Posts about Vincent Orange

Over the course of the last two months, I have had the opportunity to sit down with both Biddle and Shapiro to discuss their respective campaigns. Biddle, who briefly held the at-large seat before losing in last April's special election, has simply not been able to put together a persuasive campaign.

During Biddle's last attempt, he proved unable to articulate a clear vision for DC and energize voters around his ideas. His campaign was also dragged down by endorsements from most of the DC political establishment at the same time the Sulaimon Brown and Navigator-gate scandals were breaking.

Biddle, to his credit, holds positions that are favorable to most progressives. He would be a solid vote in favor of many things we'd like to see, including stronger ethics and campaign finance rules. Unfortunately for Biddle, his campaign is mired with low fundraising numbers and internal problems. Recently, Biddle announced via email that his campaign manager—the former leader of the DC Republican Party—had departed.

He also still has not demonstrated a clear vision or solid positions, leaving potential supporters concerned he would repeat the mistakes of the last campaign. These factors, plus his tepid third place finish last April, show that he simply isn't positioned to defeat Orange.

Thankfully, Peter Shapiro provides an equally strong progressive candidacy, combined with fundraising and organizational prowess. Shapiro, who grew up in the District, served on the Prince George's County Council in Maryland before moving back to the District with his wife. Shapiro brings to this race years of experience both as a legislator, but also as an environmental activist and organizer.

Shapiro was tapped to join an ethics task force in Prince George's County, created in the wake of former county executive Jack Johnson's arrest on corruption charges. This experience gives Shapiro credentials for helping restore trust in the DC Council. Presently, Shapiro lives in Ward 4 and runs the Chesapeake Center for Public Leadership.

In a three-way race with 2 progressive candidates, Orange would very likely cruise to victory. While I don't doubt Biddle's commitment to improving the District, he has been unable to build a campaign that can win. It's time for Biddle to put the good of DC ahead of his own ambition, withdraw from the race, and support his fellow progressive.

Note: This is not an official endorsement in this race. Greater Greater Washington is an opinion site, and unless specifically designated as an endorsement, opinions posted here are the opinions of their individual authors and not necessarily of the site's editors or other contributors. We will likely post an official endorsement at a later point in the campaign.

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.

Although Orange has been in office less than a year, he has name recognition from his previous 2 terms on the Council representing Ward 5 and from city-wide elections for Council Chairman and Mayor.

Biddle has strong name recognition too, however. He won the temporary appointment to Brown's seat last year and spent 4 months on the Council. He also ran in the city-wide special election to finish the term and placed third. Voters know his name, and he is likely the most credible challenger to Orange.

Peter Shapiro served on the Prince George's county council for 6 years, but has not run for elected office in DC. E. Gail Anderson Holness is currently an ANC-1B commissioner, representing ANC-1B11 near Howard University.

Edward Wolterbeek has run in several previous elections without much success, including as a Republican for Ward 5 Representative to the DC State Board of Education, Ward 5 Councilmember, Delegate to the US House of Representatives, and ANC-5A12 commissioner.

Last spring, Orange won 4 of the city's 8 wards, with the other 4 split between Bryan Weaver, Sekou Biddle, and Patrick Mara. If the race continues with 5 candidates, Orange could again benefit from a split vote.

However, today is the final day for candidates to file petitions and only Biddle, Orange, and Holness have done so. Shapiro is the only other candidate with a website, so he likely has a more organized campaign than Wolterbeek, who is a perennial candidate.

If none of the other candidates file by today's deadline, Biddle and Holness would be the only challengers. There is a chance that Biddle and Holness could split votes, but it's unclear how Holness could challenge Orange.

Biddle and Orange know each other from last year's election, which became heated at times. In his campaign announcement in November, Biddle attacked Orange for accepting out-of-state campaign donations and for trying to increase Council salaries.

If either Biddle or Holness can tie Orange to bad leadership, the anti-incumbent vote could propel them to victory. If Shapiro and Wolterbeek file in time, the field of challengers will double.

Part of the reason Orange won last April was that Weaver, Biddle, and Mara split the progressive vote, which may not happen this year. But Orange's competitors may split another constituency this year, the anti-incumbent vote.

Biddle has been strong on education, while Shapiro gained a reputation for economic development in Prince George's, although ethics is sure to play a major role. Once the filing deadline passes, we'll explore where the remaining candidates stand on the issues.

page/2

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?

The letter's first request is for UDC to add additional parking. During the campus plan process, the Zoning Commission and DDOT already decided that more parking was not necessary. And even the ANC voted to approve the plan without asking for more parking. The letter reads:

Traffic and parking are already a problem, and no new parking is envisioned in the University's campus plan. Notwithstanding the fact that the Zoning Commission and the District Department of Transportation concluded that additional parking is not required, the residents request that the University consider providing more parking in the ratios suggested by the Zoning Regulations, which is I space for every 5 beds. This additional parking would serve not only students but also those visiting the campus.

As Lydia DePillis explained, UDC is serious about getting students not to bring cars. They will use market pricing on their parking lots, push Zipcar and transit, and more.

The councilmembers seem oblivious to this in their letter, however. I spoke to Cheh, who pointed out that UDC will continue to have large numbers of commuters, some of whom will drive. Surely some will, but surrounding residential streets are already restricted by Residential Permit Parking (RPP), so it shouldn't harm neighbors. The councilmembers seem to have bought into the residents' assumption that, a priori, more people requires more parking.

There are many policy tools to manage transportation demand that encourage more use of walking, biking, transit, and carpooling. Meanwhile, building parking is expensive, and it will surely induce more car trips. It's disappointing that the members chose to ask UDC to spend scarce public dollars on parking rather than any other, better measures.

Or, perhaps many of them simply didn't think very hard about it. Some of the at-large councilmembers, in particular, seem willing to sign on to virtually any letter by angry neighbors asking for restrictions on a local institution. Given the many benefits universities bring to DC, they should apply more of the careful scrutiny they bring to legislation to cases like this as well.

Some of the provisions of the letter make sense. Asking UDC to work with the community on construction impacts is a good idea. Also, the letter refers to a door from the new student center to the Metro which will let nearby residents pass through to get to and from trains.

The councilmembers ask UDC to consider both reducing the size of the dormitory and also signing no new leases for off-campus student housing. This is contradictory, unless the real goal is to keep the numbers of students low. UDC could build more dorms, or have more off-campus housing, but if it adds a certain number of residential students, it has to be one or the other.

Cheh said she strongly supports making DC universities more like many others around the country where most or all students live on campus. I went to such a school, and the residential experience was indeed a valuable part of college, though many who go to schools with more off-campus housing praise elements of that experience as well.

If DC's public policy is to promote on-campus living, however, we need to realistically provide a path for these campuses to increase on-campus living options. Residents near campuses, and their councilmembers, seem to simultaneously want no students living near campus, no buses traveling to and from campus, no new large buildings, and no expansion of the bounds of the campus.

That is just a recipe for stagnation in a city whose educational options are already more limited than in most other large northeast cities. It'll also just push educational institutions to build sprawling suburban campuses that take intellectual and cultural capital away from the walkable core of the region and induce far more driving.

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."