Professor. Political Analyst. Pundit.

Stop Electoral Quotas in D.C.

    Tuesdays D.C. City Council elections decided who will serve on the city’s legislative body beginning this January.  This council, like all the others before it for 30 years, will have two members who aren’t Democrats–no small point in a city whose populace is overwhelmingly Democratic.  The two non-Democrats sit on the council because the D.C. City Charter, the congressionally-created document that outlines the parameters of home rule in the District, created an anomaly that is unique in American democracy: the reservation of two at-large seats on the council are reserved for members of “minority parties”.  In the District, “minority parties” means any party but the Democratic party.  This is anomaly is undemocratic, mutes the will of the people, elects people to office who could not win open races, and runs counter to the principles of representative democracy that binds the nation together and serves as a goal for much of the world.  It must be changed immediately.

    I do not believe that Democrats have to control every seat on the council to have good government.  In fact, history has shown that there have been too many ineffective Democrats on the council over the years and the city is the worse as a result.  Also, there have been good “minority party” representatives on the Council who have contributed greatly to the city. 

    The point is that the overwhelming majority of city voters, Democrats in this case, cannot elect whomever they choose to the council.  They have to simply choose from whatever is left.  And given the important issues of the day–public education, affordable housing, healthcare, public works and transportation, tax policy, economic development, public financing of a ballpark, and so on–it makes no sense to deny voters the right to choose everyone who will make decisions on these issues.  At-large councilmembers, for whom the quota seats are mandated, usually serve longer on the Council than ward-based councilmembers, thereby gaining more seniority and power over city decisionmaking.

    Historically, the office holding “minority parties” have been the Republicans and the Statehood Party.  More recently, however, Republicans Carol Schwartz and David Catania have held the quota seats on the council (Catania recently renounced the GOP and is now an Independent).  Schwartz and Catania have benefitted greatly from the quota mandate because there is no way they could win citywide if they had to compete in Democratic primaries or in general elections against Democrats.  Catania is a particularly interesting case.  He first won election to the council in a December 1997 special election in which just 7% of the voters participated.  Since then, he has had to fend off impotent challengers and win more votes of a much smaller slice of the electoral pie than Democrats.  For that reason, it is difficult to argue that he is truly the choice of District residents.

    Reserving two seats of “minority parties” was one of the concessions Democrats made to Republicans in exchange for their support for passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973.  The GOP feared the symbolic embarrassment of being shut out of the local legislature of the nation’s capital and would not support home rule without some electoral protection.  In a curious irony, the Republicans–who came to greater national prominence and electoral success in the 1980s as opponents of “reverse discrimination” and affirmative action because it can mean mandating quotas–engaged in quota mandates at the expense of allowing citizens to vote for whomever they choose.  Republicans, now in firm control of the national government, may now be ready to give up the most undemocratic aspect of American politics.

    The city is not better represented by this quota mandate, and it’s time for District citizens and Congress to get together and mend this tear in the fabric of D.C. home rule.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
November 3, 2004

DC Stadium Deal has Electoral Implications

The euphoria surrounding the recent announcement that baseball will return to Washington, D.C., while understandable, may overlook an important potential roadblock. It is not a given that the city council will put together enough votes to make the deal happen. Here’s why: the September 2004 primaries delivered a shot across the bow to the council, which has focused too much of it’s time on downtown at the expense of neighborhoods. Consequently, any member of the council that votes to use taxpayer dollars to finance a new stadium deal will seek reelection having given multi-millionaire owners of our dearly beloved home team more money while some neighborhoods are still in shambles. Council members now must walk an interesting tightrope between making a good deal for baseball that does not overlook neighborhoods seeking better public works, schools, and parks. For the sake of baseball in D.C., I hope they don’t get cold feet. For the sake of the city–it’s neighborhoods, schools, and parks–I hope they can structure a deal that truly doesn’t involve residents footing any of the bill.

If there is any lesson to be learned after sifting through the embers of the September primary, it is that issue positions matter. It will be very difficult for members of the council to go to the voters in two years seeking reelection if they have voted for a bad stadium deal. In fact, voting for a good stadium deal may be problematic given the critical infrastructure problems facing the city. Affordable housing is an oxymoron. The school infrastructure is in tatters. Parks, recreation centers, and libraries are wanting. Yet, the D.C. City Council is about to approve a project that will cost in excess of $500 million dollars. I know they are saying $440 million, and none of it will come from residential income taxes, but when have you ever heard of a project of this size coming in on budget? Expect substantial cost overruns and expect residents to have a hard time accepting them.

Some forget, but Harold Brazil cast the final vote in favor of placing the new convention center at Mount Vernon. The site was, and is, controversial because projections at the time of the decision to site the convention center showed that in less than a decade the center wwould be too small to compete with newer venues around the nation. Voters in the Shaw community didn’t forget Brazil’s support for a building that will be obsolete before it’s paid for, and that neighborhood helped hand Kwame Brown a resounding victory over Brazil.

As a lifelong baseball fan and fourth-generation Washingtonian, I am ecstatic about being able to see a ball game in my hometown. I’m also conflicted and saddened. After all, why can’t we get together (government and business) and rebuild our school infrastructure? Why can’t similar coalitions be constituted on affordable housing, public parks, public safety, and other "quality of life" issues? I think it says a lot (and not all favorable) about our elected officials and business community that they can together so easily to put together a baseball deal, but don’t show the same zeal to rebuild our crumbling school infrastructure, even if no residential income taxes are involved. The city’s elected officials will have to answer to voters on this question. I hope they have a good response.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
October 6, 2004

A Good Start for D.C. Funding

Recent talk of a revived federal payment for the District of Columbia is a welcomed development. It is concrete evidence that Congress can no longer avoid the obvious: the fiscal structure that it put in place over 30 years ago is untenable, is at least partially responsible for the financial crisis that gripped the District during the 1990s, and no amount of budget cutting can overcome it. While a revived federal payment for the District is critical, what is even more important is the amount of the payment, whether it will be indexed for inflation, and whether the amount will be known to District officials well in advance of the start of its fiscal year. Talk of an $800 million federal payment is making the rounds; whatever the number, it should not lose value over time and District officials should know the amount well in advance of the coming fiscal year to help ensure reasonable budget planning.

One year ago, the General Accounting Office released a report that confirmed what many already knew: the District, no matter how well it is run, cannot meet it financial obligations given its current constraints on revenue generation. GAO estimates that the District’s structural imbalance ranges from $470 million to $1.1 billion annually. Further, the District has to engage in above average residential taxation just to provide an average level of services. Those lost funds could go a long way toward resuscitating a deteriorating public schools infrastructure, reducing tax rates across the board, provide more and better services for the poor, children, and the elderly. Congress can not ignore GAO–after all, it is Congress’ official audit, evaluation, and investigative arm.

Congress has ignored for 30 years now, District elected officials who have argued this point. Mayor Walter Washington made the point. So did Mayor Marion Barry, who convened a panel of experts led by Alice Rivlin to review the District’s finances. The panel, known as the Rivlin commission reported in 1990 that the District’s fiscal structure was unsustainable. Congress, as it has been wont to do, largely ignored the commission’s bottom line assessment, choosing instead to focus on what it viewed as the rampant graft and corruption of the Barry administration. The argument from the Capitol was that no new revenue would be necessary if the District would just fix its fiscal house. Rivlin also chaired a fiscal review commission during Sharon Pratt Kelly’s mayoral administration. The commission built on its previous findings but, again, was ignored. The next major call for fiscal fairness came from the congressionally-mandated D.C. Control Board. The board, brought in to fix the District’s finances, was lauded for its work in bringing structure and responsibility to the District’s finances. However, on its way out the door, the board informed Congress that the only way to fix the District’s finances was to provide the District with more revenue.

So, finally, after more than 30 years of ignoring reasoned arguments for more support, from a range of sources including congressionally mandated voices, there appears to be a congressional consensus that its position–the District needs a better, smaller, bureaucracy, not more money–is problematic, has hampered the District, undermined neighborhoods through forced service reductions, and made it more difficult for the city to meet its obligations.

But why has Congress resisted so vigorously? One reason Congress did not want to admit it was responsible for an illogical system may be that it would have drawn attention to the primary beneficiaries of the current status quo–suburban jurisdictions and their residents who commute to the District and hold nearly seven out of every 10 District jobs, yet contribute little to the District beyond the sales taxes on their lunches. Every minute that is focused on government waste, fraud, and abuse, is a minute that can not be devoted to the question of why they are able to give so little for all that they get or have access to. Suburban members of the House and Senate know this, and have regularly turned away efforts to balance the fiscal playing field for the District for fear that their constituents would be affected. Perhaps they also fear that a more fiscally competitive District–with lower income and property taxes, new and improved schools, and more resources for recreation and community policing–would make living in the city more attractive to middle- and upper-income suburbanites who spend more time than they would like to commuting back and forth to work.

Let’s be clear: a revived federal payment has the effect of a tax subsidy for suburban commuters. While Congress may have a difficult time making the argument that minimum wage workers throughout the nation should subsidize partners at large downtown law firms who live in the suburbs, from the perspective of the District, help is help and should be welcomed. Let’s hope Congress comes through for the District. It is about time.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
May 22, 2004

Stop Electoral Quotas in D.C.

    Tuesdays D.C. City Council elections decided who will serve on the city’s legislative body beginning this January.  This council, like all the others before it for 30 years, will have two members who aren’t Democrats–no small point in a city whose populace is overwhelmingly Democratic.  The two non-Democrats sit on the council because the D.C. City Charter, the congressionally-created document that outlines the parameters of home rule in the District, created an anomaly that is unique in American democracy: the reservation of two at-large seats on the council are reserved for members of “minority parties”.  In the District, “minority parties” means any party but the Democratic party.  This is anomaly is undemocratic, mutes the will of the people, elects people to office who could not win open races, and runs counter to the principles of representative democracy that binds the nation together and serves as a goal for much of the world.  It must be changed immediately.

    I do not believe that Democrats have to control every seat on the council to have good government.  In fact, history has shown that there have been too many ineffective Democrats on the council over the years and the city is the worse as a result.  Also, there have been good “minority party” representatives on the Council who have contributed greatly to the city. 

    The point is that the overwhelming majority of city voters, Democrats in this case, cannot elect whomever they choose to the council.  They have to simply choose from whatever is left.  And given the important issues of the day–public education, affordable housing, healthcare, public works and transportation, tax policy, economic development, public financing of a ballpark, and so on–it makes no sense to deny voters the right to choose everyone who will make decisions on these issues.  At-large councilmembers, for whom the quota seats are mandated, usually serve longer on the Council than ward-based councilmembers, thereby gaining more seniority and power over city decisionmaking.

    Historically, the office holding “minority parties” have been the Republicans and the Statehood Party.  More recently, however, Republicans Carol Schwartz and David Catania have held the quota seats on the council (Catania recently renounced the GOP and is now an Independent).  Schwartz and Catania have benefitted greatly from the quota mandate because there is no way they could win citywide if they had to compete in Democratic primaries or in general elections against Democrats.  Catania is a particularly interesting case.  He first won election to the council in a December 1997 special election in which just 7% of the voters participated.  Since then, he has had to fend off impotent challengers and win more votes of a much smaller slice of the electoral pie than Democrats.  For that reason, it is difficult to argue that he is truly the choice of District residents.

    Reserving two seats of “minority parties” was one of the concessions Democrats made to Republicans in exchange for their support for passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973.  The GOP feared the symbolic embarrassment of being shut out of the local legislature of the nation’s capital and would not support home rule without some electoral protection.  In a curious irony, the Republicans–who came to greater national prominence and electoral success in the 1980s as opponents of “reverse discrimination” and affirmative action because it can mean mandating quotas–engaged in quota mandates at the expense of allowing citizens to vote for whomever they choose.  Republicans, now in firm control of the national government, may now be ready to give up the most undemocratic aspect of American politics.

    The city is not better represented by this quota mandate, and it’s time for District citizens and Congress to get together and mend this tear in the fabric of D.C. home rule.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
November 3, 2004

A Mixed Bag for D.C. Public High Schools

For those interested in public education in the District, the recently published 2004 Washington Post Challenge Index (WPCI) provides reasons for optimism and concern.  The optimism lies in the fact that there are public high schools in the District that can compete with any in the region and the nation. Benjamin Banneker High School is a fabulous example of what the District is capable of, even in an underfunded, overly apathetic environment.  The northwest, D.C. magnet school ranked eighth in the region, ahead of many suburban schools that are considered to be better and have more cache’.  The data prove that, while they may have more cache’ because of their location or student demography, they are not better.  However, there is considerable room for improvement and concern as eight of the 13 worst performing schools are located in the District.  The performance of these schools is a blight on the system and the city, and gets in the way of those who seek to point out the good things going on in the school system.

The WPCI is an annual ranking of all public schools in the Washington metropolitan area on the key success indicator of number of students in each school who take Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) course.  This years ranking included 163 public high schools.  An index is also prepared for private and parochial schools that agree to provide course participation data.  Many of the “upper echelon” private schools do not release such data.  There is a growing body of research that shows student who take AP and IB coursework are better prepared to succeed in college than if they did not participate in these rigorous academic programs.  One Texas study showed that African American students in the state were more than three times as likely to graduate college in five years if they took the AP exam and failed than if they did not take the AP exam at all; they were nearly four times as likely to graduate college in the same time span if they took the exam and passed than if they did not take it.  The research also suggests that AP and IB participation is a better indicator of a student’s college success than his or her Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) score.

While the District is in desperate need of improvement, things could be worse--it could be Prince George’s County, MD.  With the wealthiest majority-Black county in the nation and real estate developments popping up over the last two decades featuring $400,000 and up homes on large lots, P.G. County represents the African American dream for many.  Indeed, many Washingtonians have moved to “Ward 9" in part because they wanted better schools (Indeed, over half the adult African American population in the county once lived in the District).  The WPCI shows that moving to P.G. for its schools may be a mistake.  Prince George’s County public high schools rank ranked next to last of the 23 counties reviewed for the WPCI; its 22nd place finish is two slots behind the District.  Eleanor Roosevelt High School is the county’s best and the Greenbelt magnet school attracts many of the most talented students in the county.  However, it ranks 82nd in the region, 74 slots behind the District’s best–Banneker.  Moreover, there are three other D.C. public high schools that rank ahead of Roosevelt.  Due to its failing public schools system, a generation from now, P.G. could be nothing more than a middle-class ghetto with large homes because it’s public school system is lagging behind the county’s relative wealth and ceases to be an attraction to upper-middle class residents looking for good public schools.

The WPCI provides the District with a potential roadmap toward higher achievement of its public high school students.  The data make it clear–getting students into AP and IB courses benefits them and the school.  The elected and appointed leadership in the city must use the same intensity to build on what’s right with the schools as it did to bring baseball to the city.  The must find the resources necessary to support students who want to take the exams, but can’t easily afford to (the classes are free, but the examinations cost about $90 each).  Anything short of that will continue to show the District’s policymakers as AWOL–Absent Without Leadership.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
December 9, 2004

The 2004 D.C. Elections

    While the District’s elections provided none of the drama or surprises we saw in the primaries, there are three points we should take note of and consider the implications of as we move forward with the new City Council.

    First, for all the talk about turnout nationally, turnout was uneven around the city.  Overall turnout was 54%, which was below the 2000 rate, but above the 1996 figure.  Predictably, turnout was much higher in precincts west of 16th Street, N.W. than most of the city.  That has racial implications as most white Washingtonians live west of 16th Street, N.W. and there have been some worry in segments of black Washington that a majority black city has a majority white city council.  The only majority black precincts that saw anything more than marginal increases were in Wards 4, 7 & 8, where ward-based council seats were at stake.

    Second, Marion Barry is back.  His reelection is likely to be overreacted to around the city and in Congress because it’s easier to overreact to something than it is to think carefully about something.  Be that as it may, those who are concerned about Barry serving on the Council need to remember that he is one of 13 councilmembers, not the mayor.  Also, many of the issues that he rhetorically champions–affordable housing, education reform, summer jobs for city youth, healthcare for the poor–aren’t on the radar for much of the council, their rhetoric notwithstanding.  This generation of councilmembers is more interested in downtown economic development and high priced condominium housing.  Consequently, there won’t be enough votes to pass the populist legislation Barry will push and, thusly, won’t be much of a factor.

    What does it mean for Williams?  Not much.  Williams has a majority of the council on most issues, and Barry is unlikely to change that.  Barry is a populist on a council that is resistant to change.  At most, Barry will be able to make small changes on the margins of city policy, but he will not be able to make the kind of change that his supporters expect.  Expect his support for the stadium plan after extracting a few concessions from the mayor on Ward 8 projects.

    Lastly, 2004 may be a prelude to a larger battle shaping up for 2006.  The election of Kwame Brown, on the heels of Adrian Fenty’s 2000 win, may be the dawn of a new, younger African American leadership emerging in the city.  If Mayor Williams passes on a re-election bid, which has been rumored since in won two years ago, then you can expect Adrian Fenty and Michael Brown to get in the race.  Fenty raised nearly $500,000 in an unopposed campaign for reelection and Brown, according to some, is making early plans in case Williams doesn’t run.  The council is also in for some tight races, which could be made even tighter and more interesting to watch if the baseball stadium financing plan is viewed as too costly (I think the Mayor and Council’s zeal in trying to get baseball back may be viewed as conflicting with other priorities).  Also, Keith Perry is preparing for a second run against Ward 6 councilmember Sharon Ambrose, and he is likely to be a formidable challenger.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
November 3, 2004

The D.C. Democratic Primaries

While the fallout from the D.C. Democratic primary is not fully known, some things are becoming crystal clear–the election results represent a shot across the bow to those members of the D.C. City Council who have overlooked neighborhoods, parks, and schools in favor of $600,000 condominiums, downtown development, and business campaign contributions. How the members of the council respond to the results will say a lot about their leadership and whether they represent the entire city or just certain communities.

Let me be clear: The city council has been an abject failure on important issues like education, promoting affordable housing, health care, and community empowerment. The council members who are up for reelection in two years should to take heed of what happened this past Tuesday. The election results should be seen as a "red light" for tax breaks to downtown developers, taxpayer funding for a new baseball stadium (I want baseball in D.C. too, but a taxpayer funded stadium is a bad idea in a city with as many school infrastructure problems as we have), and general indifference to community empowerment.

The recent turnaround in city fiscal fortunes should be applauded and viewed as a magnet to recent additions to our populace who help make the city’s per capita household income among the highest in the country. However, residents are tired of feeling that they have to have high incomes just to stay in the city. There is a feeling of economic and social unease in many parts of the city–not just Wards 7 and 8, so. The gentrification that is washing over LeDroit Park, Shaw, Columbia Heights, Petworth, and Brookland, among many other neighborhoods like a mighty storm leaves many feeling threatened. The council has done nothing to ease their fears.

Many members of the council applauded when the mayor announced his goal of recruiting 100,000 new residents to the city. What was largely unspoken at the time was the fact that the preference was for new residents who don’t cost much to govern–upper income people who can expand the tax base and don’t require more than minimal city services. While understandable, that sends a message to those who don’t fit that description that they are unwelcome. No city official will ever admit to this, but just consider the new residential development in the city. The condominiums and "upscale" apartment buildings going up on 11^th, 13^th, and 14^th streets and south of Massachusetts avenues represent all the evidence you need to see where city leadership wants to go. Where is the new housing in the $200,000 range? Many have forgotten the condominium conversion wars of the early 1980s, which were attempts to ensure affordable housing for all. That effort had many friends on the city council who would likely be outraged by the lack of policy by the current council to empower those individuals and families who want to do more for themselves.

Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards often talks of "two Americas." Well, there are certainly "two D.C.’s" and the dividing line is more socioeconomic than race. The first D.C. is a comfortable upper middle class city comprised of families, singles, and dual-income-no-kids (DINKS) who have solid six figure household incomes, home values north of $500,000, and can afford to send their children to private schools if they want. The second D.C. is comprised of everyone else who make up the vast majority of the city–poor, working class, and middle class individuals and families who find themselves in the cross-hairs of class warfare being waged by developers and the city council.

Hopefully, Tuesdays election results will stop the war against the second D.C. and lead to a more responsive city council.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
September 5, 2004

How Black People Melted Chocolate City

There’s been a great deal of talk recently about the budding renaissance of Washington, D.C. It’s fiscal troubles, while perennial, have been brought under control, neighborhoods are rebuilding, and there’s even a hint or two that the public schools are improving. With all the good news, however, there is great concern in many of the city’s shrinking black neighborhoods, that what once was hailed as “Chocolate City,” America’s Black Mecca, Washington D.C. is now just a shell of its socio-political self. Complaints about a Black mayor being out of touch with his black constituents, poor blacks being pushed out of the city, and an influx of young whites, many of whom never knew of, and don’t care about, the District’s proud Black lineage is in need of restoration. That said, for all the talk about gentrification and other changes viewed as negative to black interests in D.C., these “problems” are “self-inflicted.”

For over 30 years now, Black Washington had worked diligently to undermine itself, and the city. Consider the following. In 1968, Stokely Carmichael and a group of followers threw a brick through a drug store window, sparking days of rioting in D.C. following the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Those riots, which were largely contained to the 14th Street, U Street, and H Street corridors, devastated the economic infrastructure of the most important neighborhoods in Black Washington. Nearly 7,600 people were arrested, 1,200 buildings had burned, with property damage at $24.7 million, more at that point than any riot except for those in Watts in 1965 and Detroit in 1967. Over thirty years later, 14th Street, and U Street are bustling again, thanks largely to an influx of white owned businesses that have literally and figuratively changed the face of Black Washington’s most historic neighborhood.

Elected in 1978, Marion Barry used patronage to change the face of the Washington’s bureaucracy. In so doing, he expanded the size of the Black middle class through stable, consistent employment. The result was two-fold. First, the bureaucracy became too large to justify. Barry responded by making cuts in funding for other services rather than trim the bureaucracy. This accelerated the decline of the public schools, streets, and other important services, and led many members of the new Black middle class to thank Barry for their enhanced stations in life by moving out of the city into Prince George’s County, Maryland. This shrunk the tax base and further eroded they city’s infrastructure. Second, by unnecessarily expanding the size of the city bureaucracy, Barry made it virtually impossible to effectively manage the local government. The result was it became easier for critics to promote Barry, and by extension Black, Democratic mayors around the country as permissive and corrupt.

The crack cocaine epidemic of the mid to late 1980's also facilitated the death of Black Washington. Murderous Black men, seeking their share of the capitalist pie by poisoning their own community, turned parts of the District into shooting galleries, further accelerating the exodus of Blacks from the city. The Black-on-Black violence held the city under siege depressing real estate values in Black neighborhoods and extending the city’s economic malaise. Now, many of the neighborhoods that have served as the epicenter of the black intelligencia are now shifting. The newest homeowners in the gentrifying neighborhood that includes Howard University are white, living in large, Victorian-era homes located in neighborhoods destabilized by black-on-black crime, chronic joblessness, and deteriorating families. These new neighbors recognized a good deal when they saw it; many houses in Shaw and Le Droit Park are now selling north of the $600,000 mark. Many old-line African Americans are lamenting “what might have been” and asking “What happened to Chocolate City?” The truth is, “Chocolate City” is gone, and we are responsible for its demise.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
May 15, 2003