Posts about Muriel Bowser

Skolnik is a strong advocate for real, meaningful campaign finance reform. He fully supports Initiative 70, the ballot measure that would ban direct corporate contributions to candidates. Skolnik has signed on to Independent at-large candidate David Grosso's transparency challenge, agreeing to fully disclose the sources of any and all campaign contributions. Additionally, Skolnik supports ending all outside employment for councilmembers and abolishing constituent services funds.

Skolnik also brings to the table a long record of experience in education and working with youth. Since 2002, Skolnik has run the non-profit Kid Power, which provides a full array of service-learning opportunities District youth. Skolnik understands that education involves far more than simply what happens in the classroom. This experience gives him a broad view on education that is presently lacking on the Council.

Specifically, Skolnik outlines detailed action items on education, including expanding the Promise Neighborhood initiative to Ward 4 and beyond. This program, which has seen huge success in Ward 7, understands that education is a "cradle to career" issue. Skolnik understands that the best way to lower unemployment, decrease crime, and increase achievement is to reform all areas of youth services.

Skolnik also importance of building communities that work for all residents, that foster small and local business, rather than relying on big-box retailers. Skolnik would be a strong and effective advocate for smart transportation and growth policies.

Bowser has not set herself apart as a strong leader with a vision for DC While she has talked about ethics and reform, her piecemeal approach to reform has been uninspiring. She is more reactive than proactive, with her ethics reform package being a prime example of this. Bowser missed a huge opportunity to distinguish herself as a champion for good government and transparency. She has also failed to provide effective oversight or strong leadership on the WMATA board.

We believe that Max Skolnik is the best choice in this race and encourage Ward 4 voters to give him their vote on April 3.

This is the official endorsement of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority or greater in favor of endorsing the candidate.

Image from DDOT.

A few months ago, DDOT announced plans to set up a new system similar to Arlington's. People with disabilities would henceforth have to pay at meters, like anyone else. They could still park at any meter, plus DDOT would set aside some "red top" meters exclusively for people with disabled placards and with longer time limits.

The vote today postpones any change at least until late June. Unfortunately, as Councilmember Jim Graham noted, the red top meters still have red tops, and people will be confused about whether they are allowed to park there. (Anyone can, for now, as if they were regular meters).

A better approach would have been to let DDOT go ahead with a revised plan it announced this morning. Unfortunately, that announcement came too late for councilmembers to really understand what was going on. DDOT said in their press release that they'd like to keep ticketing drivers without placards who park at red top meters, but would let drivers with disability placards keep parking for free until May 1.

Unfortunately, the Council acted very quickly. Bowser just announced her plan to introduce this "emergency" legislation on Friday. It's ironic that she responded to people complaining about not getting enough notice by taking action with even less notice.

Meanwhile, Mary Cheh has promised to hold a roundtable, scheduled for March 29, to discuss the policy. She said today that DDOT's communication around the issue has been "disastrous." Was it? I saw a number of announcements, press releases, tweets and more. Did DDOT really fail to communicate or were people just not paying attention?

Communication is important, but it's also an axiom of government that no matter what an agency does to communicate, some people claim that they didn't ever hear about the change.

Or are people who were parking for free (and maybe abusing the system) just upset that they have to pay now? Several councilmembers' statements during today's debate revealed that they really just don't think people with disabilities should pay for parking. Should they?

Marion Barry noted that people with disabilities have plenty of trouble in life as it is. Bowser pointed out that they get reduced fare on Metro. On the other hand, many people with disabilities also can use our transit system. Charging for parking allocates the spaces for everyone to use, and encourages people who have alternatives to use them.

What should DC's disabled parking policy be?

Crime against SYEP youth: The pay days for students participating in the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) are well-known around the community, which has led to youth being targeted for robbery outside of Metro stations like Deanwood and Minnesota Avenue.

In response to this problem, the students said they would like to see an increased police presence. They also noted that police have a tendency to clump together and talk to each other rather than fully patrol the stations, so the students suggested that police spread out to cover a larger area.

Subsidized fares: SYEP paychecks will be cut by $2 per hour this summer. Therefore, the students recommended having WMATA or the District subsidize transit fares for SYEP participants. At the very least, the presenters asked for subsidized fares during the first two weeks of the program while participants wait for their first paycheck.

Councilmembers Tommy Wells (ward 6) and Muriel Bowser (ward 4, the Council's representative on the WMATA Board) asked DDOT and WMATA about the cost of a subsidy and what its fiscal impact would be, noting that youth who go to summer school already get a similar transit subsidy.

Youth advisory council: After last year's summit, WMATA was interested in establishing a youth advisory council to discuss activity on buses. Unfortunately, there had not been follow-up from the local councilmember, Yvette Alexander, to move this forward. At this year's summit, WMATA reaffirmed their interest in a youth advisory council.

Aging in place: One resident noted that the very young and the very old have unique needs when it comes to transportation, and asked how WMATA can help residents age in place, and how it can better accommodate strollers on buses.

Deaf riders: Other participants said that Ward 7 has an increasing population of the hearing impaired and deaf, and that transit employees should be trained to both recognize deaf customers and help them use the system.

Pedestrian safety: Organizer Neha Bhatt discussed pedestrian safety concerns at Benning Road's intersections with Minnesota Avenue and East Capitol Street. She had organized a recent walking tour with Ward 3 councilmember Mary Cheh, chair of the committee overseeing transportation, to look at problem intersections.

Capital Bikeshare: WABA executive director Shane Farthing raised the idea of subsidizing bike sharing for residents east of the river, and suggested changing Capital Bikeshare rules to allow younger members. Currently, one must be at least 16 years old to use Capital Bikeshare.

There was also an open house where community members could find information from DDOT, WMATA, Capital Bikeshare, and WABA, as well as discuss ideas with representatives from these groups.

The summit's two-hour timeframe turned out to be somewhat too short, so presentations and discussion were rushed at the end. The organizers are hoping to reformat for next year to avoid this issue.

Overall, residents came away with a widespread belief that working to pick the low-hanging fruit is a smart way to move forward and begin to bring positive change to Ward 7.

Six of us testified and we were the only members of the public who testified about anything relating to WMATA, so we had their attention and the attention of the media. After laying out the facts, sharing stories of harassment, and informing them about what transit systems in Boston, New York City and Chicago are doing to address sexual harassment that WMATA is not, we gave our recommendations.

1. Better tracking and reporting of incidents
   
2. A public service awareness campaign so people know what their rights are and how to report incidents
   
3. Better training of Metro employees so they don't harass passengers and so they respond to reports of harassment more appropriately.

Councilmember Bowser was very receptive to these suggestions, especially the PSA campaign. WMATA CEO Richard Sarles said he would talk with his counterparts in the three cities that have PSA campaigns, to get advice on how to bring one to DC. Their responses were very encouraging, but of course we won't call it a success until we actually have a campaign.

Anti-harassment PSA in Chicago.

And there is still work to do around WMATA's responses to and treatment of harassment.

While WMATA keeps painting harassment as flirting in their statements to the press, we're not talking about flirting, and the testimonies illustrated what's really going on. Here are two examples.

Ami Lynch testified about a Metro bus driver who harassed her. After small talk about how tall she was, he launched into inappropriate territory by saying, "Hey baby, it doesn't matter that I'm not tall, because when we're lying down it's all the same anyway," and as he laughed he gestured from his crotch to her crotch. She said she was stunned, stepped off the bus, crossed the street, and began to cry. After she reported it, the Customer Relations Manager told her how the bus driver would never have said that and didn't have time to talk to customers on his route. The case was closed.

She said she no longer takes that bus and it has cost her nearly $1,000 in cab fares to commute to her weekly appointment for which she previously used the 10B bus.

Pascale Leone shared how the following happened to her when she left a Metro station: "In a flash, the young male in the white T-shirt came onto me saying derogatory things about my body and proceeded to—in what felt like the longest seconds of my life—fondle my chest and buttocks unremittingly and then walked away as if nothing had happened. My shock wore off and anger quickly set in. I was pissed. I turned around with clenched fists and caught my assailants vacant eyes as he muttered, "You f---ing b-tch" and calmly turned around and continued to walk away."

When she reported him to a nearby Metro employee, he said, "Oh him. He just grabbed that girl's butt" pointing at a woman going up the escalators. Then he laughed. She said the next day she read in the DCist and the Examiner that minutes before her assault, he had punched a woman in the back of her head and after he groped her, he grabbed a woman on K Street and tried to rape her until a group of passerby's heard her scream and held the suspect until the police arrived..

Metro says they are doing a good job addressing sexual crimes since there were only 84 reported "sexual offenses" last year. We disagree. We know that sexual crimes are vastly under-reported to begin with and then, when people do try to report it, how many of them are like Ami and Pascale? Instead of having their incident handled and recorded, they're met with laughter or disbelief and their incident is left off the record.

Additionally, after our testimonies, we were told by someone in from the transit police office, that unless verbal harassment is directly threatening, it is not recorded at all and is a matter of free speech. So none of the verbal sexual harassment that we know is so prevalent is tracked.

It's funny how unwanted sexual comments constitute sexual harassment in the workplace and schools, but, according to the police officer, they are free speech on the Metro system.

Clearly, our work is just beginning. We plan to bring a larger group to testify at the WMATA budget hearing in April and we likely will launch a petition or advocacy campaign in March, so stay tuned.

Jim Graham also argued against enforcing this law, even though, as Mike DeBonis noted, he represents the (residentially) densest ward in DC. He introduced an amendment that would have restricted fines to only apply on streets which have already been plowed. One of the bill's supporters called the amendment a "poison pill." That sends the ironic message that if drivers can't get through a street, it's not important that pedestrians be able to either.

Kwame Brown, who did support the bill but also supported Graham's amendment, made the amusing comment that Mayor Gray has done a good job with snow clearance this year. We've had only 1.7" of snow this year, compared to an annual average average through January of 8.4" and the lowest in 124 years.

Graham insisted that he wants to do something about shoveling; he just wants to use incentives rather than fines. But he's never given a practical incentive-based proposal.

Many councilmembers opining on this issue would have more credibility if they actually walked to transit to get to work in a snow, or for that matter any other time.

During the years he chaired the council's transportation committee and sat on the WMATA Board, Graham came under periodic criticism for very rarely riding transit. He stuck up for low bus fares, but never addressed the problem of unsafe sidewalks after storm. Graham even bragged during today's debate about not moving bills like this one during his tenure as chairman.

Large numbers of DC residents have to get to work or school on foot and on transit after snowstorms, and unshoveled areas create serious safety hazards. Sidewalks are often completely impassable for people with disabilities or even just temporary injuries.

DC already has a law that residents and businesses have to clear their sidewalks, but it's not enforceable. The government has clear the sidewalk and then sue individual violators to collect up to $25. This bill simply makes the penalty for violating this law a straightforward ticket and fine, just like in most cities including Arlington, Alexandria and Montgomery County.

Cheh made many changes to the bill during the last few months to cut the fines even further from the original proposal, put in exemptions for poor and elderly residents, and more. Property owners get a warning before having to pay any fine until the end of 2013.

It's not clear if this law does enough to push the egregious violators, like the large parking lot in Mount Vernon Triangle, to actually take any action, but a majority of councilmembers have made clear that they don't really care to do anything about those problems.

The bill wouldn't have even taken effect until next winter. Now, we're likely to have to wait until yet another winter. If we get a real snow this year, will the councilmembers who voted to table this bill today try walking their neighborhoods and getting to work on foot or by transit? If they did, they'd very likely look at this issue very differently.

Additionally, only 5 of the 13 Councilmembers raised more than $40,000 for their Constituent Service Funds last year, and 4 of them raised between $40,000 and $50,000. Only Jack Evans, who raised $85,000, would be really effected by the new limit.

The draft ethics bill further limits the use of Constituent Service Funds by defining more narrowly what they can be spent on. The loopholes, however, are obvious for all to see. They can't be spent on season tickets to sports events, but they can be spent on individual game tickets. They can't be spent to promote a Councilmember, but they can be spent on community events sponsored by the Councilmember.

In 2010 only three sitting Council members spent 25% or more of their CSF's on constituent needs (Vince Gray spent 28% on constituent needs before being elected mayor). Conversely, 6 Council members spent more than 60% of their funds on the "other" category. If these numbers were reversed, there still wouldn't be enough CSF money going to needy District residents.

At the end of the day, the amount spent by Councilmembers meeting the daily needs of constituents through these funds ($48,271) is a tiny drop in the bucket relative to the needs of a city in which 30% of children live in poverty. Instead of giving needy constituents crumbs from their table of wealthy donors, Councilmembers should address the root causes of poverty and unemployment that create these needs in the first place.

Unfortunately, the powers of the board are limited and politicized, the other provisions of the bill have obvious loopholes, and several important reforms are not fully addressed.

The bill takes positive steps to strengthen regulation of inaugural and transition committees. It requires that these committees report their finances in the same way that principal campaign committees do, and it sets limits on the amount that individuals can contribute. The bill also has fairly strong financial disclosure provisions that would make potential conflicts of interest easier to identify.

Unfortunately, the bill's efforts related to lobbying reform and constituent service funds are weak and riddled with loopholes.

The bill prohibits lobbyists, or those working on their behalf, from offering legal or professional services to public officials or staff at reduced or no cost. There are two serious problems with this provision.

First, it does not prohibit public officials from receiving legal or professional services at little or no cost from someone who is not a registered lobbyist. Public officials should be required to pay market value for any services that they receive.

Second, it allows registered lobbyists to provide legal and professional services to public officials, provided they are adequately compensated. Any circumstance involving a public official hiring and compensating a registered lobbyist to advise them on issues in any way related to council business is a clear conflict of interest and should be prohibited.

Additionally, the bill does nothing to stop lobbyists or businesses from donating to political campaigns, transition and inauguration committees, or constituent service funds.

The bill's attempts to reform constituent service funds are reactionary, weak, and full of loopholes. While prohibiting CSF money from being used to purchase "year-long or season admissions to theatrical, sporting, or cultural events," the bill doesn't prohibit CSF's from buying tickets in any other format.

Of more concern, the financial disclosure requirements do not appear to meet the standards set in other sections of the bill. Unlike transition and inaugural committees, which have to report the name, address, and place of business of their donors, constituent service funds are only required to report "contributions and expenditures ... quarterly". The bill should include specific language requiring CSFs to disclose detailed information about donors.

The bill chooses not to lead on some issues that have been well publicized recently. Instead of making specific proposals on corporate bundling of campaign contributions and nepotism and cronyism in city government, the bill leaves it up to the board to decide policy on these important issues.

That board, as proposed, has problems of its own. Members of the board would be nominated by the mayor and approved by the council. This leaves little room for public input on nominees. District citizens will be relying on the city's most political figures to fill what is intended to be a non-political body. The bill should be amended to allow for some form of public input on nominees to the board.

Additionally, there is no guarantee of minority party, or independent, representation on the board. This may have been intentional and intended to keep the appearance of politics out of the process. But, in a city so dominated by the Democratic party, minority representation is necessary.

The board is given the power to fine and even censure public officials for violations. However, it does not have the power to strip council members, or other elected officials, of committee assignments or votes. Instead, all that the board can do is recommend that the council "consider suspending or removing a Council member's committee chairmanship ... membership ... or the member's vote." The council has no obligation to act on such a recommendation. Additionally, the bill does not specify procedures for censure and removal of ANC commissioners or members of the School Board.

The ethics board should be given the power to truly sanction elected officials, including ANC commissioners and School Board members, for violating ethics and disclosure rules. Real accountability will not be possible as long as this power remains in the hands of political bodies.

The proposal as drafted is not a complete failure, but it will require significant changes to become an ethics bill that the District deserves.

The Government Operations committee will be holding a roundtable on November 30 to discuss the bill. You can register to testify at the roundtable by signing up online, or contacting Judah Gluckman, the committee's legislative counsel, at 202-724-8025 or jgluckman@dccouncil.us. You can also submit a written statement to the Committee on Government Operations, Council of the District of Columbia, Suite 113 of the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004 no later than November 30, 2011.

On her website, which has not been updated to reflect her current committee chairmanship, She highlights her work on Pepco oversight, healthcare, and foreclosure reform.

If fundraising is any indicator, Bowser will have a distinct advantage. She raised over $63,000 in advance of the October 10 filing deadline and has $140,000 on hand. She will face two challengers who have shown fundraising prowess, or the willingness to fund themselves, and several more who have run for the DC Council in the past.

Max Skolnik, a relative newcomer to Ward 4, has been active in local issues for some time. He represented the Southwest Waterfront as an ANC commissioner from 2004-2008 and runs Kid Power Inc., which operates academic, nutritional, and service learning programs around the city. His campaign is based on three E's: Education, Economic Development, and Ethics.

Skolnik is a first-time council candidate, but has shown some fundraising and organizing skill. He raised over $26,000 before October 10, recently testified in front of Bowser's committee hearing on ethics reform, and has hit the streets of Ward 4 to spread his message. The question is, will he have the energy and talent to present a robust challenge to the incumbent?

Renee Bowser (no relation to Muriel) first ran for the Ward 4 seat as a member of the Statehood Green Party in the 2007 special election. She registered as a Democrat this time around and has jump started her campaign by taking out significant loans, totaling more than $26,000.

Bowser has a long resume. She works as a union lawyer and served 3 terms as an ANC commissioner including a stint as the chair of ANC 4D. Her platform is based around economic development, education, constituent service, and statehood. She has proved willing to commit financially and gotten some press. Her challenge will be translating these efforts to support at the polls.

Another two-time candidate, Baruti Jahi, came in a distant second to Bowser in 2008. He is focused on seniors, public safety, education, economic development, and reigning in waste in city government. Jahi has struggled to raise money this cycle and may find it difficult to make his voice heard in a crowded race.

Several other candidates have declared their intentions to run. Judi Jones ran against Bowser as an independent in 2007, Keith Jarrell is just getting his campaign started, and perpetual candidate Calvin Gurley appears to be taking a non-traditional route to spread his message.

The major storylines in this race are beginning to emerge, as Muriel Bowser attempts to tackle the task of ethics reform, which has been the hot button issue this year. Her post as chair of the Government Operations Committee gives her the opportunity to make sense of the mess of bills introduced by other council members and propose comprehensive ethics legislation.

If she is able to pass an ethics reform bill, Bowser will blunt a major line of criticism as well as tout a signature piece of legislation. Her opponents have begun to position themselves as good government reformers, but will have to find another angle if Bowser herself becomes one before the election.

Bowser's opponents haven't focused all of their efforts on ethics. Other major issues at play appear to be education, economic development, and constituent service. But, Bowser is a proven politician with all the advantages of incumbency. If one of her opponents hopes to stand out they are going to have to work tirelessly, communicate effectively, and, probably, get lucky.

What riders want is shorter names. Assistant General Manager for Communications Barbara Richardson said, "Our customers want one name. They want one, common name. They want these to be short."

Few people refer to "West Falls Church Vee Tea You Vee Eh" or "Van Ness You Dee See." Instead, they say they're going to West Falls Church or Van Ness. With a few exceptions like "Franconia-Springfield" and "Stadium-Armory," which really are truly compound names, other station names have a main portion, like "U Street" or "Grosvenor," and then sometimes additional points of interest.

Metro staff got that from their focus groups, and our surveys backed it up. People told Metro that long station names was their biggest complaint about the map. It's annoying and confusing for riders.

Richardson presented the staff recommendations after playing an amusing song, "The Metro Song." It parodies Johnny Cash's "I've been everywhere" to name 46 of the stations in the Metro system:

The staff suggest:

• Navy Yard Ballpark
  
• New York Ave Florida Ave-Gallaudet U
  
• Smithsonian (no National Mall)
  
• Waterfront (no Arena Stage)
  
• Forest Glen (no Holy Cross Hospital, but with an H logo denoting a hospital)
  
• King Street Old Town

Montgomery County alternate member Kathy Porter defended the county's request to add Holy Cross Hospital, or at least "Holy Cross" along with an H symbol, to Forest Glen.

Porter lamented that the county hadn't pushed for the change earlier, since it would have qualified under the previous policy, and suggested the board let Montgomery "grandfather" in the name. However, Fairfax's Jeff McKay pointed out that the reason they're changing the policy is because there have been problems with overly long station names in the past.

Porter noted that the hospital runs a shuttle to the station and there is Ride On service to the station. But in WMATA's focus groups, many members expressed a feeling that anything attached to a station name ought to be within a short walk, not a bus or car ride away.

DC Councilmember Muriel Bowser also wanted to grandfather a non-subtitle, Georgia Ave-Petworth. On this one, there's some good argument either way. I've heard many people call this "Georgia Ave Petworth" or "Georgia Petworth." Several commenters recommended actually making it Petworth, since Georgia Avenue is very long and Forest Glen, Wheaton, and Glenmont are also on Georgia Avenue.

Or, perhaps it could follow the pattern WMATA recommends for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and make the station Georgia Ave Petworth?

Bowser also took the position held by Gallaudet management and students for keeping that university in the primary name instead of a subtitle, endorsing NoMa-Gallaudet U New York Avenue. She pointed out that no other DC university is slated to become part of a subtitle. We've advocated instead for actually putting all universities and other points of interest in subtitles, and 83% of you agreed.

There seemed to be some interest on the board for this option. Mary Hynes of Arlington noted that they have many universities around their Metro stations, and that perhaps it's not feasible to expect to put all universities in primary names or even station names in general. McKay recommended holding off on any change concerning Gallaudet until this broader question is resolved.

Artis Hampshire-Cowen, though, seemed to be wearing her hat as an executive for Howard University rather than necessarily representing riders of Prince George's County. She argued against moving universities into subtitles, using Howard as a specific example.

Bowser also asked for the ballpark to be part of a main station name, Navy Yard-Ballpark, instead of the staff-recommended Navy Yard Ballpark.

The curly W seems completely dead, though that may be a very recent change. Last week, I'd heard that the Nationals only wanted to pay if the station could be named Navy Yard-, not just for "Ballpark." Today, however, DDOT told WMATA that DC would pay for any change, and Bowser told the board that DC expects the Nationals would cover those costs.

Under WMATA's policy, the jurisdiction has to pay for the station name itself. Another entity can reimburse the jurisdiction, but it has to guarantee the funding to WMATA. WMATA won't enter into a side agreement with a separate organization to collect the funds directly.

McKay asked what would happen if the ballpark gets a corporate name at some point. Would they want to, and would Metro feel any pressure to, rename the station? Members agreed that the staff should further flesh out the no corporate naming policy.

Alexandria mayor Bill Euille pushed for King Street-Old Town, their original request, instead of King Street Old Town, the staff recommendation (and one you overwhelmingly supported).

Marcel Acosta stood up for holding to the policy that the board had just adopted. He noted that the shorter names make things easier for customers, and "we need to temper" the impulse to accommodate local organization requests.

Alvin Nichols, alternate for Prince George's, asked about a request by Mount Rainier to add their name to West Hyattsville. However, Maryland has not officially requested this change, so it's not on the table at this time.

The board adjourned their discussion until next Thursday, November 3, where they will hold a public comment session followed immediately by a full board meeting to vote on changes. It's clear that some members are not paying much heed to rider concerns, or at least the comments of those who participated in the focus groups or filled out our survey (while others very much are).

Maybe if riders come to the public comment session, it will help those members start thinking about the interests of the riders instead of the interests of their universities, hospitals and sports teams.