Posts about Harry Thomas Jr

Current at-large, and former Ward 5, councilmember Vincent Orange has already called a meeting of the "Ward 5 leadership" for 7 pm tonight at Israel Baptist Church. He is likely attempting to anoint an establishment-backed candidate, someone with deep ties to current political leadership in the ward. If a consensus is reached, that candidate will become the immediate frontrunner.

This is not acceptable. Ward 5 has been poorly represented for too long. For every passionate and effective ANC commissioner or civic association officer, there are many more simply interested in lining their pockets, amassing personal power, or advancing a selfish agenda. Now is not the time for the past political reality, it is the time for leadership that stands up, stops the culture of corruption, and makes Ward 5 proud.

Several talented progressive individuals have announced an interest in running for the seat. They include Kenyan McDuffie, who ran against Thomas in the last race, and John Salatti, an ANC commissioner in Bloomingdale. Jaime has pledged her support to McDuffie, Nolan stands squarely behind Salatti, and Matt is undecided. But we all agree that everyone must work together to put forward the single most qualified and electable candidate, for the good of both Ward 5 and the District of Columbia.

Progressives in the ward must now come together to have an open, honest discussion to achieve consensus on a single candidate. Rather than letting personal relationships or friction between individual camps dominate, progressives must focus on what is best for the ward and quickly translate that into a winning campaign.

This campaign cycle is condensed, and may be even more so if the Ward 5 special election is moved up to coincide with the primary on April 3. Either way, there is no time to waste on duplicative efforts in gathering signatures, attending community forums, and get-out-the-vote activities.

A strong, progressive candidate can truly move Ward 5 forward. But a contentious fight will set us back.

Thomas' office released this map, prepared by the Office of Planning, yesterday in an email. The council will vote on ANC and SMD redistricting December 20.

There are only minor changes from the map we proposed. The ANC and SMD designations come from the Office of Planning map.

• Catholic University has moved from ANC 5B to ANC 5A.
  
• A census block with a population of 19 has been shifted from 5C04 (which includes the Arboretum) to 5D03 (the northwestern part of Carver Langston).
  
• Two SMDs in Bloomingdale have a population shift of 53. The houses on the eastern edge of Crispus Attucks Park, which is north of the unit block of U Street NW had been included with the census block south of the unit block of U Street NW. Those houses have now been added to the rest of the block bounded by U, V, First, and North Capitol Streets NW.
  
• The Washington Gateway project, at the corner of Florida and New York Avenues, has been moved from Eckington's 5E03 to 5D01, which includes the Florida Avenue Market, Gallaudet University, and Ivy City.

Thanks are due to Councilmembers Harry Thomas, Jr., Michael A. Brown, Jack Evans, Phil Mendelson, and their staffs for working diligently on the redistricting process in our ward and others around the city.

The Office of Planning's Associate Director and Chief Information Officer, Charlie Richman, and his staff deserve credit for producing easy-to-read maps that allow DC residents to make sense out of the legalese that the Council will be voting on.

If you support these changes, I'd encourage you to send a note to the councilmembers letting them know you approve of this map. Their emails are available on the DC Council website.

Thomas' plan. Click to enlarge.

DC's Home Rule Charter states that each SMD should contain approximately 2,000 people, recognizing that it's impossible to reach that number exactly. This plan has so many SMDs that aren't even close. Thomas' plan appears to reduce the SMD containing McMillan to about 30% below standard.

It's impossible to precisely quantify that population would be, because its lines split up a block, and the Census doesn't report population in more detail than an individual block. Therefore, potentially as few as 1,399 (and as many as over 2,200) live in the critical SMD where this development is proposed.

It also carves McMillan away from the rest of Bloomingdale (its home neighborhood), Eckington, Truxton Circle, and Hanover-Bates. This will dilute the ability of these residents to make their voices heard regarding the largest development project in their immediate area.

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but the clearest and most defined opposition to the proposed McMillan development has coalesced in these neighborhoods, which the latest Thomas plan now puts in a separate ANC.

The latest Thomas plan moves the McMillan Sand Filtration Site into an ANC consisting in large part of the Armed Forces Retirement Home and the Catholic University of America. That is, McMillan will be in an ANC that is less-densely populated, with much of its population in essentially gated, private communities that lie relatively far geographically from the McMillan site and that will likely have less concern for the direct effects of what happens at McMillan.

Single member district size is another critical shortcoming in this plan. There are 38 SMDs in the plan, and more than half of them (20) have populations more than 10% above or below the ideal size of 2,000 people. The largest, in Carver Langston, is nearly 40% larger, with a population of 2,796. Meanwhile, the smallest, containing the Armed Forces Retirement Home, has a population nearly 55% smaller (917 people). These numbers make it impossible for an individual's vote to carry equal weight in the political process as every other vote in the ward.

Both Thomas' and the task force's plans fail to link communities with common goals and interests and distort voter power. Tomorrow, we'll present a neighborhood-centered alternative.

Meanwhile, if you want to weigh in on redistricting, the Bloomingdale Civic Association is holding a meeting on the issue tonight, November 1, 7:00 pm at St. George's Episcopal Church, 2nd & U Streets NW.

Charlie Richman of the Office of Planning sent us a clarification:

We think it's important for your readers to understand that redistricting plans aren't considered by the DC Office of Planning at all. That is for Council to do. Our role in this is purely technical. We review proposed legislative language provided by the Task Forces (or Council) and verify that the lines on the maps we use reflect that language accurately. Often we discover that this can't be done because the language isn't clear or consistent, and we work with the authors of that language to help make it clear and consistent. Once the lines are drawn, we report to Council on how many residents would be included in each proposed SMD and ANC. Ultimately final SMD and ANC boundaries are the Council's decision. OP's role is to provide technical support to Council in arriving at whatever decisions they deem best.

Where was the emotional debate about the reduction in DPR programs? Did someone defend residents who want to see their parks facilities properly maintained? Why should anyone expect that DPR could continue to operate with a sharply cut agency budget and similar cuts in related support services?

Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. has talked a lot about the benefits he sees to the District of selecting a DC-based landscaping company. It may indeed bring benefits, but Thomas should also consider the benefits to many more District residents of having rec centers open for more hours in his own Ward 5.

Ward 5 has seven recreation centers, three community centers, and a cultural center. All 11 centers are closed every Sunday of the year. Three centers (Fort Lincoln, Theodore Hagans, and Edgewood) are closed all weekend year-round. Not a single center is open for more than six hours on Saturdays. Are these limited hours adequate for Ward 5 residents?

For other signs of problems from underfunding, Thomas need look no further than the now-unavailable DPR Kids Retreat program. The program launched in 2010 as a coordinated effort for kids activities at rec centers on days when DCPS teachers have scheduled professional development. The program only lasted a couple professional development days because of funding constraints. There is no Kids Retreat planned for today, October 14, 2011, the first DCPS professional development day of the year for teachers and staff.

What will it take for Mayor Gray and the Council to examine how the grass cutting debate distracts from the poor state of DPR funding? Aren't tens of thousands of rec center users more important stakeholders than the employees and owners of various landscaping firms?

Focusing too narrowly on the grass cutting contract will only further hurt District residents by neglecting DPR's much more severe funding woes.

Update: John McGaw from the Mayor's Office of Budget and Finance has provided a clarification regarding this post.

The decrease in 2010 is more than offset by nearly $9 million being transferred to the newly created Department of General Services (DGS) to perform facilities maintenance. This adjustment gives DPR a total of $45 million in 2012 with the DGS funds. Nevertheless, the 2012 budget remains well below the $63 and $59 million available to DPR in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Councilmembers Muriel Bowser (@MurielBowser) and Yvette Alexander (@CMYMA) are active on Twitter and tweet fairly regularly. They use their accounts to respond to questions, retweet others and often take conversational approaches with their tweets. Wells, Bowser and Alexander are good about replying to questions, too.

Michael Brown (@CMMichaelABrown) and Jack Evans (@Jack Evans_Ward2) send moderate numbers of tweets, though it appears their staff do the work for them. They retweet fairly regularly and promote their schedules and news. You can often get an reply from them too, or at least links to find out more about an issue.

Mary Cheh (@MaryCheh) is less active than Evans or Brown and primarily promotes her news and updates, though occasionally she will send replies. Her account will be fairly active for a couple days, and then be silent for a stretch. It seems that staff tweet for her.

David Catania has two accounts, though neither is him personally. One is @CataniaPress, which promotes news and information about him. The other is @Catania_COS, his chief of staff, who engages more directly with followers and constituents.

Chairman Kwame Brown has an account, @KwameBrownDC which primarily mentions where the chairman has been and what visits he makes to groups and organizations in the city. It seems that staff tweet for him as well Brown does manage his own account. He often sends replies but rarely retweets. The account was also silent from February 17th to April 2nd, when the SUV scandal was in top gear.

Jim Graham, Harry Thomas and Vincent Orange all have accounts, though they rarely use them. Graham's account, @JimGraham_Ward1 last tweeted June 14 and is only following 27 people. When the account is active, it primarily promotes news and updates from his office.

Harry Thomas's account, @HLTJrWard5, hasn't been active since March 14th. Vincent Orange used Twitter during the April 26th special election campaign, but his account, @VincentOrangeDC last tweeted on May 12th and is only following 55 people.

Councilmembers Marion Barry and Phil Mendelson do not have accounts.

Mayor Vincent Gray has a Twitter account, @MayorVinceGray, run by his communications staff. At first, the account primarily promoted the mayor's schedule, but recently has started engaging more with followers and residents.

For those councilmembers who don't use Twitter regularly, does it matter? Barry doesn't have an account, but that doesn't mean he is less popular in Ward 8. It also doesn't necessarily mean he is not engaging with his constituents.

Twitter certainly isn't the only way to engage with constituents. Not everyone is savvy with the technology or has regular internet access. Others may find it overwhelming to use. But Twitter can be an effective way for councilmembers to address constituent concerns and provide a sense of connection with residents.

Some of the more active councilmembers, like Wells, Bowser, and Alexander, can help make government somewhat more responsive and approachable. Other accounts, like Cheh and Kwame Brown, occasionally engage with residents and at least provide a medium for getting information.

Should councilmembers be managing their own accounts or is it better to have a staff member do it? Wells, Bowser and Alexander seem tweet themselves and are able to engage more than others. During the protest over Congressional budget riders, Wells' account stopped sending tweets the moment his staff (@CharlesAllenDC and @AnnePhelps) tweeted pictures of his arrest. Michael Brown's account, on the other hand, tweeted pictures of Brown himself wearing handcuffs.

Many District agencies, like DCRA and DDOT, have used Twitter with great success to answer questions and address complaints. Now the Office of Planning has joined the flock, too.

Which officials' tweets do you find most useful? How would you like to see others improve?

What we really need is a radical overhaul of the city's culture and conduct to swing the long arc of good government for DC toward the sunlight. We need clear lines of what is permissible and not another layer of bureaucracy. It is time to turn over the Wilson Building and start shaking.

There are three critical areas of reform that if properly legislated, would bring sweeping reform to the city:

Seats on nonprofit boards

Most people see the conflicts raised in the Attorney General's lawsuit accusing Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) of misusing more than $300,000 in city money intended for youth baseball on an SUV and trips.

But what got little press recently was a deal struck by Vincent Orange (D-At Large)—from the dais no less—to vote in favor of a budget amendment if amendment supporters sided with his effort to secure $500,000 for the Lincoln Theater. This maneuver gave the amendment enough votes to clear the Council by a 7-6 vote.

What was not discussed during the deal-making is that Orange serves as the volunteer Treasurer for the nonprofit board that runs the Lincoln Theatre. Orange apologists pointed out that he receives no financial compensation from the theatre or its board and that the deal was done transparently so therefore this was not a conflict of interest. I strongly disagree.

On the same day the Council discussed the proposed ethics legislation, the US Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Nevada ethics law that governs when lawmakers should refrain from voting on official business because they might have a conflict of interest—even when that conflict doesn't create a financial gain for the elected official.

The council needs to adopt rules stipulating that any nonprofit that receives D.C. funds cannot have a member of the Council on its board of directors.

Secondary jobs

DC law allows members of the Council to have outside jobs. Further, District rules require lawmakers to make public their outside income sources only if an employer or client did business with the city or stood to gain from pending legislation during the past calendar year.

By contrast, political appointees in the federal government sign ethics forms that must include all clients or employers who have paid the appointee more than $5,000 during a one-year reporting period—regardless of whether the employer or client did business with the government.

Members of Congress (not the most ethical lot), under their Ethics Reform Act, are prohibited from engaging in professions that provide services involving a fiduciary relationship, including the practice of law and the sale of insurance or real estate.

Ethics analysts like Public Citizen have long said that although D.C. lawmakers appear to comply with the letter of the law, the city's rules don't go far enough. The time has come to restrict outside income in the same scope as members of Congress, or at least create detailed disclosure of all outside income.

Corporate campaign contributions

District campaign finance laws are modeled after federal laws, with one big difference: corporations are allowed to directly contribute to local campaigns. And many companies have found a way to give more than others.

A quick review of campaign records for the mayoral and city council candidates will show you which corporations tilt the scales to gain access to the Wilson Building by electing candidates with their business interests at the forefront.

For example, real estate companies own many properties that are separately incorporated. Each incorporated property may make the maximum contribution to a candidate or constituent services fund. It is illegal for a corporation to use subsidiaries or companies under its control to skirt contribution limits, but at the same time, it's perfectly legal for corporations and their owners to make multiple contributions.

Any ethics legislation approved by the Council must institute limits that bar this sort of corporate contribution bundling. It must also include clear disclosure requirements to inform citizens about potential conflicts of interest and influences.

These are just three areas of concern among many. If, instead of learning ethics from watching movies, the city council is serious about ethics reform, this is where they should begin.

As Albert Einstein said, "Relativity applies to physics, not ethics."