Posts about Democrats

The task force

Last fall, resident John Chelen, an avowed opponent of the zoning rewrite, approached Ward 3 Democrats chairperson Shelly Tomkin. He had already formed a "task force" made up of about 7 people who opposed the zoning rewrite and some who had publicly testified against it. Chelen suggested to Tomkin that the task force put together a white paper on the subject, supposedly to inform the delegates of the pros and cons of the proposals.

Chelen testified against the rewrite process on October 5, 2012, asking the DC Council to step in and essentially require the Office of Planning to restart the 5-year project. This came before his task force had issued any paper on the merits of the zoning rewrite and before the organization's broader membership had debated the issues or adopted any resolution.

Tomkin approved this task force without including any members with differing points of view. When word got out about the task force from Chelen's testimony, Ward 3 Democratic Committee delegate Ellen Bass and another resident insisted that Chelen include them to give some balance (although even after a 3rd resident joined later, they were a minority of the members). Chelen, after substantial initial delay, permitted them to join.

The group's "white paper" purported to be a fact-based analysis of the Office of Planning's policy recommendations on parking. But not surprisingly, the report contained only "facts" that supported the anti-rewrite position and unsupported assertions about the horribles that will result if DC adopts the proposals. Yet Tomkin distributed it to the Committee delegates as an objective statement of the "pros and cons" of the proposals without any caveat about dissenters on the task force.

For example, there is no mention of the environmental concerns about car use and vehicle congestion. The report cites no data to back up assertions like these:

• In most instances, current parking requirements are substantially less than likely parking need that would be generated by use, so current requirements only partially mitigate the impact of spillover parking.
  
• Elimination of minimum parking requirements on transit zones will result in spillover parking in residential neighborhoods near Metro stations
  
• Elimination of minimum parking requirements ... will result in people who live near transit zones or downtown to walk blocks from their car to their home ...
  
• The rewrite will reduce parking requirements for schools, hotels, and churches. [In fact, all the rewrite proposes to do is base the requirement on square footage rather than factors that change over time like number of seats, rooms and employees.]

The paper also reflected a clear anti-zoning rewrite bias. It contained arguments attacking the OP proposals which it called "Stated Justifications." According to Bass, she had prepared a more balanced draft, but then 2 avowed opponents of the parking proposals reworked it. She and two other members who did not agree with the paper prepared their own "Alternative Analysis," which Bass said she had to distribute to Committee delegates herself.

The resolution

Chelen then presented a resolution condemning OP's parking proposals at the Ward 3 Dems' April 11 meeting. It states, among other things, that the "parking proposals adversely will affect residents, businesses and the vibrancy of the city," that they "do not reflect community preferences," and that they are "not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan."

These are at best opinion statements not supported by data in the "white paper." For one thing, the zoning task force did not assess the community preference beyond its own membership of 10 or so people, and 3 of those people did not agree that the parking proposals would be detrimental. As for the Comprehensive Plan, this too would prove without basis, as soon became clear.

The first order of business on April 11 was a lengthy debate on whether attending members could vote in place of absent delegates, as the Committee Bylaws clearly permit. After much discussion, Tomkin thought better of denying these members their vote, but because of the time it took to resolve this issue, and Tomkin's decision to let an unrelated speaker give his presentation first, delegates grew impatient and some left before the late vote.

Furthermore, procedural shenanigans by the resolution's supporters ensured there would be no floor debate on its substance. Yes, on a very contentious issue that has divided many in Ward 3, and on a resolution that says policies "are not supported by data," there was no actual discussion about those facts. While the resolution purported to reflect "community preferences," community members never had a chance to talk about their preferences.

Tom Smith, an ANC commissioner and Committee delegate, did insist on asking Chelen how many parking places in Ward 3 would be eliminated if the rewrite went through. Chelen responded that he did not know and did not have any examples he could cite, but he was sure it would happen.

Afterwards, Chairperson Tomkin issued a statement in "themail," claiming that the resolution "was approved in a vote by a broad majority taken April 11." This careful wording obscures the reality that just 23 people voted in favor, a small proportion of the 94 Committee delegates and hardly a majority of the Ward 3 Democratic Committee. In fact, fewer than half the delegates (only about 44 people) even bothered to attend the April 11 meeting. By the time the resolution came up for a vote after 9:30 pm, there was barely a quorum present, and only about 30 delegates even voted.

The resolution does not speak for Democrats in Ward 3

The vote total is important because Chelen is pushing other organizations, such as the Cleveland Park Citizen's Association to adopt a similar resolution. He intends to bring this resolution to the DC Council as reflecting the views of Ward 3.

But his hyperbole is overblown and inaccurate. On the Chevy Chase listserv, he stated, "The resolution passed by a supermajority vote [of the Ward 3 Dems], a telling sign of community resistance to the ill-considered and over-reaching proposals made by the Office of Planning."

Ironically, despite the claim that the minimum parking proposals are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the very next day after the Ward 3 Dems vote, the Zoning Commission approved the Babes Billiards PUD, a mixed-use building in what would be a transit zone near a Metro station that would not have on-site parking. The PUD order cited 23 policies within the Comprehensive Plan that support a development with no on-site parking, beginning on page 11.

Being a neophyte at these political meetings, but not in life itself, I expected that a few motivated individuals could move the needle on getting things done through sheer guile and force of will. I was surprised, however, how an organization named the Ward 3 Democratic Committee could permit such a clearly non-democratic process, push through a white paper without even hearing dissenting viewpoints.

Today, the "white paper" is still not available on the Ward 3 Democrats' website, although it is available online, along with the "Alternative Analysis" from the 3 task force members who did not agree with the paper Chelen and Tomkin distributed. Instead of alienating Democrats by letting the group be a tool of those who want to advance a specific agenda on a non-partisan issue, the Ward 3 Democratic Committee ought to focus on its actual electoral mission.

Fearer and Brown are both part of the "51st State for Obama" slate. A number of candidates have formed slates, though slates have no official standing, and anyone is free to vote for whomever they like.

There are a few particularly recognizable names, but ones which voters should be wary of choosing: Councilmembers Marion Barry (Ward 8) and Jack Evans (Ward 2). They made some news yesterday with a controversial plan to bus supporters to the caucus.

There are delegate slots reserved specifically for elected officials, but these 3 councilmembers are also running against the masses, likely hoping to get into the convention without a fight over those other slots. Evans has been a delegate at all but one convention since 1992 and Barry is no stranger to the event.

Chuck Thies points out that sending Barry, in particular, creates a real danger of some sort of scandal distracting press coverage of the convention. That would remind national viewers of a side of DC that most residents would prefer not to emphasize, at a time when DC has so many positive aspects the delegates can highlight.

The national party conventions are a unique event that will surely be a thrill for those selected to attend. They will also provide a rare opportunity to tell DC's story and argue for full representation to engaged activists from around the country.

The Democratic State Committee is supposed to represent Democratic voters. It could, and should, weigh in on "national" issues like DC voting rights and legislative autonomy, and local issues including the conduct of Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. Thomas is under federal investigation for allegedly stealing $300,000 in taxpayer funds intended for a youth athletic organization and spending it instead on himself.

Rank-and-file Democrats could open up the party and turn it into a courageous force that engages, listens to and represents the grassroots—and demands that our elected officials honor the highest ethical standards. It's up to us to put "democratic" in the Democratic Party and voice our clear disapproval of the current chairman's recent decision to disenfranchise DC voters.

As 2008 presidential candidate Barak Obama repeatedly declared, "sí se puede."

Or, we can decide now to not complain and to accept backroom politics-as-usual.

In August, party Chairman Anita Bonds ended a decades-long tradition of Democrats voting at their nearby polling place in the local primary for the Democratic State Committee. Instead, the party will hold a convention—in just one location—probably next November. It will likely last at least a few hours and involve complicated rules.

In deciding to eliminate the right of hundreds of thousands of Democrats to vote next April on the party's leadership, Bonds didn't even allow the current members of the State Committee to vote. And according to the Washington Post, "Committee members say they were not told of the decision until it had already been made." You can't make this stuff up.

Democratic activist John Capozzi, himself a former member of the State Committee, told the Post, "This is why we need new leadership in the [D.C.] Democratic Party...Deciding to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of D.C. Democrats is just plain wrong."

It's a sure way to drastically reduce voter participation in deciding who will lead the party. A turnout of even 1% (3,402 voters) would be exceptionally high. The leadership is unlikely to plan to accommodate even half that many attendees.

But the Democratic Party can move from insular to invigorating, if we insist it do so. What do you care about? Affordable housing? Accessible health care? Improving our education or transportation system? Do you think members of the DC Council are being influenced too much by big donors whose agendas may be seen as being at odds with your vision of what the Democratic Party should stand for?

The Democratic State Committee could be a perfect vehicle for the grassroots to engage in order to press our elected officials to pursue a policy agenda that is actually consistent with the party.

The DC Democratic Party organization today is so removed from the grassroots, there isn't even a place you could go to volunteer.

That might just be because the party's leadership has its priorities wrong. Donald Dinan, general counsel for the Democrats, wrote in an August 16th letter to the DC Board of Elections and Ethics that the party was canceling the primary vote for party representatives because of the "disruption" that an election could have on the Democrats' delegate selection process for the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

Dinan confirmed by telephone on Friday their fear that if new party leaders were chosen in a "DC Spring" next April, they could decide to upend months-long planning on who gets to go to the convention. Regrettably, it sounds more like bunker mentality than an outreach strategy.

But Dinan's letter, along with Bonds' quotes in the Post, indicated that the Democratic National Committee had pressured the District's Democrats to select their party representatives in a convention rather than in a primary, as has been the custom for decades. On Friday, I called the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to request a copy of a letter that would have forced DC Democrats to disenfranchise approximately 339,000 voters. They had no idea what I was talking about. Then I called Dinan. He didn't have it either.

Democrats get to vote in primaries for who the leaders of their party in such states as New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland and many others. It would defy belief that the DNC would force only the District of Columbia to replace the primary with a convention to select party representatives.

In fact, despite his letter, Dinan told me that ditching the primary method was indeed not the central reason for the move. "Had the DC Council picked May [after delegates are selected] for the local primary, it would have been fine."

The notion that the Democratic National Committee forced DC Democrats to make this move is malarkey.

Enough backroom politics-as-usual. Let's do something radical. Instead of accepting less democracy, let's create more. As Ward 8 activist and DC's former Youth Mayor, Markus Batchelor, recently wrote:

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of the people, the party of inclusion and the party seeking transparency and fairness. The DC Democratic State Committee, through this decision, has single-handedly flushed all these principles down the toilet simultaneously and I believe it is our duty to call for new leadership and a new way forward for the Democratic party in this city.

Let's not allow ourselves to do nothing and then read the newspaper next November reporting that just 200 Democrats met the day before in the corner of a high school gymnasium to elect their party leaders. Instead, let's adopt President Obama's 2012 campaign slogan—"We can't wait"—and start now, talking neighbor to neighbor to open up DC's Democratic Party with a campaign that declares, "We can't wait to clean up DC politics."