Beltway Area Indymedia

Efforts to allow for community input, by way of a referendum measure, on the mayoral takeover plan of DC Public Schools (DCPS), were met with yet another delay today. Today's hearing, on Tuesday, May 8th, was originally intended to judge whether or not the subject matter of Mary Spencer's referendum proposal was appropriate for a referendum by law. Referendum proposer Mary Spencer, a DCPS graduate, and grandmother of children in DC Public Schools, was forced to temporarily withdraw her referendum proposal, in order to make absolutely sure that it met technical requirements of a referendum proposal. Due to several challenges made by the DC Office of the Attorney General, and by Brian Flowers, the General Counsel for the DC City Council, Ms. Spencer, with the threat of any community consent process (for the legislation) being excluded altogether, will be amending her referendum proposal to include only Titles I, IX, and X of the Mayor's DC Public Education Reform Act of 2007 (despite much public oppositon, attempted injunctions, and protests, the controversial legislation was passed by the DC City Council on April 19, 2007).

Prior to today's hearing, written arguments in response to Ms. Spencer's proposed referendum measure were submitted to the Board of Elections and Ethics by the Office of the DC Attorney General (AG), and by Brian Flowers, as the General Counsel for the DC Council. The Office of the AG submitted that Mayor Adrian Fenty's DC Public Education Reform Act of 2007 somehow wasn't an act at all, but was merely a request to Congress intended to circumvent the electoral process by going straight to our colonial leaders. Doing so would have the effect of a Congressional amendment to the DC Charter without requiring a referendum on the amendment. Brian Flowers, General Counsel for the DC City Council, presented an argument contradictory to the Office of the AG, saying that certain titles of the act (he implicitly argued, contrary to the Office of the AG, that the legislation was indeed an act) covered under the proposed referendum dealt with the appropriation of funds, which is not permitted under the DC Home Rule Act.

At today's hearing, longtime public education advocate Marc Borbely, and education writer (and DCPS parent) Mary Lord testified in support of the referendum proposal. They both stressed that the current legislation would amend the DC Charter without any consent from citizens. Mr. Borbely also urged that the Board approve the referendum proposal, as failure to do so would deprive DC residents of their right to vote on their governance structure. Ms. Lord went on to point out the dangers of the consolidation of power, in this case in the hands of Mr. Fenty, and also made clear that she valued her vote for the Board of Education as much as she did her vote for Mayor, saying “...I didn't vote for Mr. Fenty to be God.”

In attempt to prevent unecessarily prolonged arguments, attorney Matthew Watson, on behalf of Ms. Spencer, agreed to withdraw the Titles of the legislation that might have dealt with the appropriation of funds from the referendum proposal. However, what began as an attempt to expedite matters, turned into yet another delay by the city. Due to the change in the referendum proposal, the Board of Elections and Ethics argued that another public notice in the DC register would be required. Despite the fact that the public already had the chance to comment on every title of the act, the Board advised Mr. Watson, that in order to go forward with the amended referendum proposal, another public notice was indeed necessary.

The earliest possible date for the next hearing on the amended referendum proposal is next Tuesday, May 15th. As a small consolation, the Board agreed to consolidate the next two hearings (in order to expedite the process), and to recommend to the Office of Document Management (the office responsible for printing the DC Register, where public notices are posted) that the notice for the next hearing be put in this week's register (failure to do so would mean that the matter wouldn't be heard again by the Board until May 22, leaving almost no time for the signature gathering required for a referendum). The two hearings to be consolidated are the next hearing (approval of the subject matter of the proposal) and, assuming approval, the approval of the actual language of the petition for a referendum.

Why do city leaders, including Mayor Fenty (quickly proving not to be the populist he portrays himself as), seem to be trying to stifle community input at every turn? Why, instead of being straightforward with us, are they being misleading at best (saying for example that what looks, walks, and seems like an act is indeed not at act)? Do they really have our best interests in mind? If not, who are they serving, and why? More questions continue to arise every day, as the Fenty administraton and the City Council plow ahead, undeterred by the wishes of the public.