Blueweeds

Mabry Files (Still Yet Another) Claim Against City

2009-12-15T19:34:02-05:00

Here we go again. On Tuesday this week former vice mayor Sam Mabry filed a Freedom of Information Act claim against Falls Church City officials. Mabry is requesting documents related to communications between council members and others regarding the initiative to move local elections to November.

Mabry and his associates opposed to the majority city council members have a long history of using FOIA requests as the first step in making a variety of (so far unsuccessful) legal claims against Falls Church City. Previous FOIA requests made by or associated with Mabry include FOIA claims to Mary Margaret Whipple (D) and Jim Scott (D) which were used to support unsuccessful civil rights violation claims against city officials regarding the City Center South initiative; a FOIA claim to chill debate about a failed charter change referendum and also here; a FOIA claim which was used in part to unsuccessfully sue Falls Church City about the Broad Street Hotel project; a FOIA claim brought by David Snyder and used to investigate and bully the city manager, city attorney, and city staff concerning the Hekemian (Northgate) development; and a FOIA claim Mabry used in 2004 as a basis for failed fair housing allegation to thwart mixed use development initiatives in Falls Church.

The city staff time and litigation costs for the claims and suits brought by Mabry and his associates over the last few years are roughly estimated to have cost city taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mabry is a political allie of opposition council members Team Dave Snyder (he served as Snyder's vice mayor, as an advisor in re-election camapigns, and was one of Snyder's largest financial contrtibutors when Snyder ran unsuccessfully for state delegate) and Nadar Baroukh.

Hatch Act Primer For Designated Localities Like Falls Church City

2009-12-15T15:30:15-05:00

The confusion about local elections in Falls Church City and Hatch Act restrictions is so rampant it strikes me as being intentional. Time for a primer on the subject.

What was the acronym Joe Bodmer used to describe the political strategy being used by some opponents of November elections? Ah. That's right: F.U.D. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. Good one. I may have to add it to the Blueweeds Hater Glossary of Terms.

The Hatch Act is a federal law which restricts certain federal employees from engaging in types of political activity. It was passed generations ago to reform the civil service and has been considerably liberalized in the last twenty years to ease restrictions and allow federal workers to be more actively involved in nonpartisan and partisan local government. The Act is administered primarily by the Office of Special Counsel.

A couple of important things to understand.

First, the Hatch Act distinguishes between two types of federal employees. A small subgroup of federal employees, usually intelligence agents, are subject to more stringent restrictions on political activity ("more restricted employees"). The much larger group of general federal employees have far fewer restrictions on their political activities ("less restricted employees").

Second, the Hatch Act creates "designated localities" where Hatch Act restrictions are even further liberalized. Designated localities are communities where the number of federal employees is so great that if restrictions were not eased it would be virtually impossible for those communities to operate without the participation of federal employees. Falls Church City is a statutory designated locality under the Hatch Act due to its proximity to Washington DC and its small size.

The Office of Special Counsel has provided very clear legal advice that less restricted federal employees in designated localities like Falls Church City, even if the locality has local partisan elections, may still run for office as independent nonpartisan candidates and actively participate in local government in a number of ways. They just have to follow the rules laid down by the OSC.

See a lot more at the Office of Special Counsel Reading Room.

More below the fold ...

There has been much discussion about partisan endorsements and partisan party involvement in Falls Church City local elections. A few years ago, there was concern driven by OSC advice in instances where local nonpartisan elections were converted into de facto partisan races by partisan politics (e.g., endorsements and advertising support from one party or another).

Basically this slide:

But do you see why the "converted nonpartisan election" scenario does not apply to Falls Church City? Yes. You got it. Because we are a special designated locality which allows less restricted federal employees to run for office even in partisan local elections (whether they are chartered as partisan or de facto converted to partisan). All a less restricted federal employee in a partisan campaign has to do is abide by the very defined and very limited restrictions which apply to such candidates in designated localities. Less restricted federal employees in nonpartisan elections in designated communities, like we have in Falls Church City, have very limited Hatch Act restrictions on political activity (essentially limitations focus on only the most extreme abuses e.g., using office directly for influence type of stuff).

Which is not to completely minimize the Hatch Act issue. In dealing with these type of prohibitions intensely for a few years, I know the pressure to balance technical compliance with the perception of compliance can be a very intense issue for federal employees. And if they get it wrong, it can hurt their career, reputation, result in charges, and/or force them to resign from a job or office.

The point I want to make, however, is the effort of some opponents of moving Falls Church local elections to November is really the creation of a Hatch Act Bogeyman designed to defeat the November election initiative with a baseless fear. It is clear Falls Church City is committed to nonpartisan local elections. The local partisan committees (which a few exceptions) have been good about not allowing a de facto conversion to partisan local elections.

So suggesting to our good citizens that if Falls Church City moves local elections to November it will result in partisan local elections is a baseless leap. Suggesting there is great confusion and no legal advice on how federal workers can participate in nonpartisan or partisan local government is a baseless leap. Suggesting local partisan committees in the City want to de facto convert local elections into partisan affairs is a baseless leap. Suggesting that, even if, our local elections became partisan that that would Hatch out all of our federal worker citizens is a baseless leap.

The good citizens of Falls Church City are completely in control of what type of local election system they want to have. They always have been and always will be. Unless, of course, they allow themselves to be cowed by baseless fears propagated by people with an ulterior political agenda.

LIVE BLOG: FCC City Council On November Elections

2009-12-14T20:28:13-05:00

Blueweeds is live blogging the Falls Church City Council meeting on December 14, 2009, for the agenda item regarding moving local elections.

For those of you new to the live blog format, the observations are very contemporaneous (read: not really filtered very well). So please keep that in mind. My apologies in advance.

Council member David Snyder is absent.

8:30 pm: City manager presentation closed. City council member general comments being made.
8:32 pm: Mayor starts election agenda items. Presentation of agenda items, speakers, council votes.
8:34 pm: T09-14 (moving election date to 2011/12/13). T09-15 (moving election date to 2011). Webb TR09-32 (study, LOWV town halls, plus public referendum for 11/2010). TR09-35 Resolution to General Assembly to move elections to 2011/12. TR09-37 Baroukh (council referendum to change elections beginning 11/2013. Citywide referndum would have to be held within 30-60 days of passage).
8:42 pm: Baroukh says he would hold off if resolution is approved with motion to defer.
8:44 pm: Webb withdraws TR09-39.
8:47 pm: Baroukh hacking at mayor and city staff. Asking whether they asked local reps about TR09-35. Assistant city manager and council member Dan Maller informed local reps. Baroukh complaing that he was not consulted. Mayor informs him it was in minutes and discussed - reminds Baroukh he has obligation to read his minutes.
8:50 pm: Public Comments
8:51 pm: Marty Meserve. Says no excuse for not informing citizens. Messages garbaled. Reads LOWV study summary. Local elections would take backseat to regional / national issues. It can wait. Do not rush decision. Passes out LOWV study. Mayor asks if there is difference in LOWV study for odd / even years.
8:57 pm: John Lawrence. Oppose making any change. Opposes any change before 2014. Questions whether high voter turnout is better. Concerned about partisan elections. Greater turnout does not translate into better turnout ... focuses on Manasses Park under vote. Local elections will become partisan. Hatch Act issues. Raises a bunch of red herring issues ... does not understand how Hatch Act works with federal employees.
9:01 pm: Barry Buschow. Promotes Lions Club. Promotes re-decking of walking bridge over Broad Street. Says FCNP misqouted him. Concerned about uninterested people who do not vote in May will now vote in November. Says November voters have been "brainwashed" by parties - they are uneducated and now will vote on local issues. "Somehow" this will resiult in partisan elections. Wants to "do nothing." Barry, Barry, Barry ... my friend. Sigh.
9:04 pm: Mike Curtin. Says trying to "qualify" voters is dangerous. Not the job of council or anyone else to bar voters. Says the cost of local referndum is closer to $40,000 (from his work on past referndum). Cost of May elections and public referendum is important factor. Says city has new "facination" with public referendum. Elected officials have been elect to make decions ... we have local referendum every two years ... they are called elections.
9:07 pm: Christine Sanders. "Do I have three minutes to speak on each of these ordinances?" No. "Oh of course." WAB. Presents petition. Reads summary of petition - disagrees with Curtain. Only should be done via referendum. Tells council to read LOWV study "it's easy to understand." Thanks Webb. Thanks CA for clarifying that there has been inadeqaute notice. Disturbing rumor that rushing it through to silence a vocal minority. Disturbed that charter change has been sent to MM Whipple.
9:13 pm: Joe Bodmer. Says concern about partisan local elections is false issue. When he ran for office this was clarified by Office of Special Counsel how he, as a federal employee, could run. Moving elections does not create partisan elections. Arguements regarding partisan eelctions is FUD (Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.). Local elected have authority under charter. Have responsility. We have to encourage the "greatest possible" number of voters. Local elections "have got to move and move soon."

9:17 pm: Council Comments.

9:18 pm: Mayor wants to move forward with 2011 date. Procedural discussion ensues.

9:22 pm: Sze says extending election terms is out of the question. Baroukh says same. But also says that shortening terms is "equally distasteful." Baroukh says if it is done, it should be done by referendum, only in odd years, and should not impact any sitting council members. It is not "amercian or the right thing to do." Maller says he would consider going to odd years. Reminds people about 1973 move done via council ordinance. VA leg has given council the option. Maller wants to table 2010 and move forward with consideration of 2011.

9:24 pm: Webb moves TR09-32 (study, town halls, referendum). Seconded by Baroukh. Ellen Salbury (LOWV President) clarifies LOWV is NOT taking a position on whether or not to move local elections. Baroukh says this is not "passing the buck." Council members cannnot decide how or when elections take place. Mayor says charter clearly gives council authority to move elections. 1973 council did it via ordinance. Reads city charter language which gives express authority. Mayor says no problem going to referendum ... just cannot guarantee referendum would be in November. Says little has changed since LOWV study in 2000 ... more studies would only add to burdon of city and citizens. Says Webb resolution is not the "right instrument" to use. Maller thanks LOWV ... is not supportive of taking to referendum. City council members are elected to make decisions. It becomes a circular process. An issue of values, not a subject which lends itself to additional information about process. Says if pou value more people participating in elections, then the issue is clear. Maller says we are better off having local elections in November. More elections are not better. Combining elections will help citizens focus and prevent election fatigue. Will not support resolution. Webb wants to change election dates, put forward resolution as a way to acknowledge timing issues and create more discussion. Webb has looked at jurisidictions which have considered other issues. Webb supports November local elections in FCC but thinks there should be a reasonable time for discussion. Wants resolution to say referendum will happen in November. Would not referendum to happen in May. Will support his own resolution. Sze wishes issue had been brought forward sooner. Reads email which says that no longer supports public referendum. See not further benefit in additional studies. Refers to WaPo article. Says it really is a question of values. Wants to pass an ordinance and focus on more important issues. Costs is not small money. Baroukh associates with Webb. Says referendum is the "Falls Church Way." Says important to look at data points from other jurisdictions. Says LOWV should look at data in nonbiased and nonpartisan way. Says reducing number of wards or other charter changes are other ways to reduce costs of elections. Will support Webb resolution. VOTE: Baroukh & Webb Yes. Gardner, Sze, Maller. NO. Motion Fails.

9:51 pm: TR09-37 (Baroukh emergency referendum). Baroukh moves, No second. Automatically fails.

9:52 pm: TR09- 14 (Ordinance moving to 2011/12/13). Foster suggests to delay indefinately as vehicle. Baroukh wants to keep 2013 date on the table. Foster says seperate would be preferred. Now council is making hash on dias.

9:53 pm TR09-16 (Ordinance to move to 2013). Motion by Webb. Second by Maller.

10:00 pm TR09 -15 (Ordinance to move to 2011). Maller Motion. Sze second.

10:04 pm. Mayor points out 2011 move would end terms six months earlier. If we move to 2013, members elected this May would also have terms shortened by six months. Foster agrees. Baroukh thinks shortening terms should "weigh heavily on everyone's minds." Mayor says she would "not have a problem" ending her term six months early. Baroukh says he "has no problem ending his term" six months early. Broukh gets angry ... thinks it is "fundamentally unAmerican" for council to shorten terms. Webb says he leans toward 2013 ... but would not upset with 2011. Mayor wants to vote on boith ... move to January 11 to discuss further. Baroukh reiterates that November elections will become partisan. May elections allows citizens to focus on local issues without all the noise. Says charter links local elections to budget cycle ... makes voters more accountable. Baroukh just wants May elections. The decision on when citizens votes does not belong to council ... it belongs to citizens. Should be careful study. Then referendum. Sze says he supports 2011 elections. Hatch Act is clear where bright line is. Concerned about "elitism." Voting cannot only benefit people who can afford to take two days off of work. Voting should be a core value of FCC. FCC voters can distinguish betweenn noise and substance. Says we have been looking at this since 2001. Wants to show some leadership and focus on development and revenue issues. Maller says charter is not a "stone tablet." Voters hold candidates more accountable after tax bill ... not vote on CIP budget. Novemebr makes more sense that May ... we can try for twenty years and then draw conclusions. Mayor says she has been stuck on even date in order to maximize voter turnout. Says in coming to consensu, the odd years make sense ... because oidd years are tied to state more than national issues. Local elections in odd Novembers could increase state voter turnout. Says she is comfortable with some skin in the game by shortening her term. Would support charter language underscoring local nonpartisan elections. Says Hatch act issues are responsibility of. candidates and partisan organizations in the community.

10:25 pm: T0-15 (2011). Baroukh & Webb NO. Gardner, Sze, Maller. YES. Passes First Reading.

10:26 pm T0-16 (2013). Baroukh & Gardner NO. Maller, Sze, and Webb. YES. Passes first reading.

10:27 pm. T0-14. Motion to delay indefinately 5-0. Yes.

10:28 pm. GA resolution is to be withdrawn and to be reintroduced if charter change.

Okay. That is that. To recap, the city council indefinately posponed the ordinance it passed two weeks ago which have moved local elections to Novemebr in either 2010, 2011, or 2013. It defeated Webb's resolution calling for a LOWV study, town halls, and public referendum. Baroukh's motion to have a emergency referendum in teh next 60 days failed for a lack of a second. Council then moved two ordinances forward for second reading in January 2010. The first (15) would move local elections to November 2011. The second (16) would move local elections to November 2013.

Promoting: WaPo On Moving Falls Church Local Elections

2009-12-14T14:18:40-05:00

A little conjecture and perspective on the todays' WaPo article on moving local elections (Will Falls Church Voters Move To Fall Elections? ).

The article was pitched by opponents of moving local elections as a way to cudgle the discussion that will happen at the council meeting this evening. One of our infamous local political bosses, Sam Mabry, approached the WaPo reporter with a story idea about how moving local elections is an attempt by local Democrats to turn local elections in partisan races ... a secret plan which Sam and others contend is being organized principally by myself. Sam wanted the WaPo to run an anti-Blueweeds hack job. He gave the reporter an ear full and then passed the reporter along to council member Nadar Baroukh to echo his criticism. Sam has used a similar one-two WaPo pitch to try to scuttle discussion about the City Center South and affordable workforce houring initiatives earlier this year.

To its credit, WaPo did not bite on the opposition hate story being pitched by Mabry. I have no idea why. That being said, the WaPo article also did little to illuminate the issues and did not provide the most current information available.

At its last worksession, the city council all but conceded local elections will not be moved effective May 2010. If they are moved, it will be 2012 at the earliest. All of this information is available on the video streams of the council worksessions and meetings on the city website.

The WaPo also tried to tie the issue with a "hole" in the city budget. The truth is, the "hole" for 2010 budget has been filled, and there is no evidence that discussions about how to close the 2011 budget gap are associated with any particular policy failure of our current elected officials (except in the heads of the Mabry and his crew). The 2011 budget gap is almost entirely a consequence of the local economy, nothing which is in the direct control of city council or the school board. In fact, if the city had followed the failed vacant lot economic development strategy advocated by Snyder and Mabry over the last eight years, the 2011 budget gap would have been insurmountable.

The article also did not mention that Baroukh has proposed the council consider a resolution for an emergency citywide referendum to be held within the next sixty (60) days ... a slick political tactic which completely vitiates the vapid populist arguments fronted by Team Dave Snyder, Baroukh, and Mabry. If you really want to have more city residents involved in local elections, then holding a mid-February emergency citywide referendum does nothing but allow local political bosses to increase their stranglehold on low turnout local elections.

One last point, Sam Mabry was selected as vice mayor of Falls Church City eleven years ago. He was, and is, to put it politely, a very controversial figure in the city. I could not imagine why the WaPo would follow a story lead or how it would gain any insight into talking with Mabry.

VIDEO: "America's Response To Climate Change"

2009-12-14T10:46:54-05:00

This terrific video, "America's Response To Climate Change," was produced by Falls Church City's own Bob Burnett and is being featured at the US Center in Copenhagen at COP15. Bob works at the DC-based media firm GVI and has posted several well received guest author posts here at Blueweeds.

VIDEO: Sunday Thought (Scientist Humor)

2009-12-13T00:48:00-05:00

Mike@Blueweeds

Snyder-Baroukh Plot Valentines Day Massacre Of Local Election Option

2009-12-11T17:31:52-05:00

Council members Team Dave Snyder and Nader Baroukh were forced on Friday afternoon to reveal their plans to hold a citywide referendum within the next sixty (60) days on whether or not to move local elections to November. A council resolution calling for an emergency advisory referendum on the issue will be introduced at the December 14th council meeting by Baroukh. If the resolution passes, Falls Church City will have to hold a citywide referendum on the matter no later than February 14th.

Baroukh had hinted he intended to take some action on the high visibility issue at the next city council meeting, but had refused to divulge to his colleagues or city staff exactly exactly what he had planned. He was forced to publicly reveal the plan Friday afternoon in order to meet the deadline to place the referendum on the public agenda for the meeting.

Snyder and Baroukh are vocal opponents of moving local elections to November, even while acknowledging it would dramatically increase voter turnout and save city tax dollars. Snyder, who has been widely criticized for being unable and/or unwilling to cast votes on politically difficult issues, repeated his argument the council must not make a decision, but rather punt the issue to referendum ("... we should heed the input of our citizens and deliberate more and allow them the ultimate say through a referendum ...). Snyder also claims moving elections to November would somehow "disenfranchise" local voters.

See Snyder's letter to the editor in the December 10, 2009 edition of the Falls Church News-Press.

If more citizen input is really the goal of Snyder - Baroukh and those opposed to moving local elections (and it is not), it is hard to see how an emergency citywide referendum held, not on an election day in May or November when city voters are at the polls, but within the next sixty days, during the holiday season and before Valentines Day, serves that purpose. In fact, it hard to see how the timing of such a referendum does anything but assist political opponents of moving local elections, who are already organized by the a conservative blog founded by Snyder and by a petition being circulated by Baroukh's girlfriend and campaign staff, to execute their personal political strategy on the city.

There is no estimate yet on what holding a special referndum election in February would cost city taxpayers.

Promoting: Fairfax Times "One Size Fits All"

2009-12-08T19:13:46-05:00

The Fairfax Times got it right in its recent editorial ("One Size Fits All") on moving local elections to November.

The money quote:

"... Frankly, we're not sure why this decision has been so difficult to make. ...

In late 2009, with every municipality between Herndon and Hampton Roads searching for extra nickels and dimes, the economic realities of holding separate voting days are more pronounced than ever. While spending a few thousand dollars on a mayor's race isn't going to decimate most town budgets, it's certainly enough to kill a couple of after-school programs or eliminate cost-of-living increases for half a dozen employees.

It's also worth noting that the heavy lifting on most municipal budgets is done in the spring, just when town officials are beginning to knock on doors, spar in debates and attend fundraisers.

More important is the calendar's impact on voter turnout. ..."

Lots more goodness at the link.

UPDATE: 12/09/09: Fairfax Times has another article on the subject: Fairfax Times.

Stakes Raised On The Move To November Local Elections

2009-12-08T14:30:00-05:00

In the political poker equivalent of a call and an all-in raise, Falls Church City Mayor Robin Gardner last night proposed a modification to the November local election ordinance which would move the effective date of the change to November 2012 and provide that no council member whose term ends in June 2012 could have their term extended.

Under the proposal, all three council members whose terms end June 30, 2012 would be off of council when the terms to which they were elected in 2008 expire, and three other citizens would be appointed to council to replace them until November 2012 elections were held. The three effected council members are Lawrence Webb, Nader Baroukh, and Gardner herself. The three departing council members could not be appointed to fill the interim period, so if they wanted to run for re-election they would run in November 2012 with the possibility they would be running against citizens they appointed for the interim period as incumbents.

UPDATE 12/09/09: Triple secret Blueweeds sources have told me there may be some legal constraints on interium council member appointments and that the city attorney is reviewing options with city council. So I guess we will all have to stayed tuned to see how it shakes out.

Gardner's proposal attempts to cut the proverbial Gordian Knot on the complex issue of how to move local elections to November without extending any current council terms - one of the last open issues raised by other council members. A similar solution was devised in 1973 when the Falls Church City Council moved local elections from June to May.

Lawrence Webb immediately supported the idea put forth by Gardner, stating he would have no problem re-running for election in November 2012 in a citywide election if he were to seek another term. Nader Baroukh sat stunned, with his eyes shifting nervously back and forth, saying nothing. Baroukh's handler and political mentor, Team Dave Snyder, was absent from the council work session.

To appreciate the theater being played out at the council work session, you have to understand Baroukh despises Mayor Gardner. He only recently moved to the city and had never voted in a city election until he voted for himself in May 2008. Baroukh has criticized Mayor Gardner as weak; in his first vote on council Baroukh broke with longstanding city tradition by refusing to cast a vote for her selection as mayor - voting only "present"; he has constantly interrupted the mayor's council statements and meeting summaries; he has refused to criticize his campaign workers who sought unsuccessfully to have the mayor and other city officials indicted on civil rights charges right after the election; he has written public letters in which he cited his Middle Eastern Jewish heritage and compared the mayor to Islamic clerics who tyrannize his native country of Iran; and he has written a series of personally degrading internal city emails to the mayor (which Blueweeds has obtained from various sources but which the mayor asked not be reproduced here).

Mayor Gardner made her proposal after Baroukh read a written statement mailed in by the absent Team Dave Snyder. Snyder's statement reiterated his peculiar argument that moving local elections from May to November, which would at least double the number of citizens voting in local elections, somehow "disenfranchises" the smarter city residents (and local election bosses, I suppose) who vote in May. Baroukh had just loudly objected to moving local elections to November 2012 on the basis that it would extend some council member terms. When he had finished, the mayor calmly said; "Actually, there is a very simple solution to that ..."

In the next instant, the real political courage and deepest personal convictions of the three directly impacted city council members was completely exposed. By supporting the compromise proposal, Gardner and Webb showed that reforming our local election system to increase voter turnout and save taxpayer dollars is more important to the community than their own incumbency. Baroukh just sat there stunned, shifting nervously, and saying nothing.

Later in the meeting Baroukh announced he intended to introduce a new resolution at the next council meeting on December 14th. He refused to provide any details to the public, to city staff, or to his colleagues on council, about what he is going to propose from the dais next week when Snyder is back in town.

Quaint Myths About Local Elections Busted By Historical Facts

2009-12-08T10:34:27-05:00

Falls Church City changed its local elections in 1973 from June to May in response to an administrative change made in Richmond. Moving local elections was done by city council ordinance, not by public referendum, and it did not result in partisan elections or the extension of any council members term in office.

The information, provided this week by city staff, rebuts a handful of myths about our city which are being proffered by opponents of moving local elections from May to November.

First, there is the myth the political decision of moving local election should only be done by public referendum. The truth is there is a Falls Church City precedent for the city council moving local elections by ordinance rather than via a protracted, expensive, inexact and highly politicized public referendum process;

Second, there is a myth Falls Church City elections have always been quaint affairs set off from the vulgar partisan turmoil of larger elections so that our citizens can quietly deliberate about the social merits of our precious candidates. The fact is, from 1948 through 1973, Falls Church City elections were held in June alongside the federal and state partisan primary elections. Our ancestors were tougher than we are I suppose;

Lastly, there is the myth we "have always" had May elections so why change something which has worked for sixty years? The truth is Falls Church City elections have not always been in May, and that, to the contrary, the city has a history of making rational decisions about its local elections in response to changes made at the state. The state recently announcing it will no longer fund local elections held in May is exactly the type of administrative change which our city has responded to effectively in the past.

The 1972 resolutions from the Falls Church City Council can be found here:

Download Res._72-87_1973_charter_change

Download Res._72-88_Changing_Gen._Election_laws_of_1972

Virginia Localities With Partisan & Local Nonpartisan Elections (11/2008)

2009-12-07T18:52:05-05:00

The state of Virginia has said it will no longer subsidize local elections held in May. Moving Falls Church City local elections to November would dramatically increase voter turnout and would save city taxpayers approximately $60,000 each local election cycle.

Opponents of moving local elections argue moving local elections to the November general election cycle will result in partisan local elections and cause voter confusion. This is a fear-based argument which has no basis in fact. In making the argument, opponents are trying to get city residents to ignore two key facts. First, there is no example in Virginia where moving nonpartisan local elections has actually resulted in local elections becoming partisan. Second, there are a significant number of localities throughout Virginia which already have mixed partisan and local nonpartisan tickets ... and their voters hardly seem confused.

Below is a chart which shows the twenty-seven (27) local jurisdictions in Virginia which held mixed partisan and local nonpartisan races in November 2008 (presidential election year). There are more than twice as many that hold mixed elections in even non-presidential years. The strong trend among Virginia localities is away from local taxpayer subsidized local elections toward holding mixed elections in the state-subsidized general election cycle.

The source for the data is the official election results posted at the Virginia State Board of Elections website.

Hater Holidays

2009-12-07T11:46:41-05:00

I enjoyed a quiet snowy weekend getting ready for the holidays. A warm fire. Watched some football. Played with the kids. Went to church. Puttered around the house. And observed yet another local political storm blow through The Little City.

Sam Mabry (Blueweeds hater, Team Dave Snyder supporter, opposed to city center and affordable workforce housing) was on the phone hacking at me at all weekend. He has been calling around town naming me as the devil, informing our good citizens that moving the elections to November is my sinister plot to create partisan local elections, saying he has contacts in Richmond which have confirmed all of his suspicions about me. Old man Lou Olom (Blueweeds hater, Team Dave supporter, opposed to city center and affordable workforce housing) also worked the phone to spread his particular brand of anti-Mike dread. The journalists over at the FCT blog (Blueweeds haters, Team Dave supporters, opposed to city center and affordable workforce housing),the self-proclaimed "peoples voice" online newspaper for our community, are hosting a petition to prevent moving elections to November. Nader Baroukh's (Blueweeds hater, Team Dave Snyder supporter, opposed to city center and affordable workforce housing) girlfriend (Blueweeds hater, Team Dave Snyder supporter, opposed to city center and affordable workforce housing) got the Village Preservation and Improvement Society (Blueweeds hater, Team Dave Snyder supporter, opposed to city center and affordable workforce housing) to circulate the FCT blog petition to its membership.

There was also an email campaign going on. This email from a new resident, whom I do not actually know but who has written some pretty strong anti-Blueweeds stuff, was addressed to the mayor, sent to council, a random bunch of citizens, the FCNP, and the former secretary of the Army. It is fairly representative. The email is redacted and the identity of the sender is removed as a courtesy. The reference to "Dan" Gardner is a mistake - he is referring to me. (Note to the actual Dan Gardner - sorry my friend):

"... I will call this what it is -- a partisan ploy. A lot of people know who Dan Gardner is. Those who pay attention to local issues are aware of the partisan screeds he posts on blueweeds. Moving the elections to November is nothing more than his long sought after attempt to make local elections a partisan affair.

Thus, such people like Nader Baroukh, whom he heavily criticized during the last election on his blog, would not be eligible to run as the Hatch act would apply to Mr. Baroukh, a federal employee. How short-sighted this would be as many of the city's residents, Democrats and Republicans alike, are Federal employees who would be barred from serving in local office because of the Hatch act. ... So, let's not switch to November and reduce the eligible pool of electable public servants. ...

Shame on you for bringing this obviously partisan issue to a city that draws strength from the fact that it holds non-partisan elections. ... stop drawing attention to this Red Herring so your husband and the local democrats can realize a long- sought after goal of making our local elections partisan.

To the rest of the council who is reading this email, if you are up for election this next year, and you vote in accordance with the Mayor's obviously partisan ploy; I don't care what your stance is on any other issue -- I will not vote for you -- and I will work hard against you. Focus on your main job and stop with this ridiculousness. ..."

I am not sure if folks are even vaguely interested in facts anymore. This just feels like a local election preseason game where an agenda is going to get played out. So be it.

So just a few points for the record:

I have consistently expressed my opposition to partisan local elections. For almost five years now;
I believe the best way to avoid partisan elections is to have greater voter turnout which will moor candidates to the mandate of broader elections;
I had nothing whatsoever to do with raising this issue. The issue was raised by council members Lawrence Webb and Dan Sze on their own volition;
There are numerous examples of nonpartisan November elections in communities across Virginia;
The Hatch Act not only encourages Hatched federal employees to run in nonpartisan local elections - it allows most Hatched workers to run as independents in *partisan* local elections under the guidelines laid out by the Office of Special Counsel;
I acknowledge Blueweeds is a partisan blog. It is intended to be a partisan blog. It is also intended to create transparency in local politics.

Sorry for the interruption. Please feel free to continue now with your graceless hater holiday.

VIDEO: Sunday Thought

2009-12-06T00:25:00-05:00

Mike@Blueweeds

EVENT: 2009 FC Chamber Of Commerce Shopping Guide

2009-12-05T21:22:56-05:00

The Falls Chamber of Commerce has had a particularly good year in a very difficult economic climate. It had a successful gala, hosted a series of popular luncheons, has signed up a slew of new members, published a new web site, and helped coordinate successful local business openings at Flippin' Pizza and others.

The Chamber recent published its second annual Holiday Shopping Guide for folks that want to support local business with some holiday shopping.

The Falls Church 2009 Holiday Shopping Guide can be viewed and downloaded by following the link.

Time Flies For White House Party Crasher

2009-12-04T14:31:36-05:00

Lawyer games can be amusing (as long as you are safely on the sidelines). Yesterday a creditor attorney in Front Royal dinged Tareq Salahi, of White House party crasher infamy, for his wrist watch as payment for an unpaid lawn care bill.

*Special* Legal Tip From The Weed: If you are ever unfortunate enough to be the defendant in a creditor claim ... don't wear nice jewelry to the hearing.

See story at The VLW Blog. My last word on the crasher subject ...

EVENT: City Police Lead 2009 Toys For Tots Campaign

2009-12-04T05:00:00-05:00

For the eighth consecutive year, the Falls Church City Police and Falls Church Police Association are heading up the US Marines Corps Toys for Tots drive. Donations of new unwrapped toys will be collected at the Police Department lobby, located on the G-2 level of the East Wing of City Hall.

Toy donations will be accepted until December 11th. The City Police will then take the toys to the Marines base at Quantico for distribution.

A worthwhile cause. Perhaps during this short holiday season folks can pick up a few extra items for donation. We could all use the good karma. Plus the kids appreciate the toys.

City press release details below the fold.

The City of Falls Church Police Department and members of the Falls Church Police Association are lending their support to the 2009 United States Marines Corps Reserve’s Toys for Tots Campaign. A collection box has been set up in the Police Department lobby, located on the G2 level in the East Wing of City Hall. Donations of new unwrapped toys will be accepted through Dec. 11.

City police officers will take the toys to a central distribution point in Quantico, where the donations will be given to children in need this holiday season. This is the eighth consecutive year the Police Department has participated in the Toys for Tots Campaign.

For more information, visit www.toysfortots.org or call the Police Department at 703-241-5053.

Haters Haz Adz

2009-12-03T19:00:00-05:00

Local election season draws near. It looks like it will be a long one, what with all the usual suspects of "concerned citizens" and "groups of friends" already putting out anti-something ads attacking the "malignant" "them" and trying to protect "our city" from Taco Bell a new community center a phantom girls home mixed use development little foreign kids people that live in condos working women city center development affordable workforce housing November local elections.

Below is the most recent ad they are distributing. There are almost no misspellings. Offered here in the spirit of fair political play for which Blueweeds has become known. Must give props to the old crew ... they signed their names to this one. Usually it is anonymous litter dropped overnight. Or unsigned ads. Or anonymous web sites. Or long car rides to lawyer's offices looking for ways to cut up their neighbors. Or hiding in bushes with the local republican party chair.

Ah, we've had some good times, right fellers? Any word on who your useful idiots will be this year?

If you get a chance, dear readers, ask the folks a few questions: Why do you support low voter turnout in local elections? Isn't it a good idea to have more citizens voting for our local candidates? Why should city taxpayers continue to pay for May elections when the state is no longer funding them? Why are so many local jurisdictions moving from May to November local elections? What other jurisdictions have used the expensive and protracted public referendum process to move local elections (answer: none)? In what other jurisdictions has moving nonpartisan local elections to November resulted in partisan elections (answer: none)? Do you think city residents that vote in November are incapable of understanding a ballot that includes local candidates? Do you support having a voter intelligence test as a prerequisite to voting in Falls Church? If a referendum is used to make the change, don't you think it should be held in November rather than May so that more city residents can vote on it?

Cheers.

UPDATE: The doc itself - Download HATERAD

Haters Hate Don't Cha Know

2009-12-03T14:30:00-05:00

It is oddly comforting to know that being a member of a stealth opposition cabal intent on overthrowing the progressive majority and imposing a conservative political agenda on our nonpartisan local government is not really as much fun as it seems.

Falls Church school board member Kieran Sharpe has been working closely with council member Nader Baroukh and staff writers at the conservative FCT blog to plot the demise of the CBC organization, create a conservative majority on city council, and install Republican Team Dave Snyder as their manchurian candidate mayor.

How fun.

But alas, it seems Kieran and Nader are infighting and unable to agree on exactly how to execute their big plan. Kieran wants to secretly form a CBC-type organization for conservatives and the random disaffected and use it to overthrow the city government (got FCCO?). Nader, however, wants to work in the shadows; create a network of like-minded "independents" who publicly deny their affiliation, collaborate behind closed doors, and swear a blood oath to vote together on key issues once they are all elected. Nader is selfishly refusing to contribute "his network" from the last local election to the idea proposed by Kieran. Ira Kaylin, the EDA member and FCT blogger who road tripped with the Mabry, Snyder, Baroukh team in the creepy failed effort to get a group of city leaders indicted, is playing the role of the middle child in the cabal drama. Kaylin is trying to hold the group together and is putting on a brave face for the people the group is recruiting to run for school board and city council.

But the dissension is taking its toll on the hater faithful and causing cracks in the facade being put up for the political newbie recruits. For the moment, the group has de-evolved into an angry tribe of unhappy GOPers intent on imposing their political litmus test on local candidates.

But I have said too much.

Falls Church Is The Little City

2009-12-03T00:12:40-05:00

Falls Church is the little city.

A crucial first step in what will eventually prove to be a sweeping re-branding of Falls Church City for purposes of economic development was completed this week with the release of a comprehensive new brand strategy. The strategy was facilitated by the Falls Church Economic Development Authority and the local marketing firm of SmithGifford working in conjunction with disparate steering groups consisting of business people, residents of the city and nearby jurisdictions, and community leaders.

VIDEO: Obama Speech On Afghanistan

2009-12-02T18:46:00-05:00

Blueweeds is somewhat loath to offer comment on national issues with no direct connection to local events. But rules, particularly the ones I make up, are meant to be broken. Below is video of President Obama's speech on our military policy in Afghanistan.

h/t Bryan over at Left Of The Hill. I would also recommend reading the coverage of the speech at the Armchair Generalist - a terrific blog written from the progressive militarist perspective.