes (44.45 percent). This report includes votes at all 143 precincts and the early voting centers. It does not include absentee and special ballots, which are still being received and processed by the BOEE. Doing the math, Fenty spent $90.36 for each vote he received, compared to Gray, who spent $26.11 per vote.


Has the DCPS Graduation Rate Gone Up or Down? We Need to Know
Erich Martel, ehmartel at starpower dot net

Reports of graduation rate increases fail to take into account the shortcuts that bypass course standards. The introduction of Credit Recovery courses and their dramatic expansion courses along with the expansion of summer school courses — both with lax attendance enforcement — produced growing numbers of diplomas that represented shortcuts around course standards, rather than their mastery. By thus devaluing incentive and motivation in the process of learning at the same time that teachers are blamed for students’ failure to reach targeted benchmarks, many students are deprived of the opportunity to learn responsibility. In some high schools, teachers estimated that over 50 percent of the graduates needed one or more Credit Recovery courses or summer school courses to complete their graduation requirements.

Since the public does not know how many students needed Credit Recovery courses to receive diplomas, I sent the following request to Chancellor Michelle Rhee: post the numbers of high school graduates broken down by individual high school and by numbers of diplomas requiring credit recovery courses and those that didn’t for the past two years. After I corrected some inaccuracies in a report on the DC schools, the editor of the Fordham Institute’s Education Gadfly E-journal suggested that I write an editorial addressing what he termed the “scam” of credit recovery:

I sent the following E-mail request with my editorial to Chancellor Michelle Rhee. “Below is an invited editorial (“‘A’ for Effort Shouldn’t Count: Just Say No to Credit Recovery”) that I wrote on the DCPS Credit Recovery Program for the Fordham Institute’s Education Gadfly, a weekly E-magazine (September 16). As you know, I have testified before the DC council on the credit recovery program. Since the credit recovery program allows students to receive graduation credits for courses required for graduation (the high school diploma) without any possibility of meeting the content standards of the courses, students who needed credit recovery classes to graduate received what are really second class diplomas. I am requesting that you post on the DCPS web site the numbers of high school graduates in June 2009 and in 2010 and, separately, in August 2009 and in August 2010, by each individual high school, by year and month of graduation. Please disaggregate the numbers for each of the four to show the following categories: 1) students receiving a diploma without credit recovery courses; 2) special education students receiving a diploma without DCPS credit recovery courses; 3) students receiving a diploma with credit recovery courses; and 4) special education students receiving a diploma with credit recovery courses.”


It’s Official: AFT Takes Over WTU
Candi Peterson,

It’s been a little over one week since the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Executive Council held a hearing on the administratorship of the Washington Teachers’ Union (WTU) under the leadership of “holdover” union president George Parker, whose constitutional term ended June 30. George Parker refused to hold elections in mid-May of this year, as required by the WTU Constitution, and has failed to cooperate with members of the election committee and now with AFT’s President Randi Weingarten. As a result of Parker’s refusal to hold elections, the AFT on September 17 issued a decision and order that they will now take over the WTU after a recent US District court battle and September 10 hearing held by the AFT Executive Council [].

Never in the history of the WTU has an administratorship been required for the purposes of conducting a timely union election of officers. The last time the AFT (WTU’s parent organization) was forced to assume control of the WTU was in 2003 after a scandal occurred when former union president, Barbara Bullock stole five million dollars from the WTU. Now that the AFT has assumed control for a second time, expect that a timely election of union officers will soon be held. In the September 17 decision from AFT’s Executive Council, it says: “In conclusion we find that the WTU members have a right to move forward as promptly as possible with an election for their WTU officers. Any further delay would be a violation of the members’ rights that amounts to irreparable injury. Clear cut principles of union democracy and the members’ rights to elect their leaders require AFT to step in. It is a positive development that WTU has recognized that the AFT should run this election. However, under these circumstances, an AFT administratorship is the only remedy that will ensure that the WTU members are allowed to participate in a fair and democratic internal election.” AFT has installed Al Squire, Southern Regional Director as the Administrator.

As a result of this takeover, the AFT has ordered the following actions: 1) effective on this day (September 17) an administratorship for purposes of conducting the WTU internal elections shall be implemented. 2) Pursuant to Article VI, Section 15(d) of the AFT Constitution, the Administrator under the direction of the AFT President or her designee, “will be authorized to . . . take such actions as are necessary to protect the interests of the membership” in the conduct of the WTU internal election. 3) In light of the fact that the AFT and WTU constitutions, as well as federal labor law, have been violated by the delay in the conduct of the WTU’s internal elections, the Administrator shall have the authority, where necessary to perform his election duties, to suspend the provisions of the WTU Constitution and Bylaws. 4) The WTU shall notify DCPS that AFT or its agents shall be provided access to the schools and the union bulletin boards for the purposes of carrying out the internal election. WTU shall also notify DCPS that AFT should be provided access to membership records. 5) The WTU shall provide AFT the necessary information and records in order to develop the voter eligibility lists, including the challenged ballot list for employees who are not on the current membership list but were on the June 30th list. 6) The WTU shall restore the pay and release time status of the General Vice President, Nathan Saunders, forthwith. 7) Consistent with the provisions of the AF Constitution in Article VI, Section 15(e), the administratorship shall be concluded with the internal election has been concluded and the officers installed.

After four months of waiting for union elections to be held, DC teachers and school personnel can finally look forward to voting for a new slate of officers. Our union elections are an important first step in removing “holdover” union president George Parker so that we can get on with building and maintaining an active union and working on behalf of teachers, students and schools. We can do better.


DC Teachers’ Union
Nathan A. Saunders,

On September 17, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the DC Teachers Union parent organization, issued a decision and order addressing offenses by WTU “holdover” President George Parker, and the “appearance of political retaliation.” Parker’s term ended June 30 and he has fought efforts to have an election. Brazenly, Parker hijacked the WTU election committee then AFT’s efforts, and colluded with DCPS Chancellor Rhee to stop upcoming internal elections. George Parker, Michelle Rhee, and Kaya Henderson, Rhee’s Deputy Chancellor, blocked AFT from having a union election by jointly banning AFT officials from access to DC teachers. An earlier AFT order, dated August 4, which noted the “appearance of political retaliation” against me as the WTU General Vice President and a declared presidential candidate of WTU, resurfaced once again with more evidence. Uncontested sworn testimony in the District Court for the District of Columbia’s companion case, WTU v. AFT, evidences “the Office of the Chancellor” (Rhee and Henderson) manipulating DCPS resources for Parker in the upcoming election. My salary as an elected union officer has been reduced to zero, and I was positioned for a Rhee and Henderson ambush. In addition, my leave of absence to serve as an elected union official was not renewed by Parker — a new provision of the teachers’ contract — benefiting Parker. Rhee and Henderson quickly ordered my reentry into HD Woodson Senior High School (DCPS) under the specific threat of an immediate termination if I failed to report (September 3). It is important to note that being terminated from DC public schools would make me ineligible for union election purposes. In the meantime, Parker spends the union’s treasury with boundless personal messages to teachers’ homes including trinkets, posters, and ornaments, while Rhee and Henderson hide and further handcuff me as a viable opponent. The September 17 AFT order rejected Parker’s deceptive arguments, demanded he inform Rhee and Henderson to release me from DCPS and restore my salary forthwith, and also suspends WTU’s Constitution for election purposes.

DCPS, an agency supposedly with numerous budget restraints, holds me political prisoner while schools like Shadd Special Education Center, now the subject of a new lawsuit against Rhee and DCPS, cry for help against overcrowded classes. Other schools requests for resources and support have fallen on deaf ears at the central administration. Rhee purports: “all my decisions are for the best interest of children not adults,” while her spending of DCPS dollars on political hobbling is unconscionable. Which teachers at HD Woodson will lose their jobs in the upcoming fall equalization when there are one too many teachers at HD Woodson SHS? Teachers should be furious about having their jobs jeopardized once again so that Parker can improve his chances of keeping his. The DC city council and parents must hold Rhee and her administration accountable and demand an audit to convert those dollars into student resources. As for Parker, voting is how teachers can voice their opinion of his complete ineffectiveness against teacher terminations, abandoning job rights, and breaching democratic principles and practices while colluding with Fenty and Rhee.


Our City Needs a Consensus Builder and a Unifying Transparent Leader
Mai Abdul Rahman,

City leaders may usher in change convinced of the obviousness of the reforms they seek and without a concerted district-wide effort to involve and engage constituents of the value added and risk involved when each initiative is introduced. Accordingly, the general public is inclined to judge the new reform policies depending on their personal political inclinations and philosophy or by measuring the reform based on outcome (such as personal traits, governance style, or number of teachers fired or the increase in number of unemployed).

Fenty governed our city like a lone runner determined to reach his goal, willing to step, jump, and push anyone in his way instead of governing this city as a leader willing to build consensus for his reforms and engage his citizens and legislators as partners. As a result, his administration was measured by the same qualities and actions he publicly demonstrated primarily on how he implemented city reforms — how many people he fired and how distant and aloof his constituents perceived him to be as a leader. In addition institutional transformative change radically alters the organizational landscape. It involves a new set of goals and reforms that impact the fabric of the public sector. Change — which is not easy in any circumstance — is more difficult to employ, maintain, and engender support for, especially when leaders are not prepared to engage their public, are unable to articulate their vision, and cannot clearly define and outline an implementation plan. Fenty from the outset was hesitant to disclose details of his city reforms, and accordingly his reforms were judged by his constituents based on the leadership qualities he displayed. Although Fenty may have had the right concept, he lacked critical leadership qualities to sell his vision of change beyond photo ops and newspaper articles. He failed to publicly articulate his reform vision and plans, and was perceived to be unwilling to explain, engage and build support for his reforms.

After Fenty’s reign our city needs a city leader willing to build a trusting relationship with legislators and constituents. Above all our city needs a consensus builder who understands the value of engaging every city agency and school forced to implement reforms with little institutional understanding and support during the last three years. We need a leader willing to consider and evaluate the many reforms initiated by the Fenty administration, able to embrace the good reforms implemented while clearly articulating a vision that is well understood along with a well defined implementation plan that identifies the risks and costs involved. We need a leader who understands the value of civic engagement — a transparent unifying public servant — not a fighting lone marathon runner who may have meant well but was perceived to be too distant and out of touch with his constituents.


How Fenty Viewed the Public, and Vice Versa
Marc Borbely,

One of the emerging establishment explanations for Fenty’s loss appears to be that even though he did great things, his personality was flawed. “Fenty lost because, while people liked his policies, they disliked his persona more. . . . Because people felt that he didn’t care about them, his policy successes simply didn’t matter in the voting booth,” The subtext of course is that blacks voted against Fenty because of his personality — because they felt left out — of city jobs, of the inside circle of power, of the city’s future.

I was one of eight people, including parents and former teachers, who sued the mayor and the schools Chancellor in 2007, in February 2008, because Fenty and Rhee were refusing to release any proposed schools budget information before holding their annual hearing on that proposed budget. Fenty and Rhee, through Peter Nickles, argued that with the mayoral takeover, the public no longer had the same rights to information about the public schools. Some on the council who supported Fenty said it had been the involvement of the public, under the school board, that prevented positive change from happening. Better to have one person making decisions behind closed doors.

Did those of us who saw ourselves as fighting to improve our public schools feel “left out”? Yes. But this wasn’t just about Fenty’s personality. It was about his view of what it meant to be mayor: you elect me; I do the best I can; after four years, you decide if it was good enough. There’s another approach: you elect me, and then we work together, as much as possible, to improve this city. I’ll probably make decisions you won’t like, but I promise to at least listen to those directly affected, and honestly consider what you’re saying, first. That’s what I want (and demand) from my next mayor. Maybe others who supported Gray over Fenty do, too.


Preparing to Become the Next DC Mayor
Alvin C. Frost,

Congratulations to all winners in the September 14 DC primary. Washington, DC, is one, extremely important, step closer to determining who will become the next mayor of the District of Columbia government. There are two very important processes which must be completed before you are sworn in on Sunday, January 2, 2011: 1) discuss and agree on what both you and the public can determine as the most important issues that need to be addressed over your term, and; 2) you must form an administration that is reflective of the city and responsible toward the resolution, amelioration, or mediation of the many ills of the city, in addition to building upon the city’s strengths. There are many, and great, problems, but there are also many, and great, strengths within the people, the government, and the city. Ignore any of these important considerations at your peril.

Once you are sworn in, the healing must begin, as the people, the government and the city are all fractured, fragmented, and distrustful of each other, and. sometimes, even, themselves. There is really no benefit to portraying the issues as “us” versus “them.” It is a simplistic approach to very complicating issues, relationships, and resources. One of the most unfortunate results of the imposition of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, commonly referred to as the Control Board, and the creation of the independent Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), has been that the executive and financial branches have often operated as though they were two separate DC governments, and not one. There can not be a lasting creation of the One Government ideal without eliminating this organizational dichotomy, or schism.

One approach toward healing this breach would be for the incoming mayor and the Chief Financial Officer to sit down and to begin working toward an agreed upon approach and strategy to working together on some critical issues, such as: 1) creation of financial and operational management reports that merge budget, financial, and operational data to create effective performance measurement reports that will highlight the cost of all services, along with the efficiency and effectiveness of each service; 2) merging data and operational results to reflect realistic information on all procurement and payment activities; 3) eliminating the “shadow” budget office that has been set up by the current administration to question official budget data and analysis prepared by the OCFO; 4) requiring agency directors to accept the official financial reports prepared by the OCFO, which merely report the results of Executive branch decisions, activities, and operational results, and 5) requiring agency directors to testify before the DC council, as required, instead of ignoring the legal oversight responsibility that the DC council must fulfill, to the DC government, the people, and the US government.

Of course, there are many more disconnects which must be healed, but these are five major breaches that must be brought under control if the District government is to become more unified so that it can put its best foot forward. If these issues are not dealt with, the possibility to effectively solve even more important issues, such as: 1) Jobs/Training, 2) Housing/Utilities, 3) Health/Hunger/Nutrition, 4) Crime/Criminal Justice, 5) Education/Training, 6) Poverty/Welfare, 7) Transportation/Metro, 8) Infrastructure/Roads, 9) Voting Representation, 10) Legal and Fiscal Autonomy, and 11) the Economy will continue to be compromised, with our most vulnerable citizens put at an unacceptable level of risk. One City is possible, but it will require developing One Government in order to have a realistic chance of success.


Why Gray Won
Patrick Thibodeau,

The reason Vincent Gray won this election was economics of the most basic kind. School reform turned job security on its head. District employees were wary of another Fenty term and the risk that it might prompt him to expand his more radical approaches and layoffs. Employees, in any company, dread upheaval even if it promises new opportunities.

In the election 126,000 people voted, or 34 percent of eligible voters. The District employs approximately 32,000 employees. No doubt a large number of these employees live in the District and, since most District jobs are middle income, the highest concentration of these workers likely live in wards that went heavily to Gray. District employees, plus friends and family, make up a sizable voting bloc and enough to swing an election. District civil servants have a powerful incentive to vote in any mayoral race. And in this race, they had no incentive to vote for Fenty.

Gray’s campaign was unimpressive on the issues, but it was masterful, old school politics. He capitalized on the job and benefit insecurities of District employees to win their vote. The unions turned to Gray. District employees clearly believe Gray, in the end, will keep the balance sheet in their favor. Gray never discouraged this thinking.

I have lived long enough to know that winning candidates can be better than their campaigns. I have that hope for Gray. In 1991, when I worked as a reporter in Connecticut, former US Sen. Lowell Weicker was running for governor. The state didn’t have an income tax but was growing broke from sales tax revenues. During his campaign, Weicker refused to tell whether he would support an income tax. He won and shortly after taking office sought an income tax, which was approved by the legislature. There was a massive protest rally at the State Capitol, unlike anything the state had seen. Weicker did not seek reelection and probably would have lost had he done so, but he did what was needed. So did Fenty with the schools. That’s what leadership is about and now its Gray’s turn. I wish him the best.


Fenty’s Campaign and Fenty’s Leadership
James Treworgy,

Fenty’s stunning downfall last Tuesday is simply a reflection of his leadership style, and the reasons why it doesn’t work. While Fenty’s backers defended his arrogance and lack of due process as a necessary evil in order to “get things done,” it was much more than that. It was the calling card of a man who thought that he always knew what was right, and didn’t need anyone else’s input or guidance. Well, he was wrong about how to win an election, even as his trusted advisers warned him, and most pundits publicly scratched their heads for months. For those who would lament his departure, perhaps this will shed some light on how he could also have been wrong about the best way to run a city.


Washington Post Endorsements Were of Little Value to Primary Candidates
Mai Abdul Rahman,

One of the most interesting aspect of the 2010 DC primary results is how little influence the Washington Post’s endorsements have been, both to Mayor Adrian Fenty and DC council chair candidate Vince Orange. Most critically, the Washington Post offered daily stories promoting Fenty’s agenda that were completely ignored by most Washingtonians.

On August 1, The Washington Post, enthusiastically and very early in the campaign, endorsed Mayor Fenty, This was no surprise, since for more than four years the Post has spent a lot of the paper’s ink promoting Mayor Fenty’s agenda. But what is surprising is the fact that in the last sixty days alone the Washington Post published more than a hundred articles and expanded countless of man hours recounting Fenty’s accomplishments to remind DC voters why they should stay steadfast in their support of the mayor.

By contrast, the Washington Post’s endorsement of Vince Orange for DC council chair was restrained, with this headline, “Vincent Orange Is Best Qualified to Face the City’s Challenges as DC Council Chair,”

Regardless, both candidates gained little from these endorsements.


A Theory of Why So Many Blacks Voted for Vincent Gray
Bryce A. Suderow,

I have a theory of why most blacks in DC voted for Gray. 1) When Fenty appointed Michelle Rhee, a Korean, to run the schools, many blacks were outraged. Some referred to her as “that white lady” and others imply as “that lady.” Although they could certainly remember Michelle Obama’s name, somehow the recall of Rhee’s name eluded them. 2) When Fenty fired black teachers, many in the black community reacted with anger, identifying with the skin color of those fired. 3) When Fenty did not visit black churches and other black community organizations, Marion-Barry style, many blacks felt ignored and soon convinced themselves that Fenty preferred the company of whites; indeed he certainly was “acting white.” 4) Blacks saw their population in DC dwindling to 55 percent, and felt they were losing control of “Chocolate City.” Surely Fenty was participating in “The Plan,” the secret plan that was meant to take the city away from blacks and give it to whites. Striking back at whites through voting against Fenty seemed a logical response.

For these reasons the blacks who voted for Gray have condemned many of their school-age children to illiteracy, poverty, and a dead-end existence, at the least. At the worst, some of these kids will be gunned down on the street. I doubt Gray’s black supporters will ever accept blame for what they’ve done to their own kids. In coming months and years they will moan about another “lost generation” of kids and blame it on white racism. And white liberals living in the District, always eager to accept blame for everything, will engage in self flagellation.

Hey, it’s a District thing.


Chief Lanier
Earl E. Shamwell, Jr., Ward 4,

In response to Mr. McKay’s hope that Chief Lanier “goes,” [themail, September 15], I would hope that Mr. Gray gives serious thought to retaining her. Chief Lanier, in my view, believes in law enforcement which means enforcement of all the laws that pertain to this community. No person or group should expect to have some sort of immunity from compliance with the law simply because their self-imposed circumstances potentially expose them to the reach of other laws, federal, or local.

I would remind themail’s readers, and Mr. McKay specifically, that even though many persons believed at one time that Black drug dealers were forced into the drug trade because “the Man” supposedly denied them other legitimate sources of business opportunities (recall Rayful Edmond), prosecution of these “entrepreneurs” proceeded nonetheless, and rightfully so.

There is no legitimate reason to allow law breakers, irrespective of national origin, an exemption from compliance with the law. Period. To the extent that Chief Lanier subscribes to equal enforcement of the law without regard to race, ethnicity, national origin, etc., as she in my mind has during the Fenty administration, Mr. Gray should give serious consideration to retaining her for his administration. Bottom line: Chief Lanier has done a very good to excellent — not perfect — job and I feel the city is safer for her efforts.



The Upcoming Midterms, September 21
Patricia Bitondo,

Jeanne Cummings, Assistant Managing Editor in charge of Politico’s Enterprise, returns to the Woman’s National Democratic Club podium to give us the latest information on the November elections. She has covered politics at every level, from state and local governments to five presidential campaigns. She is a regular panelist on Washington Week with Gwen Ifill, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Diane Rehm Show, and Inside Washington with Gordon Peterson. She was a moderator at one of the Democratic primary debates between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In 2009, her appearances were included in submissions by PBS and CNN that secured Peabody Awards for both networks. At the Wall Street Journal, she won the 2000 Aldo Beckman Memorial Award, the highest honor for daily White House correspondents, for her coverage of the Clinton Administration. She also earned a journalism award at the WSJ for her part in covering the Enron scandal and its connection to the Bush Administration. In recent years, her focus has been on tracking money and politics.

At the Woman’s National Democratic Club, 1526 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Tuesday, September 21. Bar opens at 11:30 a.m., lunch at 12:15 p.m. Price: members $25, nonmembers $30. Reserve with or 232-7363 or register at


National Building Museum Events, September 25
Johanna Weber,

September 25, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., Construction Watch Tour: Woodley Wardman. Woodley Wardman is a residential condominium in the Woodley Park neighborhood of Washington, DC. Bill Bonstra, FAIA, LEED AP, and Jennifer Marca, AIA, LEED AP, of Bonstra | Haresign Architects, lead a tour of this 53,000-square-foot project that features a seven-story tower carefully placed behind four renovated historic rowhouses. $25, members only. Prepaid registration required. Register for events at


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

All postings should be submitted to, 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
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)