Posts about Democracy
Government
Put the democratic back in DC's Democratic Party
Top DC Democrats have taken drastic measures to prevent voters from disrupting their control of the party. Ironically, as a result, they have sown the seeds for a successful voter revolt to open up the party and turn it into a powerful agent for change.
The party leadership was so worried about facing voters next April, they canceled the election in which 340,000 voters get to choose who will lead the party. We should elect new leadership for that reason alone.
In the local primary of every presidential election year for decades, DC's registered Democratic voters have elected who represents them on the Democratic State Committee. Of the committee's 82 members, 48 are 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 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 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
Politics
CPCA election delay brings "Unity." Will it also bring unity to Cleveland Park?
The "Unity Team," a group of candidates for Cleveland Park Citizens' Association offices nominated by the previous leaders, has won election over the "Reform Slate" of challengers.
Numerous residents including Jeff Davis, organizer of the group Advocates for Wisconsin Avenue Renewal (AWARE), criticized the previous CPCA leadership for a lack of transparency. For example, CPCA did not communicate with members via email or run a listserv; when Gabe Fineman, one of the challengers, started one, CPCA leaders tried to get it shut down. Without email communication, most CPCA members never knew the topics of meetings, leading to very sparsely attended votes such as the one to oppose the Giant PUD, attended by only 32 members.
Davis decided to run for President of CPCA, and recruited a slate of candidates who advocate for greater openness and transparency. In May, faced with an influx of new members, especically many from AWARE, CPCA President George Idelson and his executive board postponed its election to "bring the neighborhood together." They subsequently selected September 29th for the rescheduled election, and Davis's slate ran again under the Reform Slate moniker.
At the beginning of September, John Chelen announced his candidacy for President as head of a new "Unity Team." Chelen said his group of candidates represents "different philosophies and life experiences, different points of view ... to reflect the diversity of the neighborhood." Chelen echoed many of the themes from Davis's Reform Slate, including encouraging greater participation in CPCA and use of electronic media.
Chelen's Unity Team played down any affiliation with Idelson and the "old guard," but evidence slipped out to the contrary. For example, in mid-September CPCA sent two pieces of mail to all members, one from the Reform Slate and one from the Unity Team. A few days after Reform delivered their envelopes and labels, Reform candidate Fineman asked outgoing CPCA Corresponding Secretary Jean Van der Tak about the status. According to Fineman, Van der Tak said, "1,000 pieces went out Reform supporters also alleged that Unity candidates were using the CPCA membership rolls to campaign. Earlier in the year, Fineman asked for a copy of the membership roster, arguing that DC law requires them to provide it. CPCA leaders evenutally let him peruse a printed copy under supervision, but without the ability to take any notes. However, several sources on the Reform side claim that Unity candidates went door to door to make their case to CPCA members and get out the vote, apparently using the membership lists. The Unity team also simply played the politics better. Chelen maintained an inclusive, open-minded tone throughout the campaign. Some Reform candidates, on the other hand, often wrote frustrated messages during arguments on the Cleveland Park list. They might have been right or had legitimate gripes, but an angry tone can turn off voters, even those already leaning the candidate's way.
Chelen defended his group's lack of a clear position on major issues, writing, Chelen could start by plugging the loopholes in the bylaws that allowed the Executive Board to postpone an election. Doing it once was unconscionable; to allow the possibility of a repeat performance amounts to a tacit endorsement of the practice. He should also establish a policy giving all candidates equal access to membership lists, whether those candidates have the support of existing officers or not. Either everyone should have the list, or nobody should. Likewise, the Federation of Citizens' Associations, of which CPCA is part, should develop a policy against such practices.
Citizens' associations have been in decline for years, and this experience bolsters the case for their obsolescence. That's too bad, since it's valuable to have strong resident and neighborhood voices in policy debates. However, citizens' associations often claim to speak for all residents, and antics like CPCA's election postponement make it clear that they don't. There was another debate on the Tenleytown listserv about the Tenleytown Neighbors Association, another Federation member, which has no Web presence and no evident way for residents to join.
The Federation ought to be concerned about the brand image of its member organizations. If it could ensure a basic level of democratic representation, openness about membership, communication to members, and access to information for electioneering, that could maintain some legitimacy. In the meantime, the DC government and ANCs should treat citizens' associations as no different than any other non-representative association of a handful of residents. They shouldn't get seats on ANC committees, as some do, or an automatic role in any advisory groups like the Zoning Update Task Force.
As the most publicly-derided "banana republic" citizens' association, CPCA can lead the way toward a truly inclusive model for an association, or set a clear tone in furtherance of the status quo where a few entrenched activists manipulate the puppet strings to generate the desried outcomes. I wish Chelen well in his efforts to bring about the change he promised in the campaign.I don't think it's a platitude to say we'll discuss both sides of the issue. We've treated all postings with respect, even those that have been downright nasty. We're ready to discuss the complex economic and cultural effects of any proposal, and openly lay out the pros and cons of the alternatives reflecting many points of view. ... I asked people to come forward who were interested and had something substantive to offer; I didn't simply ask people what their opinion was on Giant. Yes, we have one person who has been involved in the Giant debate, and we also have six people who were never involved at all. Our team provides a system of checks and balances.
Last night, all Unity Team candidates won. In the closest race, for President, Chelen bested Davis by 45 votes out of 472 cast. Chelen will now have the opportunity to prove that he was sincere in his desire to "bring the neighborhood together" not by ensuring that everyone agrees with the positions that neighborhood leaders have taken in the past, but that CPCA becomes a truly inclusive forum for discussion. Whether he was recruited by the old guard or received their assistance, he is new to CPCA, and can chart an independent course.
Development
CPCA board postpones election amid campaign for change
Despite some predictions to the contrary at various points in our history, no US President has ever tried to cancel or postpone an election to avoid losing office. Mayor Rudy Giuliani briefly floated the idea after 9/11, just as his term was about to expire, but backed down during the ensuing criticism. But the Cleveland Park Citizens Association just invoked their emergency powers to delay their annual election until this fall. On its face, it looks like they took this step because many residents of that neighborhood, upset with CPCA's recent direction, joined the group and were planning to elect new leadership.
Any resident of Cleveland Park is entitled to join CPCA by paying $15 in dues. Anyone who joined by May 5th would have been eligible to vote in the election previously scheduled for June 6th. Neighborhood leaders dismayed by the CPCA's current direction, particularly its vociferous opposition to the Giant project on Wisconsin Avenue, were organizing to change CPCA. Their efforts yielded about 75 new CPCA members in recent months, very likely enough to swing the election.
According to Jeff Davis, the head of the pro-Giant project group Advocates for Wisconsin Avenue Renewal (AWARE), Zoning Commission Chairman Anthony Hood "questioned whether the CPCA truly represents either Cleveland Park or the CPCA membership itself since such a small number of CPCA members (32 of 425) voted for their resolution against the Application." AWARE members met with CPCA leaders to urge changes to the bylaws that would enable more residents of Cleveland Park to find out about and participate in CPCA meetings and votes.
Davis and the other AWARE leaders also asked CPCA to nominate supporters of the Giant project to half of the positions, both on the Executive Committee and committee chairs. That would have given them an "equal voice" in the organization without excluding the existing CPCA leaders, who have contributed substantial time and effort to the neighborhood. According to current CPCA President George Idelson, AWARE "said such a 'joint' slate would avoid an acknowledged, organized campaign to take over the entire leadership of CPCA at our annual meeting."
In an email to the Cleveland Park neighborhood list this morning, Idelson wrote,
The Cleveland Park Citizens Association welcomes the many new members who have joined in recent weeks. This is a president's dream come true and we look forward to their active participation. ...Idelson seems to fundamentally misunderstand democracy. Democracy means that people can choose the leaders of an organization. That choice isn't limited to people who come to the organization completely unprompted. Rhetoric, whether true or false, does not invalidate that right. Elections don't always involve people quietly and calmly reaching a consensus.[However,] this campaign [to register voters for the CPCA election] has been fueled by false charges that the Association opposes all change and development. It has distorted our position on the Giant development ... That the campaign was orchestrated was demonstrated by some 60 bundled applications received by certified mail just before the specified cut-off date, by anonymous leaflets, and by private emails urging residents to join CPCA to "stage a coup."
The campaign urged people to join by a certain date, to be eligible to vote for this competing, unnamed slate. Demonizing an association and encouraging a chaotic election is hardly normal. This is Cleveland Park, not some third world country. We are deeply dismayed over the divisiveness this campaign has caused in our community. Development issues can be contentious, but they ought not be used to tear the community apart.
We need some time for cooling off. Time to reflect on the issues. For these reasons, CPCA's Executive Committee has executed the emergency powers granted in our bylaws to postpone the election of officers until the Fall. This is clearly an emergency. In the interim, we will seek ways to mend this tear in our neighborhood fabric.
Our nation's elections were contentious at least since Thomas Jefferson and John Adams ran against each other in 1796, and probably before that back to the first Congress, not to mention state legislatures and town meetings back to the founding of the Virginia and Massachusetts colonies. When the Democratic-Republicans disagreed with the Federalists about the nation's direction, the Federalists didn't say that Jefferson's "wild claims" were going to "tear the nation apart." Or maybe some did, but elections went ahead just the same, and in 1800, Jefferson beat Adams.
"Demonizing an association" for an election is very normal; almost every federal election involves at least one candidate railing against "Washington." Postponing an election is far more evocative of a "third world country" than running a voter registration drive to democratically change policy.
There's nothing wrong with a group of people organizing to get residents involved in decisions. Nor is it unusual for a contentious issue to spur many people to get involved in politics. As long as most residents agreed with most actions of CPCA, there was little reason to take the time to get involved. Idelson seems to feel that the sudden wave of voter registrations reflects a small group that doesn't represent what he sees as the longtime consensus of the neighborhood. Instead, it's he who is out of touch with a community dismayed by the priorities of its leaders.
The citizens' associations frequently come under fire for their undemocratic tendencies. While they claim to represent the community, closed boards make many decisions, including filling vacancies without elections. The Dupont Circle Citizens' Association only allowed people who were members before January 2009 to vote in their recent election. Robin Diener may not have won election as President had newer members been able to vote. But in DCCA's case, the Board nominated a mixture of newer and more long-time residents with diverse voices, all of whom won except for the office of President.
It's too bad that CPCA first took a position without pushing for broad involvement by its members, then spurned the suggestions from the large group of residents upset with its processes, and finally postponed the election. CPCA has taken membership dues from the new members but denied them their voice. This gives enormous ammunition to critics of community organizations. That's too bad, because community groups fill an important role in our local civic fabric. When a few members disenfranchise their neighbors because they don't like the rest of the community's opinions, they instead become a harmful knot in that fabric.
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- Bethesda gets new but terrible bike racks
- DC's parks are 5th best in the nation, says "Park Score"
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's divide need not be black and white
Greater Washington
District of Columbia






