Posts about Student Representation

This "soft bigotry of low expectations" often deters so many of my peers to become involved in civic affairs. The reality is that not only is a more aware college student population better for students, it is also in the best interest of the District.

There are almost 85,000 college students in the District of Columbia, who make up a substantial portion of the overall population. The District does itself a disservice by not engaging this large chunk of the populace. Having college students being more civically aware means more college students volunteering for non-profits, and pushing for reforms necessary to the District's vitality.

A major element of increasing the level of civic engagement is having college students run for local office. It demonstrates that students have a stake in local affairs, and are an actual political constituency. Washingtonians have to move beyond debates about who is a "native," and recognize that regardless of whether one is here for 4 years, or has been here for 40 years, everyone should be welcome in civic life.

Thankfully, after years of hard work, the interests of college students are gaining more recognition. For instance, when Councilmember Jack Evans (ward 2) came to campus at Georgetown recently, he told a meeting of DC Students Speak that college students completely have the right to live off campus, and that they should be encouraged to run for office. This is definitely a change in tone in Evans' rhetoric from only a few years ago.

3 students are running at George Washington University: Peter Sacco, Jackson Carnes, and Patrick Kennedy. Sacco and Carnes are running uncontested, with Carnes on the ballot in 2A07 and Sacco as a write-in for 2A08, while the race between Kennedy and long-term incumbent David Lehrman has turned out to be a very competitive race in a district, 2A01, that contains many students and non-students.

Peter Prindiville is running unopposed for a seat in Georgetown's 2E08, and Craig Cassey is running as a write-in with no opposition in 2E04, where there are no candidates on the ballot.

At American, two students are running in the area. Joe Wisniewski is running against Silvio Lucero in a competitive election in 3D10, while Rory Slatko is running unopposed as a write-in in 3D07.

Nicole Goines, who is also an American University student, is running for ANC in Brentwood's ANC 5C05. Connell Wise, a student at Marymount University, is running in 6E07, in the Mount Vernon Triangle.

Having so many students run for office represents major progress, but there is still much work yet to be done. What is at stake is more than just 9 college students running for local office, but how to get all groups of residents to participate in the civic life of this great city.

There's some undeniable truth to this reasoning, but it's myopic. The editorial throws a bone to the admirable DC Students Speak effort, but kicks the legs out of that campaign by stating "it's evident that poor student turnout in DC has been problematic." In other words, because students don't vote here, why bother voting here?

Here are some other numbers: Georgetown University has over 7,000 undergrads. GWU has over 10,000. In 2008, Jack Evans beat Cary Silverman for the Democratic nomination to represent Ward 2 on the DC Council, 3,100 votes to 1,700. This year he ran unopposed and only drew 2,900 votes.

If 30% of college students living in Ward 2 would vote for an alternative candidate they would swamp Evans. Or, if they supported Evans, he would have to count them as one of his most important constituencies.

The Hoya's pages are often filled with angst over the way students are treated by the District government. Don't they see the connection?

The editorial's view reflects an unfortunate yet common attitude among DC residents who work in or cover national politics (or, as the case may be, aspire to do so): namely, that local politics is bush league, that it's something to be concerned about only when there's a scandal, and that the epic battle between the national parties to control Congress and the White House is all that matters. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Local politics do matter. As David Alpert wrote recently: "If you live in the District, you should vote here. It's the right thing to do. It gives you a stronger voice in local affairs." For students in particular, these local affairs can dramatically affect their daily lives.

Don't like MPD's new noise policy? Want better public transportation to your internship? Don't want the Zoning Commission to force your school to house you on campus? The people making all these decisions answer to local politicians, the same politicians that students could throw out of office if students organized and voted in DC.

Yes, registering to vote in DC carries with it the added price of removing your (tiny) voice from Congress. And that sucks. But removing your relatively larger voice from the local conversation based upon the statistically improbable chance that your vote might be decisive back home is just delusional.

Redistricting in ANC 3D, which covers neighborhoods from the Potomac River to Massachusetts Avenue, has been the subject of fierce debate over the past weeks. ANC 3D chair 3D02 commissioner Tom Smith and Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force Chair Jeffrey Kraskin were the principal architects of this proposal, dubbed Proposal #3. Meanwhile, 3D01 and 3D03 Commissioners Kent Slowinski and Nan Wells created two opposing proposals, Alternatives C and D.

Proposal #3, in its current state, would dramatically alter the current boundaries and violate many provisions in the DC redistricting codes and procedures. By further limiting student voice and participation in local DC politics, this plan continues the ongoing trend of illegally marginalizing and minimizing the representation and presence of college students across the District, especially at Georgetown University and American University.

This proposal lumps the American University campus population into essentially one 2,151 person district, the largest of the 9 SMDs in ANC 3D.

In doing so, students are completely removed from 3D02 (coincidentally represented by Commissioner Tom Smith), whose seat was closely contested by students in 2010. Intentionally redrawing almost the entire AU student body into one district limits student voting power and therefore collective influence to one of nine seats.

It is also specifically drawn to include projected increases in student housing, which means by the fall of 2014, ANC 3D07 would, by the current census and upon adoption of the currently proposed Campus Plan, hold, at minimum, 2,954 students. While we grant that these projected numbers are not based on Census 2010 data, this situation is important to note.

Alternatives C and D also maintain sensible neighborhood boundaries, and avoid the creatively disjointed districts delineated by their counterpart. Unlike Proposal #3, which cuts across major roads, buildings, and within communities to create politically constructed voting blocks, this proposal fairly distributes representation across appropriate areas without violating provisions that prohibit dilution of student and homeowner votes.

Several ANC members and their constituents have supported the Slowinski/Wells plans, and believe the plans are in the best interests of all residents. Alternative C adds a 10th SMD and incorporates some land currently part of ANC 3E, which has been the subject of contention. That being said, Alternative C stands not only as a sensible and pragmatic solution for 3D, but it also allows 3E redistricting numbers to be in compliance.

If the theoretical new district covering the Department of Homeland Security and a number of apartment buildings are not brought into 3D, the 3E maps will have to be re-configured. It further enhances the commonality of the neighborhood along MacArthur Blvd, greater Wesley Heights, and the Spring Valley/AU area.

Regardless, many have noted that the process over the past weeks has been less than transparent, open, and democratic. As the Smith/Kraskin plan (Proposal #3) has drawn opposition from the Slowinski/Wells proposals, many have alleged that the process is rife with conflicts of interest and political motivations. Ward 3D chair Tom Smith refused to allow the consideration of the process and of the various proposals at public ANC meetings. Circulation and discussion of proposed maps was very limited.

The first subgroup redistricting 3D group vote on Sunday night passed Proposal #3 over Alternative D by a 4-3 margin. The second vote was on Stu Ross' motion to accept the Smith/Kraskin #3 map with an amendment, with a potential for "tweaks." In a measure of protest, Commissioner Slowinski abstained from the vote, the final tally being 4-2-1. The last vote was 5-0 to object to a 10-member ANC, with Bill Slover (Palisades) and Kent Slowinski abstaining.

It is also important to note that only members of the Redistricting Task force are able to vote officially on any of the proposed plans. DC Council appointed members of the Task Force, and representatives such as Commissioner Wells and Jones, were unable to vote on these proposals. No AU students are members of the task force.

We see further problems with the current proposal as it stands. American University has a design capacity for just over 3500 students and is projecting to house approximately 4300 students by fall 2014. However, under Under §1-1332 of the DC Code:

(e) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall result in district populations with a deviation range greater than 10% or a relative deviation greater than plus-or-minus 5%, unless the deviation results from the limitations of census geography or from the promotion of a rational public policy, including, but not limited to, respect for the political geography of the District, the natural geography of the District, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contiguous districts.

Current Census numbers show that the Proposal #3 population total falls outside the 1900-2100 limits set by the Task Force committee. Alternatives C and D are in compliance.

While the numbers in the Smith/Kraskin plan already exceed the given population boundaries, projected growth under the new campus plan would clearly continue to violate this provision. While other Wards have constructed their SMD's to anticipate projected growth in the area, the new lines under Proposal #3 clearly ignore projected changed for the purpose of consolidating AU voting influence into merely one seat. Such an action further disenfranchises the student vote, as section §1-1332 of the DC Code stipulates that:

(f) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall be considered if the plan or amendment has the purpose and effect of diluting the voting strength of minority citizens.

The definition of "minority citizens" is not specifically defined, yet it is fair to say that students constitute a minority in DC, and that the proposed plan deliberately attempts to confine their influence to one vote. It ensures that any student vote in the current 3D02 district will be removed, meaning that Commissioner Smith will be able to continue opposing students on many issues without fear of being voted out of office.

While it is mathematically impossible to cram the entire AU population into one district, Proposal #3 attempts to do so by consolidating every dorm on campus (except for Letts Hall) into one ANC seat.

The map at right shows what is referred to on campus as "Letts-Anderson Quad". Letts, Anderson, and Centennial Halls, while all classified as separate dormitories, are actually one large connected complex (total estimated population: 1802 students).

There are no legal roads cutting through LA Quad and once a person enters the residential complex, he or she can go to any part of the three dorms without ever going outdoors. This arbitrary division disregards the mandate of redistricting task forces to maintain neighborhood continuity.

The disruption of neighborhood continuity does not end with the dissection and reforming of AU's campus. 3D01, 02, 03, and 07 (all the districts comprising or bordering AU) will face significant changes. If Commissioner Smith's plan passes, the Spring Valley and Wesley Heights neighborhoods will be fundamentally divided in a way that disregards natural boundaries and accepted community lines.

Proposal #3 has another major downside: it inevitably will negatively change the landscape of relationships between the AU administration, AU students, and neighboring community members. The existence of a SMD that is equally divided among students and neighboring residents increases the feasibility that students and neighbors can fairly work together.

By limiting student voting influence on the ANC to one seat, this proposal eliminates accountability on the part of other ANC members to student needs and concerns. It is important to remember that students and homeowners are more than capable of working together both inside and outside of the democratic process, should the political shenanigans be put aside.

Districts that include both students and neighbors are integral to maintaining and establishing cohesion between these citizen groups because any ANC commissioner elected in such a district should reasonably consider the needs of all constituents, allowing for a more moderate voice. This article need not be interpreted as another attempt to portray this discussion as a two-sided debate.

We understand the difficulty of this process and the opposing viewpoints in play, yet we stress the need for an equitable solution that fairly considers all residents and allows for the best solution. As students, we value and appreciate the surrounding area as a welcoming and respected community, and we encourage further collaboration and partnership among all.

Proposal #3 clearly gerrymanders and marginalizes a significant and vulnerable group in ANC 3D. The best solution is to adhere as closely as possible to the current boundaries of the ANCs in 3D. Therefore, we endorse Alternatives C and D authored by Commissioners Slowinski and Wells. This reasonable alternative begins with the only generally accepted standard, the existing boundaries from 2001-2011, and makes minor and reasonable adjustments to most fairly represent every citizen of ANC 3D.

A public hearing of the Ward 3 redistricting task force will take place tonight at 7 pm, at the Horace Mann Elementary School.

The plan won't move on to Councilmember Evans without Commissioner Birch's consent. I urge Commissioner Birch ask the ANC 2E working group to produce a new plan, which conforms to DC's redistricting code and which better addresses the needs of every resident of ANC 2E.

Since my previous article, ANC 2E held its August 29th meeting. As DC Students Speak and a number of others covered, students came out in large numbers to this meeting to voice their opposition to the current proposal.

After that, Councilmember Phil Mendelson told the Georgetown Current that the current plan is "grossly discriminatory." He said the co-chairs "can't just turn a blind eye to the principle of one man, one vote. If there's a proposal to create single-member districts of vastly different sizes, lumping students into one or two and then having non-students ... in the remaining undersized SMDs, that would be a violation of the law."

Considering these comments and those of students at ANC 2E's public meeting, I made a motion for reconsideration within our working group. All I called for was further dialogue. We had only had two meetings and considered two plans total, far fewer than the 13 plans that ANC 2A, a comparably-sized ANC, considered. The six who had originally voted against the co-chairs' plan, including ANC 2E Commissioner Charlie Eason, supported the motion.

On September 6th, one day before the reconsideration vote was set to end, ANC 2E Chair and redistricting task force co-chair Ron Lewis approached me about what specific elements about the co-chairs' plan I would like to see changed. I responded with the following map, which I believe represents a fair compromise between the co-chairs' plan and the Flanagan plan described in my earlier piece.

SMDs 02, 06 and 07 remain exactly the same in this plan as they are in the co-chairs' plan. SMD 05's outline remains very similar to its shape in the co-chairs' plan, with several blocks west of Wisconsin added to bring its population from a too-low 1,710 to a more acceptable 2,107. These blocks also fit with the commercial character of SMD 05.

The primary changes from the co-chairs' plan to this plan resolve around how it deals with Georgetown University's campus and the blocks immediately nearby. Instead of the nearly 2,600-person SMD monstrosities found in the co-chairs' plan, this compromise plan instead brings them within code, with total populations of 1,889 and 2,013.

Here are the populations in this plan and the co-chairs' plan:

The recommended SMD size, according to the DC Code, is 1,900 to 2,100.

In the co-chairs' plan, the relative deviance in SMD size is nearly 40%. In the compromise plan I am proposing, it is approximately 24%. I feel as though this is still on the high side, but it is a number I would be far more comfortable with.

I also did not present this compromise plan as a finalized plan. I do not believe it is perfect and am open to making revisions to it. For instance, I think that if the Burlieth residents were amendable to it, moving the block bounded by 34th, 35th, R, and Wisconsin from SMD01 to SMD02 would be sensible, for several reasons.

Unfortunately, discussing such ideas has been impossible. After sending Chairman Lewis my idea of a compromise, I did not hear back about it until September 9th. At this time, Commissioner Lewis sent the working group's finalized recommendations to Commissioner Birch, including this line: "To complete your file, you have previously received a proposal from working-group member John Flanagan, and an email earlier this week contained a proposal from working-group member Jake Sticka. Neither of these proposals has the support of a majority of the working group."

I was particularly disappointed by this line because at this time only Commissioner Lewis had been sent the compromise plan. A working group cannot reject a plan it has never seen.

Regardless, the co-chairs' plan is now in Commissioner Birch's hands. If you have thoughts on ways to improve my compromise plan, please leave a comment here. If you are concerned about the process and the plan that may come out of it, please contact Commissioner Tom Birch at bircht@earthlink.net.

Cross-posted at DC Students Speak.

The plan as proposed by ANC 2E chair Ron Lewis, Citizens Association of Georgetown President Jennifer Altemus, and Burleith Citizens Association President Lenore Rubino, would split ANC 2E into eight single-member districts (SMDs), and would pack all Georgetown University students living in university-owned properties (both those within the University's gates and those off-campus) into two huge SMDs.

This addition of an 8th SMD to an ANC which has historically had only 7 comes in response to a boom in Georgetown's population and the addition of 800 undergraduates to GU's campus. Most of the new GU residents live within the Southwest Quadrangle, a building that opened in 2003 and caused SMD 2E04, which I currently represent, to swell in size to become the city's third largest.

While an improvement over the current ANC 2E map, which blatantly gerrymanders the university campus into four separate SMDs, the co-chair's plan is still problematic.

Under §1-1332 of the DC Code,

(e) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall result in district populations with a deviation range greater than 10% or a relative deviation greater than plus-or-minus 5%, unless the deviation results from the limitations of census geography or from the promotion of a rational public policy, including, but not limited to, respect for the political geography of the District, the natural geography of the District, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contiguous districts.

A memo released by DC Council members Michael Brown and Jack Evans on the 2010 redistricting process goes further, telling task force participants that "each single-member district shall have a population of approximately 2,000 people, and shall be as nearly equal as possible."

The co-chair's plan clearly does not adhere to this guidance. It packs unacceptably large numbers of students into a small number of SMDs, while spreading the non-student population around into several unacceptably small SMDs.

The two packed campus districts would each have exactly 2,581 individuals in them, while SMD 2E01 would have a population of 2,409. Meanwhile, SMD 2E02 (Commissioner Lewis') would have a population of only 1,660, SMD 2E03 a population of only 1,705, SMD 2E05 a population of 1,710 and SMD 2E06 a population of 1,836. Only SMD 2E07, at 1,983 individuals, would be within the size variance advised under code.

The SMD divisions proposed appear to be a blatant attempt to restrict the political power of students, and enhance the power of non-students.

The co-chairs and their supporters have argued that the "neighborhood cohesiveness" exception within the code makes their plan admissible. Such an interruption is without precedent. According to information provided by the Office of Planning, following the 2001 redistricting process only eight SMDs were outside the 1,800-2,200 population range at that time, with the largest being SMD 6B11 at 2,362 people. For ANC 2E to have six such "exceptional districts," and two districts far larger than the largest from 2001 is extraordinary.

More to the point, the purpose of this size variance seems clear: to ensure that students continue to be under-represented on ANC 2E. This is troublesome considering that section §1-1332 on the DC Code continues:

(f) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall be considered if the plan or amendment has the purpose and effect of diluting the voting strength of minority citizens.

What exactly constitutes "minority citizens" is not made clear, but students certainly are a statistical minority in the District of Columbia, and the DC Human Rights Act includes students as a protected class. Regardless of legal status, though, it is unfortunate that the redistricting task force would move to pack students.

Students live in DC for a majority of the year, pay sales and income tax here, and are greatly affected by the actions of DC government. The fact that some students, for fairly obvious reasons, choose not to register to vote in DC is ignoratio elenchi. Voting status simply has no relevance to ANC districting. For example, DC's Central Detention Facility famously has its own SMD.

A far better option for ANC 2E redistricting was put forward by student John Flanagan. The Flanagan proposal would, like the co-chair's proposal, create two on-campus districts. Unlike the co-chair's proposal, it would create a third, mixed district that would be potentially winnable for both students and non-students. Flanagan's plan drew support from both students and non-students on the task force.

The existence of a mixed district such as that proposed by Flanagan would add motivation for students to be actively involved in local politics. It would also create incentive for whoever held the seat to balance the concerns of students and non-students alike. This would promote cooperation and encourage students to take increased responsibility for their actions in the community.

Additionally, the Flanagan proposal has the advantage of adhering to the DC Code. No district in his plan falls outside the 1,800-2,200 range, and the difference between the largest and smallest district is only 214 people. Compared to the 921 person difference in the co-chair's plan, Flanagan's is much more even.

The co-chairs, in their official report (PDF), dismissed the Flanagan proposal, writing that it is "a mechanical approach driven by a faulty premise—that there should be three student SMDs—and flawed by insufficient ground-level research and inquiry."

It is disappointing that the co-chairs would imply that a third student commissioner would be objectionable. ANC 2E passed a Student Bill of Rights in 2002 affirming the the right of students to "full participation in community and civic affairs." The ANC is bound by its own rules to give student votes as much weight as non-student ones.

Disappointment in this process extends beyond the co-chairs to include Jack Evans, for the manner in which he chose to conduct ANC 2E's redistricting. The selection process for task force co-chairs was done without public input. That led to the task force having no student co-chair, despite the fact that Georgetown students represent nearly 45% of ANC 2E's population.

Moreover, Mr. Evans decided to separate the Ward 2 redistricting task force into ANC sub-groups, while other wards have met as a whole. That has allowed the Ward 2 process to be bogged down in hyper-local concerns, absent the moderating voice of more faraway median voters.

Residents of ANC 2E should consider speaking out against the co-chairs' proposal, and in favor of Flanagan's. ANC 2E will present the co-chair's plan at its next meeting, on August 29th at 6:30 pm in Georgetown Visitation's Heritage Room. Ron Lewis can be contacted at Ron.Lewis@anc.dc.gov.

For example, in the elections last month, two American University freshmen ran write-in campaigns for ANC seats. ANC 3D chair Tom Smith filed complaints against both of them with the Board of Elections and Ethics, although one, Deon Jones, managed to get elected to the long-vacant 3D07 seat.

The other, Tyler Sadonis, who was running for Smith's own seat in 3D02, lost, although according to Smith himself nearly 60 AU students showed up to vote in that precinct. This was an unusually high turnout, but many students were prevented from voting by poll watchers specifically targeting students.

Smith has since called (huge PDF) for the repeal of voting reforms passed by the DC Council last year, including same-day registration and early voting, citing the fact that some AU students attempted to register without the proper identification.

Even if all 60 AU students who tried to vote in 3D02 had been allowed to, Smith still would have been easily reelected with 228 votes. But those students should have been welcomed and encouraged to participate in their local election, rather than intimidated and targeted for challenges.

Nor is this an isolated incident: AU student Sami Green says she's tried to get on the ballot in 3D07 eight times in the past two years. Sometimes she failed to get enough signatures, but other times her petitions were rejected on various technical grounds.

Meanwhile, down in Burleith, neighbors are vociferously opposing Georgetown University's 10-year development plan, which would expand graduate student enrollment from 6,275 to 8,750 while adding only 120 beds on campus. According to Burleith residents, the student presence in their neighborhood is already intolerable, between late-night parties and "walk-by noise." You have to sympathize with them; apparently they were unaware they were moving in next to a 200-year-old university.

The Burleith and Georgetown residents demand that the university build more on-campus housing to keep students away from them. But what if students want to live off-campus? Unfortunately for them, there's no practical reason Councilmember Jack Evans should even consider what students want, because it's mostly the residents who get to vote. Indeed, Evans told the Burleith Citizens Association that he supports them and opposes the campus plan. Why should he say otherwise when the political incentives are so clear?

Up in College Park, the University of Maryland's neighbors have shown a similar hostility towards the idea of students living outside the confines of campus. Elected officials are currently trying to prevent the construction of a residential project on the Maryland Book Exchange site, across the street from the main entrance to UMD. They may or may not be right that the project would adversely affect locals, but there's little question it would be good for the 830 students who'd be able to live there. Unfortunately they aren't really a party to the debate.

Some may argue that college students are free to register to vote at their college address or even run for local office if they meet residency requirements. (Others incorrectly warn of legal consequences for students who try to register at their college address.) But hostility and obstructionism on the part of local residents can be discouraging, and the transient nature of student life means many students are still getting to know their adopted neighborhood when their four years are up.

Unfortunately there are few easy options for increasing student representation in local decision-making. Foremost among them is gerrymandering, which can create a seat on a local body that's effectively reserved for students. Gerrymandering is what created SMD 3D07, the seat won by Deon Jones. Jones will join Georgetown student Jake Sticka as the only two college students serving on ANCs. That's less than 1% of the 276 commissioners citywide, in a city where college students represent nearly 15% of the population.

An intercollegiate campaign called DC Students Speak was launched last year partly to correct this imbalance. They've identified 11 SMDs with majority student populations that are represented by non-student commissioners. The campaign hopes to register and mobilize enough students to correct this imbalance somewhat.

For their part, college neighbors should be more welcoming of students, especially those interested in getting involved in their communities. It benefits everyone if DC-area college students graduate with an attachment to their adopted home, since they may choose to stick around and contribute to the tax base. And it's the right thing to do. Everyone deserves a voice, and only by making everyone's voice heard can we build a city that works for everyone.