Posts about Bryan Weaver

Serious flaws create serious scandals

Some of the biggest flaws in DC campaign finance involve corporate contributions. Corporate entities are allowed to directly give money to candidates in DC, unlike under federal campaign finance law. Worse, many corporate entities have multiple subsidiaries, such as developers who create a separate LLC for each project, and are allowed to donate up to the maximum from each of them separately.

This is very common in DC campaigns. The fact that so many incumbents garner much of their campaign cash this way may be why not a single other councilmember voted for Wells' amendments to ban the practice.

That's not the only problem with campaign finance, though perhaps the biggest legal loophole. There are also ongoing federal investigations into the campaigns of Mayor Vincent Gray and Council Chairman Kwame Brown. Prosecutors are reportedly looking into whether the Gray campaign accepted numerous money orders that weren't really from separate individuals.

The District was reminded of those investigations in dramatic fashion this weekend when the FBI raided the offices of Jeffrey Thompson, who owns Chartered Health Plans, the District's largest contractor. He is also one of the most significant donors to district politicians.

Thompson and related entities have given more than $700,000 to various campaigns over the years, including massive sums to Gray, former mayor Adrian Fenty, and at-large councilmember Vincent Orange. The raids also targeted a public relations consultant to the Gray campaign.

Proposals seek to mend the system

Several reformists have emerged with concrete proposals to make campaign finance in the district more transparent and effective.

When Tommy Wells introduced his doomed campaign finance amendments to last year's ethics bill it seemed like his might be the lone voice for reform on the council. But today he joined Mary Cheh as the only cosponsor on her "Campaign Finance Reform Amendment Act of 2012."

According to a statement by Cheh's office, the bill would "prohibit pay-to-play, require disclosure of external fundraising activities, and... ban corporate contributions."

Meanwhile, the DC Committee to Restore Public Trust, led by activist and former council candidate Bryan Weaver and Ward 7 ANC commissioner Sylvia Brown, is pushing a ballot initiative that would ban direct corporate contributions to DC campaigns.

Organizers must collect over 22,000 signatures from registered DC voters to place the initiative on the November ballot. Volunteers plan to gather signatures at every polling place during the April 3 primary.

The initiative has garnered some high-profile backers. Councilmember Wells is providing organizational support and, while announcing her legislation, Councilmember Cheh said that she "wholeheartedly support the efforts of the District residents working on" the initiative. At-large candidates Peter Shapiro, Sekou Biddle, and David Grosso, as well as Ward 8 candidate Jacque Patterson, also have voiced support.

Several candidates running for DC Council in the April 3rd primary, May 5th special, and November 6th general elections are taking an additional step to show their commitment to campaign finance reform. Grosso, who is running for the independent at-large seat up for election in November and currently held by Councilmember Michael A. Brown, has proposed a "transparency challenge" to all council candidates.

The challenge asks candidates to proactively embrace campaign finance reform ideals by pledging to post information on their websites about the directors, managers, shareholders, and corporate structures of any companies that they receive donations from. Additionally, the challenge requires candidates to disclose the names of people who collect multiple donations for them as well as information on each individual donor.

So far, candidates Max Skolnik (Ward 4), Jacque Patterson (Ward 8), and Peter Shapiro (at-large) have pledged to join the challenge. Although, as of March 6, only Grosso has posted his information online. All participants are challenging sitting incumbents. So far, no incumbents have joined the challenge.

Incumbents fail to speak up or act

Unfortunately, aside from Mary Cheh and Tommy Wells, most members of the DC Council seemed unconcerned with campaign finance issues and unlikely to act on reform before the upcoming elections.

Muriel Bowser, primary author of last years ethics bill and chair of the council's Committee on Government Operations, stated that she intended to take action on campaign finance. However, she has since defended herself for accepting corporate donations and argued against banning corporate money outright, making it unlikely that she will support Cheh's bill.

It seems even more unlikely that a majority of councilmembers will act on any sort of campaign finance reform. Several have spoken out against reform. Notably, yesterday morning Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) joked about his dislike of Cheh's legislation.

The rest of the council should work with Cheh and Wells to craft a bill that will reform the campaign finance system while still allowing participation from all engaged parties. DC should ban corporate bundling and strengthen disclosure rules, to make it more apparent who is donating and ensure that corporations do not skirt contribution limits. Contractors and other corporations that do business with the city should face even further restricted in order to avoid obvious conflicts of interest.

DC's politicians have proven all too willing to take advantage of weak campaign finance regulations. But it seems as though the city is becoming sick of it. The DC council should step up, fight against this culture of corruption, and bring corporate influence over elections back from the stratosphere and down to the height of individual influence.

A good candidate must have all of these qualities at the same time:

• Ability to talk like a think tank expert about any policy issue;
  
• The right positions as viewed by every different issue group they court;
  
• Charisma so that voters "want to have a beer with" the candidate;
  
• Stamina to talk to voters nonstop, all day, every day for months, and politely listen to everyone no matter how crazy;
  
• Toughness to endure all manner of nasty treatment from opponents and voters;
  
• Willingness to ask for money, which if you've never done you can't possibly realize how hard it is;
  
• Expert management skills to hire a terrific team cheaply in just a few months;
  
• An absolutely squeaky-clean background;
  
• And much more.

If a candidate doesn't have one of these, we blame the candidate. They ran a lousy campaign. We just didn't like them personally. They don't know enough about the issues. Every candidate has a thousand ways to be a doofus.

With this set of expectations, it should come as no surprise that we get a fair number of candidates with particularly strong personal desire to acquire power. Those with ambition but who don't care so much about making the world better can survive this process and learn to sound caring enough about issues to get by on the issues, while most of those more motivated by love of their city find another career.

If winning is about being a good candidate, then the leaders we get are good candidates rather than good leaders. Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of a system that rewards the toughest and most ambitious, rewards those who actually have the best visions for the future? But that's a pipe dream.

It's important to be tough, not just to win office but to pass important legislation once in power. The attacks won't stop with the campaign, but continue into the policy debates. And leaders who take poor positions absolutely need to face criticism for those actions.

The campaign filing dustup only told us what we already knew about Greig, that she was a fairly inexperienced newcomer facing a seasoned veteran. Her dropping out did tell us something new, that she lacked at least one of the qualities we expect in a great candidate, the toughness.

We learned in this spring's special election that Sekou Biddle lacked the management component, at least at the time; Bryan Weaver lacked the fundraising capacity, Joshua Lopez lacked the policy expertise, and so on.

But ask yourself: Do you have all of these qualities? Do you have even half of them? And how many people have them all? Maybe Vincent Orange did; all he lacked was an interest in helping anyone but himself.

I think that a lot of the incumbents on today's DC Council ought to be replaced. A lot of people think that. This past summer, many people said to me, individually or in groups, that they were looking around for people to run for various offices. I've heard secondhand about many others searching for the same thing.

And in most cases, they came up short. Many names that had been thrown around as fantastic potential candidates didn't run. Some did, and as we get to know the candidates, we'll find out if any of them are really exciting, or all fall victim to one of the many pitfalls of a campaign, or get written off too early by the horse-race press coverage.

This is the reality of politics. Everyone knows it, and those that don't quickly learn. It's often a choice between the lesser of two evils. Often, if there's someone you're extremely excited about, they're a long-shot candidate because they don't excel in every one of the necessary criteria.

The main reason I'm particularly a fan of Tommy Wells is that he actually does have most of these qualities, at least in moderate measure. He's extremely good on policy, but also able to go to a community meeting or church or block party and mingle with everyone without quickly getting sick of it. He's pretty likable, but also fairly tough. He has hired some great staff. And so on.

He represents one of the best opportunities to get a politician who really cares about making better communities in DC, and can actually win elections as necessary to accomplish important things.

How many people can do that, and want to? We need more of them. At least 14: one per ward, 4 at-large, one chairman, and one mayor. Not to mention 436 representatives, 100 senators, 1 vice-president, 1 president, and countless state and local legislators all across the country. Where are they?

I, of all people, am not going to try to dissuade anyone from their dream of sitting in the John A. Wilson Building for 16 hours a day. But it's worth reminding everyone that for every candidate who wins an election, there is another one, or 8, who experience the agony of defeat.

For those who believe in ethics and good government and can't be talked out of running for office, you will get an eye-opening look at the inside of a DC political machine, from door knocking to raising money.

At its core, running for office is doing everything your mother told you not to. You have to wear your good clothes when you know you're going to get dirty, you have to ask strangers for money, and you have to tell people how great you are—and in some cases do that in the third person.

On the upside, you will develop a thick-skin when you're called "unbendingly liberal," when you are told your campaign is "white-centric," and when local papers endorse other candidates even though they admit you're the best candidate.

Despite the outcome of the special election, I've come to fall in love all over again with DC, and I am optimistic for our future together.

Sure, when you look at the election results map of blue vs. orange (with a blob of Weaver green in the middle), your first thoughts may be of the racial and economic divide of our city. You may think of the Courtland Milloy column and the recent comments from Marshall Brown. You may think of the two phrases I can't stand to hear anymore: "I am a native Washingtonian" and "I am a DC taxpayer." So what is there to be optimistic about?

A lot, actually.

First, the characterization that new white residents—or in the preferred nomenclature, "Myopic Dog-Loving Cafe-Dwelling Bicycle-Riding Snowball-Throwing Twits"—don't care about people of color and don't have any connection to the black community is just false.

Look at the faces of people fighting to save DC's social safety net; the people who are at the grassroots fighting for statehood; the people who are in the trenches promoting conflict mediation for youth, fighting against street violence. Serious numbers of white Washingtonians are daily activists for these causes.

Also, it is not insignificant that residents of Wards 2 and 3 are in favor of paying higher taxes to save programs like TANF, domestic violence shelters, and after-school programming for our poorest children.

Moreover, many white Washingtonians view the fight for education reform not in their backyard, but across the river. They are willing to pay up with their pocketbooks to build quality schools for our neediest children.

Secondly, and just as important, is the new generation of African-American and Latino reform activists who have a universal vision for the District. This generation doesn't just see DC as just "east of the river" vs. "west of the park." All across this city, people are engaged in old school models like civic associations and ANCs, and they are bringing them new life.

Young African American activists like Veronica Davis and Maceo Thomas are combing social media and community get-togethers into a powerful community networking coalition that is not bound to the old traditions of the political culture. They have reached deep to bring positive development, transit, and environmental issues to the forefront of the African-American community in Wards 7 and 8.

ANC commissioners like Tim Clark, Mark Stevens, and Sylvia Brown (to name only a few) have small political machines built on good government, economic justice, and smart growth at a time that the city needs them, now more than ever.

Martin Moulton, President of the Convention Center Community Association (or as I think of him, #39 of the DC 41), breaks all the stereotypes of what a community association president should be by caring about both people and bike lanes.

Place all those trends into a political food-processor and press blend. You'll see that the next generation of activists will bend the racial and economic divides of this city. White politicos winning on social justice platforms, African Americans running on the environmental platforms, Latinos... well, just getting a seat at the table.

Last week I had lunch with a long time Ward 8 democratic muckety-muck who proclaimed the era of the DC old guard dead. He said that the machine that backed Vincent Orange in the special election cannot win a high turnout, city-wide race... if we are smart. He said that a powerful coalition of "myopic twits," progressives, disenfranchised Fenty loyalists, renegade unions, small businesses, and smart growth advocates can run the table in the next citywide elections.

If we know each other's stories, if we respect our diversity as our strength, and if are willing to fight the fights that need winning, we can have the city of all our dreams.

Weaver correctly points out that the youth facility New Beginnings has only 60 beds but there are over 2,000 violent youth offenders in the District. He advocates for a new approach to juvenile justice that does not leave violent youth solely in the hands of group homes. He has repeatedly noted how the District fails youth at every level of government and we support his call to reform the juvenile justice system.

On taxes, Weaver has been the most forward thinking. He supports creating a six-tiered income tax system that will more equitably distribute the tax burden in the city. Currently, the highest tax bracket is for income earners over $40,000 annually.

The mayor's proposed budget makes significant cuts to social services, but a reformed tax code can generate more revenue and balance the budget without sacrificing services to the most needy. Gray's budget does call for some targeted tax increases, which is good for the short-term. But Weaver's call for long-term tax reform can help the city avoid some of these painful cuts in the future.

Weaver has been similarly forward thinking on tax abatements and new development in the city. As an ANC commissioner in Adams Morgan, he worked with developers to provide tangible community benefits in exchange for a $46 million tax abatement. He has been forceful on this issue. Weaver believes agreements with developers should include clawbacks if they fail to comply with requirements for local hiring or other community benefits.

On education, Weaver recognizes the disparity between the highest and lowest performing schools. He believes the city should provide incentives for the highest performing teachers to teach at the lowest performing schools.

Weaver also believes the city should be more watchful in its development projects to ensure school modernization projects like Eastern High School don't overrun their budgets. This leaves fewer funds available for other schools to modernize. Bryan is also opposed to school vouchers because they are insufficient for many private schools in the city.

There have been many scandals in the city council over the past few months, and Weaver would be an independent voice. He has repeatedly said he would be a full-time councilmember and not take a second job outside the council. Bryan believes perks like SUVs and Verizon Center tickets are unnecessary for councilmembers and distract from the needs of city residents.

Weaver is a supporter of multimodal transportation and livable communities. He regularly rides the bus or walks and supports expanding bike lanes in the city. Weaver believes pedestrian and cyclist safety should be a priority for DDOT and MPD.

There are nine candidates running to fill the at-large council seat, many of whom have excellent qualities of their own, but we believe Bryan Weaver is the best choice on Tuesday.

The biggest surprise was that the candidate with the longest resume in the education field—Sekou Biddle—had the least specific responses to our education survey. Maybe he's been more specific on the campaign trail.

There is no easy way to summarize the results or say who "won," and my analysis is very subjective, so feel free to read the verbatim responses from verbatim responses and form your own judgment.

Educational opportunity for disadvantaged students

Interestingly, the one question that drew new policy ideas yielded the same policy idea from three of the candidates. When we asked about how we can create more equal educational opportunity for the city's most disadvantaged students, Weaver, Page, and Orange all advocated some form of additional pay for teaching in the poorest neighborhoods.

Weaver's very specific proposal called for up to a $16,000 bonus for a voluntary move and a three-year commitment to teach in the city's lowest-performing schools. Page offered many more specific ideas, but some of them were hard to follow, like paying teachers (doubling the incentives?) if they are effective (based on student input) and teach in a low-performing school. Others included pursuing a balanced plan of facilities modernization rather than favoring selected sites.

Biddle suggested that wide distribution of school performance data was a way to fuel the city's already active system of public school choice to equalize opportunity—the only candidate to take this angle.

But ideas like these were typically sandwiched between platitudes that gave little clue as to the policies we might see him advocate for as a member of the Council. (In fairness, he has already started introducing legislation, such as a bill to make transportation free for low-income families). This may be the strategy of a frontrunner, but it left us to focus on other candidates who provided meatier responses.

Teacher evaluations

Statehood Green candidate Alan Page gave the best response to a question about the the DCPS system of teacher evaluation known as IMPACT. For starters, he accurately described how it currently works, expressing support for it as a good start, suggesting that it could be improved to capture critical thinking, and saying he would hold stakeholder hearings. This would probably fall under micro-management according to Biddle's response, but might help citizens get a better understanding of this fundamental tool for making education policy in the District.

Most candidates did not get specific enough to demonstrate a full understanding of this or other key education policies like management of federal grants like Race to the Top and the lesser known State Longitudinal Education Data system (SLED).

Orange and Bryan Weaver recognized the failure of DC to execute on its SLED grant but nobody offered solutions. Weaver came the closest, asking for transparency in education performance data as well as the issue of surplus properties, advocating for a public database of the city inventory with agency contact information and other data.

Role of the State Board of Education

Vincent Orange had good answers about the role of the State Board of Education (SBOE) and about the disposition of public buildings that once housed under-enrolled DCPS schools. He acknowledged the reduced role of the SBOE, but recognized its value as an elected board that could bring constituent concerns on education to the policy arena. (Though this might be more accurate if so many of its members didn't consider the Board as merely a stepping stone to the Council.)

On buildings, he echoed a concern that other candidates raised for community input and that some raised for revenue generation, but noted that if we don't let charter schools occupy the schools, as they are promised by law, then (non-profit) charter schools will take some other property off the tax rolls.

Charters versus DCPS

We asked a somewhat leading question about whether candidates thought that charter and DCPS schools received fair budget allocations. Charter advocates have long complained that they are not treated fairly relative to the traditional district.

Orange wins bravery points for pushing back on this idea and suggesting that charters in DC are better off relative to their traditional school peers than in other states. He also called for weighted school formula funding and extra funding for magnet programs but did not explain why.

Biddle noted astutely that timeliness of the funds is a critical issue for charter schools. But Weaver really nailed the issue, focusing on facilities allocations and the fact that DC government has exposed itself to a lawsuit over this issue by not taking the issue of facilities funding equity seriously enough.

Vouchers

As readers will remember, Stephen is no fan of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, aka DC vouchers, so he naturally gave points to Weaver and Page for opposing it, while Biddle and Orange said they're for it. Voters who support the program might view this one differently.

Weaver just thinks the dollar amounts are too low to get poor kids into truly elite schools, and added that the voucher program shouldn't subsidize schools to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Biddle defended the program but also referenced a need for funded organizations to comply with the DC Human Rights Act. Orange hinted at the real reason we might want to support the program: the bribe that Congress offered, by including in the program equal funding bonuses for DCPS and DC charters if the program was enacted.

Chancellor selection

We asked some questions that flopped. One was about the selection of a permanent DCPS chancellor. The candidates who responded promptly to our questionnaire (Page and Orange) gave earnest answers and then Mayor Gray announced his selection, prompting the later-responding candidates to say they support Kaya Henderson. Not much to be learned there.

We need more city leaders who are knowledgeable about education and this survey shows is that the choice is not obvious. However, taken together, the candidates' responses can add a new layer to voters' understanding of where the candidates stand, how knowledgeable they are, and what they might do in the education arena if elected.

Biddle (chat transcript) has a great grasp of policy and it's probably unfair that he's been tarnished by his association with Kwame Brown. He got pigeonholed as the insider candidate, but if elected to the Council he would have his own ideas. He understands urbanism and often rides the bus or his bicycle, and knows better than most how to fix education and would make an ideal chair for an education committee.

Mara (chat transcript) has been absolutely clear on his beliefs from the start, which is commendable. I strongly agree with some of them, like transit and bicycling, and disagree with others, like taxes. He would absolutely push against corruption in the Council and the DC government, as David Catania does. As for being a Republican, if he simply pretended to be an independent or Democrat, as so many do, he wouldn't seem out of place at all; since both oppose a tax increase, there aren't really many policy differences between Mara and Biddle, for instance.

Weaver (chat transcript) gets relatively little attention because most of the press thinks he's probably not going to win, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's too bad. He had by far the most insightful answers to questions on our chat and masterfully analyzes and describes issues around youth, crime, gentrification and much more. He also has the best video ads. If he doesn't win I hope he'll write lots more articles for Greater Greater Washington and other outlets conveying his wisdom. And he's for the tax increase, which the Post hates but I think it the right policy.

Orange (chat transcript) doesn't seem to stand for much. He's aggressively pushed big box development but insists he's a big supporter of local retail corridors. He said he's for increasing the height limit but has given strong support to groups neighbors fighting any growth at campuses. He was against marriage equality before he was for it. He won't support a tax increase in the budget, but he hasn't endorsed any cuts.

Basically, Orange has avoided explaining how he would make any tradeoffs at all, which has made it hard for anyone to concretely explain why they oppose him but isn't a good sign that he'd be a principled councilmember. Many of his colleagues have slipped out of some of the same policy tradeoffs; several oppose taxes but haven't detailed cuts to compensate, and most were somewhat equivocal on campus plans. Orange, though, has tried to play both sides of virtually every issue much more than any of the others.

Lopez (chat transcript) has a lot of promise, which is what everyone says. He needs more experience with the issues before being on the Council, but this race is only the beginning for Lopez.

Alan Page, Dorothy Douglas, Tom Brown and Arkan Haile don't deserve to be totally ignored, but that's what's happening nonetheless.

Whom to vote for? A recent poll showed Orange with strong leads among registered voters, though in a special election most registered voters don't vote. Whoever can turn out the biggest base will win, and it's not clear who that could be. Orange is already busing seniors to early voting, so he's a strong contender.

For those of us who would put any of the top-tier candidates above Orange, it's a quandary. Basically, if Orange really is going to probably be one of the top two vote-getters, I want to vote for whomever is the other one of the top two. But it's not clear whom that is.

Either Instant Runoff Voting, where people rank choices, or Approval Voting, where people simply can vote for more than one, would work well in this case. If we had Approval Voting, I'd vote for Biddle, Mara and Weaver; if IRV, I'd probably rank Weaver first, then the other two, followed by Lopez and maybe some of the other ignored candidates.

Unfortunately, that's not the system we have. Ironically, the current Council has been uninterested in voting reform largely because of fears it might weaken the Democratic Party's dominance; in this case, the current system could well mean that the one man they least want to work with could end up becoming their colleague.

Who do you want to see elected? Take the IRV-based poll below by ranking one or more of your choices, from your favorite candidate 1st down to as many as you want. Here's more about how it works.