James River Maven

Richmond Public Schools: The Law is Clear

2014-04-26T15:10:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, it is very frustrating to be a maven. You write and you write but nobody seems to listen. I can’t count the number of times I have explained the laws controlling the operation of the public schools in Richmond, VA, USA. And just when I think everybody understands, I see a turf war breaking out in our lovely city on the James between City Council and the School Board. City Council wants to form a committee composed of representatives of the mayor, council and school board to formulate a three-year plan for the operation of Richmond Public Schools. The School Board strongly objects to what it sees as an invasion of its jurisdiction. I don’t have time to go into more detail, so if you want to know more read these two articles. 1 2

Now, pay attention. I will explain this once more.

Article VIII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution provides:

“The General Assembly shall provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth, and shall seek to ensure that an educational program of high quality is established and continually maintained.”

Article VIII, Section 7 of the constitution says:

“The supervision of schools in each school division shall be vested in a school board, to be composed of members selected in the manner, for the term, possessing the qualifications, and to the number provided by law.”

In implementing these constitutional mandates, the General Assembly enacted VA Code section 22.1-28 which provides:

“The supervision of schools in each school division shall be vested in a school board selected as provided in this chapter or as otherwise provided by law.”

The drafters of the constitution could have chosen to place school divisions under the control of local governing bodies like city councils or boards of supervisors. That would have been logical. But they did not. They put supervision of local school divisions in school boards that are independent of local governing bodies. I assume they did so to insulate school operation from local politics.

The citizens of Richmond maintained the independence of their local school board in the City’s charter. Section 20.01 of the charter reads, in part:

“Except as provided in this Charter the School Board shall have all the powers and duties relating to the management and control of the public schools of the City provided by the general laws of the Commonwealth. None of the provisions of this Charter shall be interpreted to refer to or include the School Board unless the intention so to do is expressly stated or is clearly apparent from the context.”

So, what about the City Council? As the City’s governing body, does it have no role to play in Richmond Public Schools? Yes, it has a role. That role has to do with providing funding for the operation of the schools. Section 22.1-93 of the Virginia Code states:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . the governing body of a municipality shall prepare and approve an annual budget for educational purposes by May fifteen or within thirty days of the receipt by the municipality of the estimates of state funds, whichever shall later occur.”

The state law also mandates that the local governing body provide a minimum amount of local funding to supplement state funding for public schools. Section 22.1-94 says:

“A governing body may make appropriations to a school board from the funds derived from local levies and from any other funds available, for operation, capital outlay and debt service in the public schools. Such appropriations shall be not less than the cost apportioned to the governing body for maintaining an educational program meeting the standards of quality for the several school divisions prescribed as provided by law.”

This requirement was incorporated in Section 6.14 of the City Charter that provides:

“It shall be the duty of the school board to submit its budget estimates to the mayor at the same time as other departments and in the form prescribed by the mayor. The mayor and council may take any action on the school budget permitted by § 22.1-94 of the Code of Virginia or any other provision of general law not in conflict with this charter.”

But maven, surely the City Council has the statutory authority to create a committee to formulate a three-year plan for Richmond Public Schools.

Trusted reader, you have not been listening carefully. I have found no statute authorizing City Council to take such action. This is no different than two years ago, when Mayor Jones created a school accountability and efficiency task force. As I said then,

“Certainly, the mayor has appointed it. However, he can only assign to the task force authority which he has as mayor. He cannot create a committee or task force that has more authority than he has.”

Likewise with the Council’s committee. Council can create it, but it cannot assign to it authority that it does not have.

Maven, are you really saying that City Council has no authority to make sure Richmond Public Schools is operating properly?

Now, dear reader, you are putting words in my mouth. Of course the City Council has authority. As the appropriating body it has the implicit authority to oversee Richmond Public School’s use of the money it gives it. As part of the yearly budget process, the School Board submits its annual budget, which should explain how RPS used past appropriations and how it intends to spend the money School Board is asking for. If the Council is not satisfied with the explanations in the School Board’s budget, it has the right to ask the Chair of the Board or the Superintendent of Schools to explain in more detail.

Let me plagiarize some words I wrote two years ago:

“Despite the separation in rolls specified in state law, this maven is not advocating that the mayor and city council have no responsibility for the operation of Richmond Public Schools. On the contrary. I think that in the past some members of the city council have sidestepped issues relating to RPS by saying it is the responsibility of the school board not of the council. The condition of RPS is far too important to the city for any elected official to ever say, ‘It’s not my responsibility.’ I’m sure I have said it before, but if I haven’t I will say it loudly and clearly now: The City of Richmond will never be a great city until it has great public schools. It really doesn’t matter what else the city government does. So long as our schools are not world-class, Richmond will only be a C+ or B- city.”

So, Maven, what should we do?

Patient reader; you know that before I enrolled in the Maven Academy I was an attorney. So I know how to operate within the bounds of the law. I have two suggestions that can be implemented immediately.

1- Let the city councilmember and the school board representative in each of the city’s nine electoral districts get together to discuss how the council and board can work together to improve Richmond’s public schools. This will provide an opportunity to defuse the current dispute and to build trust between them. This trust can be brought by each back to the fully body.

2- At least twice each year, the City Council should invite the Superintendent of Schools to meet with them to share his plans for the public schools. This meeting will also give each councilmember the opportunity to make suggestions to the Superintendent on how things may be improved.

The city councilmember and school board representative in each district were elected by the same voters. The voters expected both people to do their statutory jobs and to work together to make Richmond become the best city it can become. It is time for these 18 people to forget blame and personalities and get on with the business of the City of Richmond.

Richmond School Funding: Déjà Vous, Again and Again and Again

2014-04-16T12:59:00.000-04:00

My one fan out there knows that almost as long as I have been a maven I have been complaining that the City of Richmond doesn’t provide enough money for Richmond Public Schools. Rather than listing all the posts in which I have made that argument I will just refer you to the last one. 1 Guess what? It is budget season again in River City and our Mayor has cut the school board’s proposed budget by about $3.8 million. So here we are in 2014 and AGAIN the maven has to argue for more money for our children.

I have pointed out before that as a percentage of its general fund expenditures Richmond spends less on its public schools than almost any other jurisdiction in Virginia. So, to save time, I won’t say that now. I have also talked about the fact that the percentage of general fund expenditures going to Richmond Public Schools is constantly going down. This I need to talk about again. But first a little disclaimer. I find Richmond’s budget documents available on line to be confusing. In the past, when I reported to you the percentages, I relied on the pie charts contained in annual budgets. But the on-line collection is not complete so there are some years for which I don’t have pie charts. In addition, the pie charts don’t always agree with the tables contained in the budgets. Finally, because of the bi-annual nature of Richmond budgeting, there are different amounts in the documents designated as “proposed”, “amended”, “adopted” and “actual.”

Let me give you a few key numbers. For fiscal year 2009, the Mayor proposed and the City Council approved a budget that provided $161 million in general fund payments to Richmond Public Schools (RPS) out of a total general fund budget of $658.1 million. Under this budget the schools were receiving 24.47% of the total. For fiscal year 2014, the most recent year for which the council enacted a budget, the Mayor proposed and the City Council approved a budget that provided only $154.4 million to RPS out of a total general fund budget of $760.5 million. The schools’ share of total general fund expenditures has dropped to 20.2%. So how, dear reader, has this happened?

In March 2009 Mayor Jones informed City Council that, because of the economic recession, city revenues would be down considerably and that therefore the city’s payment to RPS for fiscal year 2010 would have to be reduced by 4%. The dollar reduction to RPS was about $8 million. The recession ended and city revenue increased considerably. However, neither the Mayor nor the City Council ever restored the $8 million that had been cut from RPS. As you can see from just the two years indicated in the preceding paragraph, total city general fund spending has increased by more than $100 million since fiscal year 2009 while the amount the city contributes to RPS is still more than $6 million less than it was then.

The mayor and the chair of the council’s budget committee have argued that the percentages don’t matter; that the city is committed to its public schools; that the Mayor’s proposed increase ($1 million of the $4.8 million requested by the school board) from last year is adequate. But nobody talks about the lost $8 million. If the city is really committed to public schools the annual percentage of general fund expenditures for RPS should stay pretty constant. Yet, if the Mayor’s proposed budget is adopted by City Council, the RPS slice of the pie will be down to 20.1%. Any members of City Council who votes to approve the Mayor’s budget will be hard-pressed in the future to claim they really care about the children of Richmond.

Our Tax System is Broke

2014-04-15T21:25:00.000-04:00

Well fellow citizens, it is April 15, affectionately known as “tax day.” This is the day when most of us end our annual battle with the Infernal, er. . . I mean Internal Revenue Service. I assume most of you are like me—you don’t mind paying taxes, you just hate this annual battle. I think each of us are torn between two fears; 1- that we’re paying more taxes than our neighbors, and 2- that if we claim a questionable deduction IRS agents will be knocking down our doors to drag us off to federal prison. I also think that a lot of us feel kind of resentful on tax day because we keep hearing that rich individuals and corporations never pay their fair share of the costs of government.

A few years back, this maven wrote a piece on the Fair Tax proposal, which was sort of popular for a while. I think the Fair Fax proposal has moved to the back burner. But some of the stuff I said then still applies and I will quote it here. Don’t worry; I gave myself permission to plagiarize so there are no copyright problems.

“A tax system should have only one purpose—raising revenue for the government to carry out the functions that the representatives of the citizens have assigned to it. In addition, under the theory that those who accumulate the most wealth derive the most benefit from the country or state, the tax system should be progressive. Those who earn the most should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do those who earn the least. Finally, a tax system must not only be fair, it must also be perceived as fair by the citizens.

“Under these standards, our current tax system ranks low. First, rather than being only a mechanism for raising revenue, our current system is used continuously by the government as a mechanism for controlling the behavior of individuals and corporations in our society. When the government wishes to encourage certain activities it offers tax incentives to those who abide by those wishes. Likewise, when the government wishes to discourage certain behaviors it places tax costs on those behaviors. This management of our society by use of the tax code is probably as old as the code itself and has been used by both Republican and Democratic governments. It explains why the Internal Revenue Code is thousands of pages rather than only a few pages long.

“Second, our tax system is unfair and is perceived by most citizens as unfair. It is set up as a yearly game between the citizens and the IRS. The objective of the IRS in this game is to maximize the amount of taxes each citizen pays. The objective of each citizen is to minimize the amount of taxes he, she or it pays. The rules of the game are tens of thousands of pages long, and those who can afford expensive CPAs or tax lawyers who have mastered those rules are going to play the game much better than those who can’t. A tax system in which the amount you pay depends on how clever you and your tax preparer are is not a fair system. And it cannot be perceived as fair. Many taxpayers get the feeling that somehow they are paying more than their fair share of taxes. They fear that their neighbor has discovered a hidden deduction that they don’t know about. Or they fear the dreaded audit in which the IRS will discover that they have claimed more in deductions than the law allows.

“The unfairness of the system extends into its progressiveness. Although our tax system is, on its face, progressive, the presence of so many loopholes and deductions and credits and shelters reduces the tax burden on those with higher incomes. The result is that in many cases individuals with high incomes may be paying a lesser percentage of that income in taxes than do individuals with lower incomes.”

I would love to see our present system replaced with a tax system that is fair. I would love to see the IRS disappear. I would love to eliminate the anxiety I suffer every year in playing the 1040 game.

We’ve been using the income tax as our primary source of government revenue for just over a hundred years. It’s about time we think this through again.

What’s With the Petitions in River City?

2014-04-04T17:23:00.000-04:00

While we’re talking about Mayor Jones’s proposal to develop Richmond’s Shockoe Bottom, have you noticed there are two petitions floating around the city that stadium opponents think will put an end to the mayor’s madness. As you know the drafters of the Bill of Rights guaranteed the right of the people to petition the Government for redress of their grievances. So I guess that petitions are good. On the other hand there are so many people with grievances, and in this age of instant mass communications, I am asked to sign at least a dozen petitions a day. The Federal Government itself has a website encouraging citizens to submit petitions for the president to address. But, I am sort of wondering why the need for these two new petitions.

I haven’t seen the petitions physically yet, but I understand that they are submitted under the authority of section 3.06.1 of the Richmond City Charter. That section provides that if a petition is filed containing the signatures of 10% of the highest number of voters who have voted in the city in the past five elections (a number that is estimated to be 9,800) requesting an amendment to the city charter, then the amendment shall be put on the ballot as a referendum question for all city voters. If the voters approve the referendum, the amendment is to be submitted to Virginia’s General Assembly for its approval. The two petitions circulating today request the following amendments to the City Charter:

1- Proposition A proposes an amendment to the Charter creating a new section 2.04.02, providing that under the City Council’s powers contained in section 4.02 of the Charter, “there shall be created and funding provided for” the Historic East End Shockoe Bottom Commission. The Commission shall prepare (within nine months of its creation) a report to the Mayor and City Council on “how best to achieve economic growth while at the same [time] preserving the vital history of [the] area including the historic record regarding those uniquely significant events having taken place in the Shockoe Bottom area of the Historic East End.” Proposition A also provides that the City Council shall take no further action concerning the mayor’s Shockoe development plan until the Commission submits its report.

2- Proposition B proposes an amendment to section 3.06.1 of the Charter broadening the authority of a minority of members of the City Council to call for an advisory referendum on issues relating to Mayor Jones’s Shockoe development proposal. With regard to ordinances relating directly to the baseball stadium proposed by the mayor the amendment would allow 3 of the 9 council members to call for an advisory referendum. With regard to ordinances dealing with various funding options for the Shockoe development the amendment would allow 4 of the 9 council members to call for an advisory referendum. Under existing language in section 3.06.1 a Council resolution calling for an advisory referendum requires that the issue be submitted to the voters and that the results of the referendum be reported to City Council for “such further action as it may deem advisable and in the best interests of the City.”

Reader, to fully understand the significance of these two petitions you should understand the governing philosophy of Richmond’s City Charter, our local constitution. Chapter 4.02 of the Charter provides “All powers vested in the City shall be exercised by the Council except as otherwise provided in this Charter.” This means that the City Council is the governing body of the city. Unless the Charter assigns them elsewhere, all decisions regarding the governance of the city are to be made by City Council. The Charter does create the offices of mayor and chief administrative office of the city and assigns certain functions to the persons holding those offices. It also authorizes the City Council to create departments and other subdivisions of the city and to delegate governing powers to those subdivisions. In short, the City of Richmond is not a democracy. It operates under a republican form of government. We elect our nine members of the City Council. They in turn make the decisions that govern the city.

The Charter as presently worded provides for three instances in which specific issues may be voted on by the citizens of Richmond. Two of these are in section 3.06.1. The first paragraph of that section authorizes the City Council, presumably by a majority vote, to request an advisory referendum on any proposed ordinance or proposed amendment to the Charter, the results of which are not binding on the Council. The second paragraph permits a referendum, under the procedures I described above, on an amendment to the City Charter itself. The third referendum provision is in section 7B.05. It provides for a referendum on an ordinance authorizing the city to issue bonds if within 30 days after the City Council passes the ordinance a petition with signatures of 10% of voters is submitted to the Richmond Circuit Court.

I firmly believe that if something ain't broken, it don’t need to be fixed. So what exactly is wrong with the Richmond City Charter that it needs to be amended now? Is the structure of the city government unsound? Is there some inherent inefficiency that can only be solved by what are essentially constitutional amendments? Is the City Council as formulated and empowered under the current Charter incapable of governing? Trusted reader, let us skip through all the arguments and get to the actual reason that opponents of the Shockoe development plan are circulating these petitions. They have been convinced, by people who speak loudly and type in capital letters, that under the current political circumstances they cannot win. They have been told that if the process is allowed to work out as envisioned by our Charter as currently worded, the mayor’s proposal will be approved by City Council. Since they think they cannot win under the current rules, they seek to change the rules.

But, forgetting motivation, and forgetting that it is generally bad policy to amend a constitution to achieve a single issue (remember prohibition?), what will these petitions accomplish? The first thing you need to understand reader, especially if you are a citizen of River City, is that these petitions will not permit the voters of Richmond to decide whether or not they want a baseball stadium to be built in Shockoe Bottom as part of the mayor’s development plan. If someone asks you to sign either or both of these petitions and tells you it is all about letting the citizens decide whether to build the stadium, they are, to put it politely, deceiving you. There is nothing in either petition that allows that. Both petitions only change the procedures or delay actions by City Council. Nothing more. They will not allow you to decide the stadium question. Do we really want to amend the City Charter just to delay the project?

And what of the specifics? What exactly will this Historic East End Shockoe Bottom Commission be? The petition says nothing. It says “there shall be created and funding provided for” this commission. It says it is to be created under the City Council’s general powers so I assume that the Council is being mandated to create and fund the Commission. But the petition is silent on how many members shall be on the Commission. More important it does not say who shall appoint them—the Council itself, the mayor, the chief administrative officer. And how much money is contained in “funding provide for”? How much does it need to do this job--$50,000; $250,000; $5,000,000? The proposed amendment is silent. And what will be the effect of the Commission’s report? Are we trading government by an elected City Council to government by an appointed commission? I suspect that the drafters of Proposition A gave this little thought because the really important part of the amendment is not the Commission but subsection (d), which prohibits the City Council from acting until the Commission submits its report.

With respect to Proposition B, is it really good government to allow a minority of the members of City Council to force the court and the board of elections to put a proposition on the ballot which will only be advisory? Special elections are costly. If it is good government, why not do it for all issues; why limit it to the mayor’s Shockoe development project? Personally, I think it is not good government to allow a minority of Council to have so much power. With respect to the stadium itself, the proposed amendment would allow only three of the Council’s nine members to force a referendum. The proponents argue that the amendment is designed to effect democratic decisions. Dear reader, is it democratic to allow 1/3 of a legislative body to control its actions?

I could go on, but by now I am probably losing your attention. If you are a citizen of Richmond you will have to decide whether to sign these petitions. In making that decision consider that these petitions will not give you a vote on whether you favor or oppose the Shockoe stadium. Then consider whether you really think that our City Charter needs to be amended so as to delay the City Council from carrying out its assigned functions. As for me, I will not sign them. They are bad government.

“Voting Rights” Attack: Has Paul Goldman Gone Too Far?

2014-04-02T11:26:00.000-04:00

I met Paul Goldman in June of 2008 at the office of the City Registrar here in RVA. I was submitting my petitions to be on the ballot as a candidate for the School Board. Mr. Goldman was submitting petitions to be on the ballot as a candidate for mayor of our fair city. Neither of us was elected: I lost on Election Day; Mr. Goldman dropped out of the race and endorsed Dwight Jones for mayor. After that we were sort of Facebook friends for a while but via email rather than FB. Our contacts faded to virtually none over the years.

Recently, CBS Channel 6 here in Richmond has engaged Mr. Goldman as sort of a political guru, in which roll he gives his comments on happenings both in the General Assembly and Richmond’s City Hall. Lately, Mr. Goldman has commented a great deal on the proposal by Mayor Dwight Jones to develop the Shockoe Bottom area of Richmond, including a new stadium for Richmond’s beloved Flying Squirrels. Mr. Goldman’s comments have been particularly aggressive toward what he refers to as the Jones-Marsh Democratic machine. (Jones is Mayor Dwight Jones; Marsh is state Senator Henry Marsh). Mr. Goldman has also gone beyond merely commenting by providing legal services to a group of Richmond citizens who oppose the Shockoe development plan; including helping them launch a petition campaign to force a referendum on the plan.

I ought to add a few other facts about Mr. Goldman. In the past he has managed the campaigns of several candidates for high office in Virginia. He has also served as chair of the Democratic Party of Virginia. He also participated in drafting the current Charter of the City of Richmond.

Although I have been critical on Facebook with regard to several of Mr. Goldman’s attacks on Mayor Jones and the Shockoe development plan, it was not until I read his current comment on the Channel 6 website that I decided I had to update this blog. 1 In this piece, Mr. Goldman accuses Mayor Jones, Senator Marsh and Democrats on Richmond’s City Council of deliberately depriving Richmond citizens of the right to vote on the Shockoe development plan. (With respect to Senator Marsh, this is a particularly nasty attack because Henry Marsh has devoted most of his life working to assure that all people regardless of ethnicity or economic status can exercise their right to vote.)

In his latest piece, after pointing out the efforts of Virginia Democrats to block Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters, Mr. Goldman goes on the attack:

This time, it is Mayor Jones and his Democratic allies denying VOTING RIGHTS to these very same WHITE residents and RACIAL MINORITIES in Richmond.

The Richmond City Charter—supposedly guaranteed by Section 7B.05—intends to give Richmonders an absolute Voting Ability to tell the Mayor and City Council “NO WAY ARE YOU GOING TO WASTE HUNDREDS OF MILLION OF PUBLIC DOLLARS on a Shockoe Stadium” when we need this money for more pressing needs.

The first part of Section 3.06.1 is intended to give citizens another Voting Rights option in such matters, but Richmond Democrats on City Council are ALSO DENYING THIS RIGHT TO THE PEOPLE OF RICHMOND.

(All of the capitalization is in Mr. Goldman’s original).

Since Mr. Goldman is an attorney and because he is one of the principal drafters of the city charter that he refers to in the above language, I almost feel that I should simply assume that his interpretation is correct. However, because his charge that city Democrats are deliberately depriving citizens of the right to vote is so severe, I really need to give it a fact check.

One section of the city charter that Mr. Goldman does not mention in his attack on Richmond Democrats is section 4.02. This section provides “All powers vested in the City shall be exercised by the Council except as otherwise provided in this Charter.” This section grants to City Council all governing powers in the City of Richmond, unless there is some other provision in the charter that moves that power elsewhere.

So what about the people’s right to vote that Mr. Goldman claims is being denied? Well, first of all, the charter clearly states that it is the people of Richmond who elect both the mayor and the members of the City Council. Section 3.01, section 3.01.1. I know of no attempt by any Democrats in the city to deprive citizens of Richmond of this right to vote for mayor and members of the City Council. In fact I know that before the most recent municipal election Richmond Democrats worked hard to register as many voters as possible.

Well Mr. Goldman says that the city charter “intends” to grant to Richmonders an “absolute Voting Ability” to tell the mayor and city council that they cannot spend taxpayers’ dollars on a Shockhoe stadium. He says that this intent is “supposedly guaranteed by section 7B.05.” What is this absolute Voting Ability that Mr. Goldman talks about?

Chapter 7B of the charter describes the city’s ability to borrow funds by issuing bonds, notes or other obligations. Section 7B.04 sets forth the procedure to be followed by City Council in passing ordinances authorizing the issuance of bonds. This procedure is the same as in passing other ordinances except that it requires six votes to pass such an ordinance. Subsection 7B.04(a) provides further that no ordinance authorizing bonds “shall take effect until the thirty-first day after publication of notice of its adoption…”

Section 7B.05 of the charter provides that if, within thirty days after City Council has adopted an ordinance authorizing bonds, a petition containing the signatures of 10% of the city’s voters (Mr. Goldman has calculated the number as being 9800 voters) requesting that the ordinance be submitted to the voters of the city is filed with the clerk of the Richmond Circuit Court, then the ordinance shall be put on the ballot at an election called for such purpose. I assume that this must be the “absolute Voting Ability” that Mr. Goldman is referring to.

But, section 7B.05 does not create a right in the people to decide whether city funds should be spent on a stadium or on other needs. Section 7B.05 is limited in its scope. It applies only after the City Council has adopted an ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds. And it grants to the citizens the right to vote on the limited question of whether those bonds should be issued only if a petition with approximately 9800 signatures is filed within 30 days.

So, how does Paul Goldman support his accusation that Mayor Jones and his Democratic allies are “denying VOTING RIGHTS to these very same WHITE residents and RACIAL MINORITIES in Richmond”? He points out that Mayor Jones has amended his development proposal so that not all of the city payments will be financed by bonds issued by the City. Instead, some of the costs will be financed through the city’s Economic Development Authority. Mr. Goldman insists that the mayor made this change only to deny citizens the right to vote on an ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds. In Mr. Goldman’s own words:

“Because doing it this way ELIMINATES THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO VOTE DOWN WASTEFUL STADIUM BONDS, since the right to vote doesn’t apply to EDA bonds since it is not covered by the Richmond City Charter.”

I am not sure how Mr. Goldman knows that Mayor Jones and his Democratic allies changed the financing for the proposed Shockoe development for the sole reason of avoiding a possible referendum. Perhaps Mr. Goldman understands Machiavellian thinking better than I do. There may be many reasons why EDA financing or funding from other sources make more sense than issuing bonds for the Shockoe project.

Mr. Goldman also makes the accusation that Democratic members of the City Council are denying Richmonders “voting rights” under section 3.06.1 of the city charter. This accusation is even more unfounded than the accusation I just discussed. This section provides:

“The Council shall have authority to order, by resolution directed to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, the submission to the qualified voters of the City for an advisory referendum thereon, any proposed ordinance or amendment to the City Charter.”

If City Council did decide to ask for an “advisory referendum”, the results of the referendum would be reported back to it for “such further action as it may deem advisable and in the best interests of the City.”

What exactly is Mr. Goldman thinking? There are no “voting rights” here. This section merely provides City Council with the authority to ask the people what they think. The fact that the City Council has not chosen to exercise that authority does not deprive the citizens of Richmond of anything.

I do not know why Mr. Goldman made these baseless charges against Mayor Jones, his Democratic allies (including Senator Marsh) and the Democratic members of the City Council (whom we can’t even identify because in Richmond Council members are elected in a non-partisan election). He chose to attack on the issue of voting rights (a particularly sensitive issue for Democrats) and he chose to use lots of capital letters. I assume he is very angry about something. Whatever the reason for his attack, Mr. Goldman owes apologies to Mayor Jones, Senator Marsh, members of the City Council, Richmond Democrats and all other citizens of the city.

The Surrealism of Growing Older

2014-02-03T12:20:00.000-05:00

Okay, here it is. Today this maven is 70 years old. That means I have completed seven decades of living. That means I have lived longer than my father and my two grandfathers. (My gratitude to the scientists who developed statin drugs). That means I can no longer deny that I have become an elder. That also means that I am a lot closer to death than to birth. And yet, has anything changed?

Well, for one thing, I don’t seem to have as much energy as I used to. And, for another, things seem to slip from my mind more frequently. Let us also not forget that most mornings I wake up with pain somewhere in my body. But somehow those things seem not to change the basic “me.” I think of myself the same as I thought of myself 40, 50 or 60 years ago. It is the same me.

And then I look in the mirror. Who is that person with the thinning, gray hair looking back at me? Who is that person with wrinkles staring back from within the glass? That can’t be me. That person looks old. I don’t feel old! I am the same me that I always was.

So, how can I explain it? Am I another Dorian Gray? Is it only the image in the mirror that is aging?

Paul Simon was right: “How terribly strange to be seventy.”

The Four Most Powerful Men in Virginia You Never Heard of

2014-01-24T16:21:00.000-05:00

These bills were introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates in the current session:

HB 61: would prohibit the sale of rifles, shotguns or assault weapons to out-of-state residents.

HB 535: would require background checks for firearms transfers at gun shows.

HB 809: would prohibit the sale of large capacity magazines (with stated exceptions).

HB 812: would require background checks for all firearms transfers.

HB 823: would permit background checks for firearms transfers at gun shows if one of the parties to the transfer requested one.

None of these bills will become law this session. In fact, none of these bills will ever be voted on by the House of Delegates. Why?

Have you ever gone to the General Assembly website and looked at that tutorial that tells “How a bill becomes a law?” There is a step in there entitled “Committee studies bill.” It says “The committee studies the bill to see if it would make a good law.” The next step is entitled “Bill is reported.” It reads “If the committee agrees the bill would make good law, the committee reports the results to the House or the Senate.”

Well, trusted reader, I need to inform you that the General Assembly has not been entirely truthful in educating the public on how a bill becomes a law, or more to the point, how a bill does NOT become a law. It’s not that the tutorial doesn’t tell the truth. It’s that it doesn’t tell the whole truth. It doesn’t mention that under House rules the majority party in the House of Delegates decides the makeup of the various House standing committees. It doesn’t mention that the standing committees may set up subcommittees to more efficiently deal with their load of bills. It doesn’t mention that one of the House committees—the Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety (MPPS)—contains fifteen Republican members and seven Democratic members. It doesn’t mention that the MPPS is divided into three subcommittees. It also doesn’t mention that Subcommittee #1 contains four Republicans and only one Democrat. And it also doesn’t mention that all firearms bills are routinely referred to Subcommittee #1. And finally, it doesn’t mention that under House and parliamentary rules, the 4 Republican members of MPPS Subcommittee #1 can prevent any legislation from ever reaching the floor of the House of Delegates, and they can do so without ever having a recorded vote. And that, dear reader, is what happened to all of the bills I described above.

But, Maven, what do you mean by without a vote. Surely, the subcommittee must vote.

Subcommittee #1 took action by voice vote. How does that work? Motion to table, seconded, all in favor say “aye”, all opposed say “nay,” the ayes have it. And what is reported in the official record? “Subcommittee recommends laying on the table by voice vote.” It is not reported how individual members of the subcommittee voted. So, in theory, we can never hold any of those delegates accountable for their vote. Or can we?

We do know who the members of the subcommittee are. And we can infer how they voted (assuming of course that the chair actually counted the ayes and nays). So let me introduce you to the members of MPPS Subcommittee #1. First the Democrat—Del. Roslyn C. Taylor of the 75^th District. And the Republicans—Del. Thomas C. Wright, Jr., of the 61^st District (chair of the subcommittee); Del. C. Matthew Fariss of the 59^th District; Del. C. Todd Gilbert of the 15^th District; Del. Michael J. Webert of the 18^th District. Although I certainly cannot prove it, I am quite certain that Del. Taylor voted “nay” on the voice votes to put these bills to sleep. Likewise, I am quite certain that Del. Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert all voted to kill these bills.

In the state-wide election this past November the three candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general who favored reasonable gun control legislation were elected. Those who opposed such legislation were defeated. However, that is irrelevant because Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert said NO. Polls show that most Virginians favor reasonable firearms control legislation (like the bills described above). Too bad! Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert said NO. Hundreds of Virginians, including family members of people who were murdered by firearm at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, demonstrate at the Virginia Capitol in favor of responsible gun legislation (like the bills above). Pity! Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert said NO. The Virginia Senate may pass legislation similar to the bills above. But, when they come to the House on crossover day, Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert will again say NO.

But, Maven, isn’t it unfair that four men on one subcommittee can block the will of a majority of the people in Virginia?

Yes, reader, it is unfair. It is also undemocratic (not to be confused with unDemocratic). And it is “unrepublican.” In a republican form of government, which the Commonwealth is supposed to be, I would expect that more times than not the majority would decide what is the proper policy to be followed. Yet, because of the actions of Wright, Farris, Gilbert and Webert, we will never even know what the majority is because those four gentlemen will not allow a vote in the House on any restrictive firearms legislation.

So, what can we do? We need to put the spotlight and the heat on Wright, Farris, Gilbert and Webert. We need to publicize their actions every time they effectively kill reasonable firearms bills. We need to lobby them heavily. We need to make sure that everybody in the Commonwealth knows how these four men continuously block the will of the people. We need to work against the political gerrymandering that allowed three of these “no” men to run unopposed in the last election. Let us not forget the names of these four unknowns: Thomas Wright of Victoria; Matt Fariss of Rustburg; Todd Gilbert of Woodstock; and Michael Webert of Marshall

The Battle of Shockoe

2014-01-14T14:45:00.000-05:00

This maven has said nothing about the ongoing dispute here in Richmond over Mayor Dwight Jones’ plan for the redevelopment of the Shockoe Bottom area of the city, which centers on a new minor league baseball stadium. I have been silent mainly because I am split on this issue, sort of like the population of Richmond. I think the vicinity of the existing stadium (the Diamond) would be a better place for a new stadium, but my preference is not that strong. I also have serious questions whether the taxpayers of Richmond should pay for a stadium for a privately-owned entity. But, we subsidize other businesses to keep them in Richmond so why is a new stadium that different? I am also strongly swayed by those of my African American friends who argue that placing a stadium so close to where so many thousands of African slaves were imprisoned and sold as property (and where many of them died and were buried) is a disgrace to their memory. However, although I know what these friends don’t want, I have not been able to figure out what they do want other than a slogan that calls for an “historic district”. I think that we in Richmond should be forever mindful of the outrageous activities that went on in Shockoe Bottom for so many decades. But I am not sure this necessarily means that the area must remain forever as it is. And, on my third “other hand,” I am aware that the City of Richmond badly needs to expand its tax base. So, with this internal ambiguity, what was a maven to say?

For the world outside of Richmond (and for you Richmonders who have been hibernating for the last few months)—some time past (I am too lazy to do the research to give you exact dates but exact dates are not important) the mayor of our beloved city, Dwight Jones, revealed to all of us a plan for the total revitalization of Shockoe Bottom. His plan included a new baseball stadium, a hotel, a supermarket, apartment buildings and a structure memorializing the slave trade that went on in the area in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. The plan was complete with artist renderings and financial statements. The mayor described his plan as essential to the revitalization of the Shockoe area, as well as vital to the economic expansion of the city. The mayor’s Shockoe plan was strongly connected to a more vaguely described plan to develop the area along the Boulevard where the Diamond now stands into a major commercial and residential neighborhood. A close examination of the Shockoe plan showed that its financial success counted on revenue from the Boulevard development. The mayor’s plan met both with very strong support and very strong opposition.

The mayor’s plan cannot be implemented without the approval of the Richmond City Council. In fact, because it requires the sale of city owned property, the plan needs a super-majority to pass. Like the residents of the city, members of the council are divided on the plan. The eventual outcome will depend on those council members who have not yet decided. Although the mayor and his supporters have called the Shockoe plan an all or nothing proposition and have called for quick approval by the council, the council has been very deliberate, asking questions and holding neighborhood meetings for public input.

This week, probably out of frustration that his proposal has not gained quick approval by the City Council, Mayor Jones raised the stakes. As reported in the Richmond Free Press 1 and repeated in the Richmond Times Dispatch 2 at a prayer meeting commemorating the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the mayor said that the City of Richmond is “still 50% African-American” but there is now a majority on the City Council “that doesn’t look like us.” The mayor implied that those white members of the council who don’t back his plan do not care about creating jobs for African-Americans. The mayor’s attempt to turn this dispute into a racial issue is particularly strange because the most vocal opponents of his development plan come from the African-American community. If it turns out that the City Council does not approve Mayor Jones’ plan, he may regret that he suggested that some of them may be racists.

The mayor may also regret the way that he has tried to implement this project. As I understand it, the mayor did not involve the City Council, as a body, in the formation of the plan. After being mayor for nearly five years, and having been reelected to a second term by a substantial majority, Mr. Jones seems to have forgotten that under the City’s charter it is the City Council, not the mayor, that is the governing body of the City of Richmond. Under the charter, the mayor is responsible “for the proper administration of city government.” He is also has several other specified responsibilities including preparing a proposed city budget for the council’s consideration. But, he is not the government. If I were a member of the City Council I would be jealous of the council’s governing authority and I just might be resentful when the mayor tells me that his plan is an all or nothing proposition and that my only options are to vote “yes” or “no.” Further, it would have made political sense to get council members involved in the planning for the Shockoe development. People who feel they have contributed to the formulation of a plan are not likely to oppose it when it comes up for a vote.

The Shockoe Bottom development plan will probably come onto the City Council’s agenda later this month. If the plan passes, the mayor needs to reach out to those who oppose a stadium in the former slave trading area by making sure that the structure commemorating this dark period in our history is one of the first to be built. He should also take the initiative in making sure that the entire area of the city from the old Manchester Docks along the slave trail up to Broad Street be designated a National Historic District. If the plan is defeated, the mayor and City Council need to get together quickly and create a new plan to redevelop the Shockoe Bottom area.

Lee and Davis and Other Confederate Superheroes

2014-01-11T11:43:00.000-05:00

First a disclaimer—I don’t want to write this. As I said earlier this week, I do not like to write anything that is related to the Civil War. Anything I write will necessarily be divisive and this country is divided enough. And as someone who will always be a guest here in Richmond because I was born somewhere else, I know it’s not polite to say things that may upset your hosts. But, I didn’t start this. This was started by the editorial writers in the Richmond Times-Dispatch when they printed “What’s in a name?” in Thursday’s paper. The TD Opinion is in response to an attempt by citizens in Arlington County to remove the name of Jefferson Davis from the roads and streets of their county. I assume they are trying to change the name of Jefferson Davis Highway.

After setting forth these facts and pointing out how contentious such attempt will be, the TD editors say,

Advocates of stripping Davis’ name can make a good case that, whatever his merits, he represented a cause tainted with the stain of slavery — and, so far as the United States is concerned, with treason — that has no business receiving honor today.

Excuse me: “so far as the United States is concerned?!” TD editors, do you live in a different country than the rest of us? Last time I checked, this is the United States. And yes, Virginia, Mr. Davis represented a cause more than “tainted” with treason. By stating this issue as primarily related to slavery--which even we in Richmond, after 150 years, can now acknowledge as being not particularly brotherly—and putting the treason issue as a parenthetical that only concerns “the United States” the TD editors are trying to hide the real heart of this issue.

In the next paragraph the TD editors roll out the nuclear option. Through the use of a clever segue they turn this into a threat to our precious Monument Avenue. In their words, “To say Davis does not merit honoring is to imply that those statues [on Monument Avenue] should all be torn down.” Hey editors, relax. Those trying to change the name of Jeff Davis highway in Arlington are not going to come marching down I-95 to wreak havoc on our most famous thoroughfare.*

Now that they created the issue, the TD editors go on to defend our monuments:

Unlike certain later developments, those monuments were not erected in defiance of the civil-rights struggle for black equality in the 1960s. Their raising was meant to honor that which was honorable about the South, and to tear them down would be to repudiate not only everything bad about the Confederacy but also everything good as well.

So, erecting Richmond’s statutes of J.E.B. Stuart, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson on what became Monument Avenue was meant to honor “that which was honorable about the South.” And, so that we can get back to the beginning point of the Opinion, I must assume that the action of our General Assembly in 1922 specifying that the Jefferson Davis Highway in Virginia ran from the Fourteenth Street Bridge in Arlington to the North Carolina border near Clarksville, Virginia, was also meant to honor that which was honorable about the South.**

Well pardon me if I disagree that Stuart, Lee, Davis and Jackson (as well as AP Hill whose monument didn’t make it to the Avenue) were that which was “honorable” about the South. I realize that all of these men faced difficult decisions when their states purported to secede from the United States. I know that General Lee was heartbroken. I just read that he initially promised to never take up arms either against the Federal Government or Virginia. I have also read that Jefferson Davis cried when he made his farewell speech in the United States Senate. Yet all but one of these men did decide to take up arms against the United States. And, Davis would have taken up arms if he were not elected President of the Confederacy. He would have much preferred to lead troops against his country.

With the exception of Jackson, who was a teacher at the Virginia Military Academy, these men were all officers of the United States at the beginning of 1861—Lee, Stuart and Hill were in the United States Army, Davis served in the United States Senate. All of them had taken an oath to support and protect the Constitution of the United States. Within months, all of them had violated their oaths by abandoning their allegiance to the United States and joining an insurrection against it. If what these men did was honorable, we need to start changing our thinking about Benedict Arnold.

Moreover, the conduct of all of our honorable Confederates amounted to treason under the United States Constitution. The Constitution defines treason quite clearly:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Lee, Jackson, Stuart and Hill all participated directly in levying war against the United States. They led military groups that killed thousands of United States soldiers. Davis, although he may not have participated directly in military actions, was the Chief Executive Officer of the insurrection that called itself the Confederate States of America. Although they were never convicted of treason, this fact does not change the nature of their conduct.

After rejecting the removal of the monuments, the TD comes up with their solution:

A wiser way to affirm contemporary values, perhaps, is to continue striving to ensure that statutes, roadway names, and other landmarks and insignia embrace the full panoply of the state’s diversity. The monument to women of Virginia history that will soon rise in Richmond’s Capitol Square – perhaps the first such monument of its type in the country – points the proper way.

I certainly support this statement, especially because nobody (except the TD) seems to be considering destroying Monument Avenue. It’s not just a matter of affirming “contemporary values.” It would be a great idea for the City of Richmond to recognize the entirety of its long history, not just the years 1861 through 1865.

This brings me back to Jefferson Davis Highway. I support the citizens of Arlington. It is time for the General Assembly to reverse its action of 1922 and allow local jurisdictions to decide whether they want to continue to honor Jefferson Davis. In Richmond, I think the wonderful monument honoring Davis on the Avenue as well as the equally moving statute at his grave in Hollywood Cemetery are sufficient honors for a man like Davis. It’s time to change the name of those sections of U.S. Route 1 in Richmond that still bear his name to something that is more consistent with “contemporary values.” And, while we’re at it, do we really need a Robert E. Lee Bridge?

*The TD alarmism is like that of the National Rifle Association, which insists that even though the government claims it only wants to require background checks on those purchasing guns its true intent is to confiscate every gun in the country. It also resembles the statement in South Carolina’s secession document in 1860 that one of its reasons for attempting to leave the Union was that the Republican government in Washington intended to launch a war to free all the slaves.

**For a fascinating history of the Jefferson Davis Highway see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/jdavis.cfm

They Shoot Horses

2014-01-09T11:13:00.000-05:00

It is Sunday afternoon. I am pulling out of the Saint James-Beth Ahabah parking lot onto an alley between Franklin and Grace Streets. At the intersection with Ryland Street, I look left to check for traffic and I see what appears to be a police car coming down the street. I am wondering whether it is one of the old white Richmond police cars or the new black ones. I soon discover that it is a Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) police car. I wait for it to pass and then turn right on Ryland. I find myself wondering about the jurisdiction of the VCU police. The police car turns left on Franklin Street and I do the same, making sure that I don’t do anything that resembles a traffic violation. Just before Harrison Street, the police car pulls over and seems to park. I pass him and make a picture-perfect right onto Harrison.

As I drive south on Harrison I sense that the police car is again behind me. And, its lights are flashing. Since I have been driving perfectly, I know it is not me it is after; so I slow down to let it pass. It slows down too, and it is getting clear that it is me it is flashing. I pull over and park. It parks about two car lengths behind me. Then, nothing. About two minutes pass and I am thinking maybe I am wrong. It’s not me it is after. I get out of my car and walk toward the police car to find out what is going on. And then I hear what I have heard hundreds of times before on TV and in the movies—“Sir, get back in your car.”

Soon, a young police officer appears at my window (at my age, almost everybody looks young). I roll down my window. “Do you know why I pulled you over?” This is getting to be more and more a police melodrama. He tells me—“Your registration is expired and you are overdue on your inspection.” He’s gotta be kidding. Nobody is stupid enough to let both those things happen. He asks for my driver’s license and goes back to his car.

I start searching my glove box. I find many pink inspection receipts. 2005, 2008, 2010, several with dates I cannot read. I look up at the inspection sticker on the windshield. It reads 10/2013. And it dawns on me that this 2014. The registration I find ends June 30, 2013. Guess what? It is me that is stupid enough to let both these things happen. But, I don’t remember getting a renewal notice from the DMV. If I had I would have renewed on line. The officer is back.

He asks me to sign two (2) citations. He explains to me that my signature is not an admission of guilt. He explains that if I want to pay these without challenge there is a phone number to call. He also explains that I can go to court to challenge the tickets. He speculates that the registration is six months late so a judge probably won’t let me off. But, he says, the inspection is only two months late and maybe a judge will be lenient. He is talking a lot. Maybe he wants to be my friend. When he finally leaves the side of my car, I am feeling guilty for having ruined his Sunday afternoon by forcing him to write me two tickets.

On Monday I go to the DMV. Seventy something bucks for a two year registration. (Maybe this will encourage my 2004 Camry to last that long). Then off to Allen Tire for the inspection. They call me back. “Your battery is marginal. You also need your cooling system flushed. It is going to be sub-freezing tomorrow so you better get these done.” I reluctantly agree. Later I pick up my car--$336.65. As I am driving home, I notice that my check-engine light has gone on. I am seeing more and more money flowing out of the bank. Don’t they know that me and the maveness are on fixed incomes?

And, I am daydreaming. I bet my great grandfather never had these problems. Of course, I never knew my great grandfather. All I know about him is that he died in the Russian Empire before 1912 (That’s when my grandfather came to this country). I don’t know what he did for a living. I don’t know if he ever saw a car. So, as happens in reverie, I invent an imaginary great grandfather who just happened to live in Richmond, Virginia. He happened to own a horse, which he used to get him around town. He never had to register his horse every year to keep it on the roads. He never had to get it inspected for safety. He had to feed it and take care of it. And when it got old and its arthritic knees kept it from even walking, he could take it out to Henrico and shoot it in the head to put it out of its misery. As for me, I have no horse. I have that 2004 Camry that is eating away at my limited resources. But I have some Facebook friends, probably living in Henrico, who are gun toters. Just one bullet in the head and 2004 Camry would be out of its misery. And me? I would have new-car payments.

The Confederacy: Again

2014-01-08T20:16:00.000-05:00

It has been years since I have commented on a letter to the editor of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Generally, I am in total disagreement with the conservative views expressed (I would never suggest that the TD is biased in choosing which letters to publish) and I see no purpose in spending time in an argument that neither side will win. There have been only a few instances in which I felt it was necessary to say something. And with the advent of Facebook and Twitter, it’s a lot easier to comment in those media. In addition, I hate to write again about the Confederate States of America. I am certainly not a Civil War historian and it would be hard to continue serving as a maven if people thought I had become an expert only on the unpleasantness of the early 1860s. Two consecutive articles on the same subject area raise that risk. But the letter that the TD editors entitled “South was fighting for self-determination” in yesterday’s paper sparked my interest.

This all grows out of a dispute that has been going on since the 150 year anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s famous speech delivered at the Gettysburg National Cemetery in 1863. It seems that some people want to challenge the generally accepted view that Lincoln’s remarks constituted a great speech and an essential United States historical document. Specifically, the letter yesterday asserted that previous letter writers defending Lincoln’s speech had not rebutted the accusation by H. L. Mencken that 1. The Gettysburg speech was “oratory, not logic; beauty not sense” and that 2. Lincoln falsely indicated that Union soldiers were fighting for self-determination, when actually Confederate soldiers were.

Mencken, who was popular about a century ago, was a pretty good writer and a critic of other’s use of the English language. He was also curmudgeonlier than even this maven.*

Although at one time I had memorized it, yesterday I looked back at the text of the Gettysburg Address to make sure I knew of what I speak. And I must wonder what this dispute is all about. Nowhere in his remarks did Lincoln talk of any soldier fighting for “self-determination”. In the second paragraph (I am looking at the so-called “Bliss Copy”—one of five existing versions of the speech) Lincoln said, “We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.” Lincoln refers to Union soldiers as having died to preserve the United States; he doesn’t mention self-determination. In the last paragraph, Lincoln refers to the Union dead buried at Gettysburg as having fought and died to assure that the United States “shall not perish from the earth.” Again he does not mention self-determination.

So where does “self-determination” come from? It was Mencken who equated Lincoln’s statement that Union soldiers fought and died at Gettysburg to preserve the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as being equivalent to saying they were fighting for “self-determination.” After that, Mencken went on the attack:

“The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.”

Aside from his lapses in logic (1- fighting to preserve the Union is equivalent to fighting for self-determination; 2- sovereignty of the states is the same as sovereignty of the people living in them), Mencken is espousing an argument that the states had total sovereignty before it was taken away by the Union in the Civil War. He is also railing against Reconstruction.

I have mixed emotions about Reconstruction. But I can’t agree with Mencken that from 1865 to 1876 (not quite Mencken’s 20 years) all the people in the states that had attempted to secede from the nation had as little liberty as “so many convicts in the penitentiary.”

As to his state sovereignty argument:

1- The states in the United States have never had total sovereignty. They were always subject to a constitution that said:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

2- Mencken forgets that the major attribute of supposed state sovereignty that caused the southern states to secede from the United States and to precipitate the Civil War revolved around the practice of owning other human beings (a practice I suggest has little to do with “self-determination”). In justifying their secessions, the southern states basically asserted three things that were causing them to separate from the United States: a- the inability of their citizens who were slave-owners to emigrate to western territories and take their slaves with them; b- the failure of some northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law; and c- their belief that a Republican federal government would inevitably launch a war to deprive them of their human chattel.

Neither you nor I will ever know the motivation of individual soldiers fighting at Gettysburg. But, it is clear that the only self-determination that Confederate soldiers were fighting for was that of the southern landed aristocracy to keep other human beings enslaved. In fighting to preserve the United States, Union soldiers were not fighting against any other “self-determination.” Mencken was entitled to his opinion, but he was wrong.

Yesterday’s letter also relies on a statement from British Foreign Minister (I believe he was actually Foreign “Secretary”), Lord John Russell, who served during the American Civil War. As our letter writer quotes him, Lord Russell did not use the term self-determination. Rather he said that thousands of soldiers were dying to prevent the southern states from acting on the “principles of independence” that were asserted by the United States against Great Britain in 1776.

I do not know for sure the context of Lord Russell’s statement quoted in yesterday’s letter. But, I do know we are engaging in something that I did not learn as a student in New York City’s public schools during the 1950s. I vaguely remember learning that the United States government was concerned in 1861 and 1862 that the Brits might formally recognize the Confederate government and that these fears were mostly put to rest by the twin military victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg in July 1863. But I knew nothing more specific than this. It was not until recently, when I read “The Education of Henry Adams”—a memoir written in the third person by the great grandson of John Adams—that I learned “the rest of the story.”

Henry Adams served as private secretary to his father, Charles Francis Adams, who was United States Ambassador to England during the 1860s. Before he left the United States, the younger Adams assumed that because of their opposition to slavery the British would support the Federal Government in the Civil War. When he arrived in London, he was shocked to find strong pro-Confederate sentiment, especially in government circles. Part of this sentiment grew out of the rather Machiavellian beliefs of Prime Minister Henry John Temple, the Third Viscount Palmerston, that British interests in North America would be better served by splitting the United States in two. (The United States as a single strong nation on the southern border of Canada was more dangerous to British imperial goals in the northwest than would be two weaker nations, possibly involved in perpetual war over control of what later became our western states.)** When the Adams, father and son, arrived in London they were greeted by the news that the British Government had met with emissaries from the Confederate States and had recognized the “belligerency” of the Confederacy. It was in this context that Lord Russell probably made the statement quoted above. By comparing the Confederacy with the United States in 1776, he was attempting to justify Lord Palmerston’s government supporting what was a slavery-based nation. Because of his obvious bias, we can’t rely on his statement as establishing anything.

Further, the “principals of independence” that Lord Russell claimed the Confederacy was fighting for were totally different than those asserted by the United States in the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, we were asserting a right to participate in making the decisions that governed us. We refused to continue in a nation in which we had no representation in the governing body. In 1865, the seceding states were not asserting that they had no representation in the Congress. Rather, they were complaining that they no longer had the votes to control the Congress. They tried to leave the United States because they were no longer getting their way.

*However, Mencken was also the author of the following statement, which raises questions about whether our letter writer should be relying on him:

“The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered, they lack many of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.”

**Prime Minister Palmerston’s policies almost led to disaster. The United States discovered that the British were about to provide secret military assistance to the Confederacy. President Lincoln warned the British that if they did not stop meddling in the internal affairs of the United States he would be forced to seek a declaration of war against England.

On The Confederate Flag

2013-11-15T11:07:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week I was driving north on Boulevard. (For those of you from outside of Richmond, that is the full name of this street.) As I passed the art museum, I saw them—several people standing out front carrying Confederate flags. These people have been picketing the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA) for two years. What is their beef? In 2011, the VMFA removed the Confederate flags that had been displayed in front of the Confederate Memorial Chapel, a church that stands on VMFA property. The VMFA says it did so to be historically accurate—the Chapel did not fly the Confederate flag during its early years. The protesters, who became known as Flaggers, considered the removal an affront to the Confederate heritage of Richmond and asserted that it was dishonoring their ancestors who had fought for the Confederacy.

This summer, when they found that they were mostly being ignored, the flaggers announced that they were going to erect the biggest Confederate flag they could find on private property abutting Interstate 95 south of Richmond. The announcement drew international attention and scorn to the City of Richmond. (Not to worry, we Richmonders are used to scorn—mainly based on the actions of the Virginia General Assembly, which meets in our fair city on the James). In any event, the erection turned out to be a bust, since this largest of Confederate flags could hardly be seen from the Interstate; at least while there was foliage on the trees. But, I wasn’t thinking of that as I passed the protesters. I was just trying to figure out what kind of mindset would have them picketing in support of the symbol of a lost cause.

If you are not from this city, perhaps you don’t know how significant is the four years—from the spring of 1861, when Virginia purported to secede from the United States, until April 1865, when the Confederate government abandoned this city—during which Richmond was the capital of the aborted Confederacy. There is a significant portion of our citizenry who look on those four years as Richmond’s golden days. We have a major thoroughfare with monuments to our pantheon of Confederate gods. (Other cities may have statues; in Richmond we have monuments.) These structures honor those we hold most sacred—(from East to West) James Ewell Brown (JEB) Stuart, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. (Further to the west there is a structure dedicated to Mathew Fontaine Maury, “Pathfinder of the Seas,” and another one for Arthur Ashe, a tennis star, but these were afterthoughts). And, on one of Richmond’s highest hills, visible for many blocks, we have erected a monolith with a statute atop it dedicated to Confederate soldiers and sailors. We also have an ordinary statue honoring A. P. Hill, a lesser Confederate officer*, and in Hollywood Cemetery we have another monument to Jefferson Davis, at the sight of his grave.

For many people in Richmond, the period of the Confederacy is a part of Richmond’s heritage that must be celebrated. They think there is something romantic about the “Lost Cause,” and that those four years, in which the Confederate flag flew above the General Assembly building, were among Richmond’s finest hours. I assume that the flaggers are among that group.

I certainly agree that the Confederate years are part of Richmond’s history and that we must not forget them. But, these were not great years. These four years were among the darkest in Richmond’s history. These four years ended in disaster. During these four years the residents of Richmond suffered death, disease, famine and destruction. Is there something really romantic about this? Of course these years are part of our history, but they are nothing to be proud of.

And what about the members of the United States Congress, who left their posts and went south to serve in the Confederate government or in the governments of the seceding states? And the soldiers who fought on the side of the Confederacy against the United States? Are we to honor them as heroes?

This is the hard part to talk about. I know there are many people whose ancestors did serve in those capacities. I would like to honor those who lost their lives fighting for what they believed in. I do not want to condemn them. But, reader, history has been very cruel to the soldiers, sailors and civilian leaders of the Confederacy. Their actions, which may have been considered heroic and patriotic from 1861 to 1865, suddenly underwent a change in character when Lee and other Confederate generals surrendered and when the Confederate government disbanded. Because what these Confederates—military and civilian—believed in turned out to be an insurrection against the United States. What is more, their behavior constituted treason. Article III, Section 3, of the United States Constitution provides:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

From the time that the first cannon shots were fired against the United States installation at Fort Sumter, the civilian leaders and the soldiers and sailors of the Confederate States of America were “levying war” against the United States. They may have thought they were only defending their states but in fact they were attacking and killing soldiers wearing the uniform of the United States and who were fighting under its flag. This constituted treason. Under President Lincoln’s “malice toward none”, “charity for all” policy, which continued for a time after his death, Confederate civilian and military leaders were not tried for treason. This fact, however, does not change the nature of their behavior.

Reader, I recently heard an interview of the head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans by local historians. He argued that we must look at the Confederate cause no differently than we look at the American cause in our War of Independence. He said that the Confederate leaders were no different than our revolutionary leaders; they were each fighting for freedom from an oppressive government located in a distant capital. Confederate soldiers, just like American soldiers in the Revolutionary War were fighting to protect themselves and their families from tyranny; they must be honored and celebrated.

The leader of the Sons of Confederate Veterans made a very persuasive argument. However, he fails to recognize the reality of history. The simple fact is that those who fought for the cause of American freedom won their war; those who fought for Confederate freedom lost theirs. And, reader, there lies the difference. Had the militias of the southern states and the army of the Confederacy been victorious in their insurrection, they would indeed be heroes of a valiant cause. Had the Confederacy won, Jefferson Davis would be the father of his country, and towns and cities throughout the south would be named Davis. But, loyal reader, history is not what some people wish had happened. History is what actually happened. **

On occasion, I visit Shockoe Hill Cemetery or Hollywood Cemetery here in Richmond. Each contains the graves of many soldiers who fought on both sides of the Civil War. In both cemeteries I have seen the graves of Union soldiers identified by an American flag and the graves of Confederate soldiers indentified by a Confederate flag. These are the flags under which they fought and died and I think it is appropriate that their graves be adorned in this way. I also have no problem with Confederate (or British or Mexican or French flags) being flown at historic sites to recreate things as they were.

But this maven cannot agree with those who feel that the Confederate flag should be flown as a symbol of our glorious heritage and to honor those who fought on the southern side in the Civil War. When a cause has ended; when a rebellion has failed; when an attempted new nation has been destroyed; it is time to acknowledge the realities of history and bury its symbols.

*Let us not feel sorry about General Hill. After all, he does have an American military base named after him. Maybe someday the maven will write about the curious custom we have in this country of naming military bases after people who fought against the United States.

** And, had history been different in the 1770s and 1780s—had the British armies crushed our militias and the United States Army—things certainly would be different. We would be singing “God Save the Queen” and saluting the Union Jack. George Washington might be remembered as is Guy Fawkes as the treasonous leader of an unsuccessful rebellion. But, that also is not what happened.

Rescue The Maven—Please

2013-11-13T15:35:00.000-05:00

I posted my first entry in this blog more than seven years ago. It was entitled “The Marriage Amendment—WWJD” and was one of two entries I wrote trying to convince people to vote against the so-called marriage amendment to the Virginia Constitution. Why did this citizen of the 20^th Century suddenly decide to start writing a blog? Well, frankly, I was kind of frustrated by the fact that the Richmond Times-Dispatch never published any of my letters to the editor. One day in October 2006, I shouted, “Who needs the stinking Times-Dispatch; I will self-publish.” And, as they say, the rest is history.

I have never worried too much about who is reading James River Maven. I always write to an imaginary trusted loyal reader. Sometimes I even address the reader as the only one who is reading the blog. All was well; I was happy; and then…

This week, while using a search engine to find one of my posts, I found a page from "URLmetrics" rankng my blog. It said that James River Maven was the 3,744,686 ranked website in the United States. Let me say this another way—there are 3,744,685 websites in the country ranked higher than mine. I seem to be trending, but in the wrong direction. What a revolting development this is!

Now, I have to admit that I have no idea what the URL ranking means. Does it mean that 3¾ million websites have better content than James River Maven? Does it mean that 3¾ million websites are better written than James River Maven? Does it mean that 3¾ million websites are more frequently read than James River Maven? I do not know. But I do know that my 3,744,686 ranking equates to James River Maven having an estimated worth of $793.06. (I sure hope that doesn’t change my tax status).

A bigger man than the maven would search his soul to try to determine what is lacking in his blog. Not me! I will use the philosophy of a well-known local politician who I heard say, not too long ago, that when a candidate loses, it is not his fault but the fault of his supporters. So, I come to the inevitable conclusion that it is your fault, loyal reader, that I am not ranked higher. It is obvious to me that you simply do not read each of my entries enough times; you do not spread my fame to your friends either by Facebook or Twitter; you have not become a follower of the maven; you have not urged your friends and acquaintances to become followers.

Trusted reader, I must turn to you to do the right thing. Only you can save the maven from the embarrassing 3,744,686^th place. You need to read each of my posts at least 100 times. You must tell all your friends, both real and virtual, that James River Maven is the place to be. You need to become my follower and to urge others to do the same.

Who knows, if you come to my rescue, I might start trending in the right direction. I might even become a virus. And, maybe, just maybe, in the near future I may be ranked number 2,000,000.

Signs—Seven Years Later

2013-11-12T20:00:00.000-05:00

At some time in the remote past, probably before I moved to Richmond, the Richmond City Council, our governing body, decided that advertising signs were ugly. And so they passed an ordinance declaring that such signs appearing on public property were a nuisance. That ordinance is currently in the City Code and either appears in Chapter 19, Article II of the Code (as found on the city’s website) or Chapter 38, Article III, Division 2 (as published by Municode.) It appears that the Municode version is based on a later enactment so I will reference that one.

Section 38-113 of the Code provides:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to paint, mark or write on or post or otherwise affix to or upon a public way or fixture thereon any sign or other form of commercial, noncommercial, or political advertising, promotion, solicitation, communication or display. It shall furthermore be unlawful for any person to cause or, with knowledge, permit such actions to be taken on such person's behalf.” (Certain types of signs are exempt from the ordinance under section 38-114.)

The penalty provision of the ordinance provides that anyone convicted of violating the ordinance shall be fined not less than $10 or more than $50. Each sign is considered a separate violation and each day it is displayed is considered a separate violation. Section 38-112.

Additional bite for the statute is contained in section 38-115, which states:

“Any violation of this division is hereby declared to be a nuisance. No person shall have any legal right to the continued presence of a sign in a public way in violation of this division, nor shall there be any legal remedy against any person solely for the removal from a public way of a sign which is in violation of this division. Any person may abate the nuisance created by a violation of this division without liability for doing so. If abatement is made by the city, the reasonable costs incurred in removal may be assessed against any person responsible for or benefited by the violation, and such costs shall be collected in the same manner as city taxes. For a willful violation, the city shall be entitled to recover costs, the reasonable value of attorney's fees, and punitive damages in any proceeding which it may bring to enjoin future violations.”

One thing about this nuisance ordinance seems very clear to me—it is never (or hardly ever) enforced. There are commercial advertising signs posted all over the city and they sit there indefinitely with no consequences. In the fall there are myriad political signs posted on the public way, many remaining after Election Day; and nobody seems to pay any fines and nobody seems to be billed for the cost of city employees removing those signs after the election is over.

As a lawyer, I get very upset when the legislature (in this case the City Council) goes to the trouble of enacting a law but nobody enforces it. Such abdication contributes to contempt for law by those who become aware of it. And, in the case of the sign ordinance, failure to enforce the law also deprives the city of potentially significant amounts of revenue. As this maven said seven years ago when first noticing the city’s failure to enforce the sign ordinance:

“From the fact that the city did not enforce the ordinance with respect to political signs erected during the recent campaign, I must assume that the city government is flush with money. Why else would it deliberately refuse to assess fines or collect the cost of removal from the various campaign committees that planted all the signs? When the next budget cycle comes around, let’s all remember the thousands of dollars that the city did not collect this election year.” 1

Richmond Public Schools Budget: You Figure It Out

2013-11-12T10:45:00.000-05:00

The maven is throwing in the towel! I have spent far too much time on this, both last spring and this fall, and it just doesn’t get any better. This whole problem was caused by the Virginia General Assembly. Why should I be the one who has to bail them out?

So I am going to put all my research out there and any of you readers is welcome to come up with a reasonable solution. For any of you who can do it, I will be glad to award my virtual “You’re Obviously a Better Lawyer than Me” medal, which you can wear or frame and hang over your desk.

What is this all about? It’s about what rules should the school board, the mayor and the city council follow in formulating the annual budget for Richmond Public Schools.

For those of you who are old-time maven fans you know that since 2008 I have been criticizing the Richmond School Board for preparing budgets each year that were not based on the needs of the school system but rather on the wishes of Richmond’s mayor and city council. I pointed out that all three players in the school budget game were either unaware of, or were choosing to ignore, the requirement of state law that school budgets be based on an “estimate of the amount of money deemed to be needed during the next fiscal year for the support of the public schools of the school division.” (Virginia Code section 22.1-92, my emphasis). I have pointed out that the way the school budget has been handled in Richmond over recent years has resulted in the City of Richmond providing a constantly lower percentage of its operating budget for schools each year, a percentage that is lower than that of other jurisdictions in Virginia.

But last spring, when I started looking at the controlling statutes again, I discovered that the school board, the mayor and the city council were looking at totally different provisions of law than the maven was. I was looking at Title 22.1 of the Virginia Code entitled “Education.” The board, mayor and council were looking at Chapter 6 of the Richmond City Charter, entitled Budget. Trust me, reader; these sets of law are significantly different.

State Law:

All of Title 22.1 of the Virginia Code, including Chapter 8 on Public School Funds, was enacted in furtherance of the General Assembly’s responsibility under Article VIII, Section 1, of the Virginia Constitution, which reads:

The General Assembly shall provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth, and shall seek to ensure that an educational program of high quality is established and continually maintained.

The General Assembly created school districts and school boards as entities of the state, rather than agencies of local governmental units. The provisions controlling school boards are contained in Title 22.1, chapter 5 of the Virginia Code. The General Assembly intended that school budgets and school funds be treated separately from the funding for local government. The laws governing school funding are contained in an entirely separate chapter of the code from those covering local government funding, which are contained in Title 15.2, chapter 25 of the Code.

Chapter 8 of Title 22.1 of the Virginia Code is entitled “Public School Funds.” The key provisions of that chapter with regard to annual school budgets are sections 92, 93 and 94. Section 22.1-92 reads:

A. It shall be the duty of each division superintendent to prepare, with the approval of the school board, and submit to the governing body or bodies appropriating funds for the school division, by [April 1] the estimate of the amount of money deemed to be needed during the next fiscal year for the support of the public schools of the school division. The estimate shall set up the amount of money deemed to be needed for each major classification prescribed by the Board of Education and such other headings or items as may be necessary.

* * *.

B. Before any school board gives final approval to its budget for submission to the governing body, the school board shall hold at least one public hearing to receive the views of citizens within the school division. A school board shall cause public notice to be given at least 10 days prior to any hearing by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation within the school division. . .

Section 22.1-93 provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . the governing body of a municipality shall prepare and approve an annual budget for educational purposes by May fifteen or within thirty days of the receipt by the municipality of the estimates of state funds, whichever shall later occur. Upon approval, each local school division shall publish the approved annual budget, including the estimated required local match, on the division's website, and the document shall also be made available in hard copy as needed to citizens for inspection.

Section 22.1-94 states:

A governing body may make appropriations to a school board from the funds derived from local levies and from any other funds available, for operation, capital outlay and debt service in the public schools. . . .The appropriations may be made on the same periodic basis as the governing body makes appropriations to other departments and agencies.

Sections 92 and 93 were reenacted by the General Assembly as recently as 2011.

In sum, these provisions require:

1- That the Superintendent of Schools, with the approval of the school board, submit to the local governing body—in Richmond, this would be the City Council—no later than April 1 of each year an estimate of the amount of funds that will be necessary to operate the public schools in the upcoming year. This estimate shall use the classifications established by the state Board of Education. These classifications are (i) instruction, (ii) administration, attendance and health, (iii) pupil transportation, (iv) operation and maintenance, (v) school food services and other noninstructional operations, (vi) facilities, (vii) debt and fund transfers, (viii) technology, and (ix) contingency reserves. (Virginia Code section 22.1-115)

2- That before adopting its budget, the school board shall hold at least one public meeting and that it shall give ten days notice before that meeting.

3- That the local governing body—in Richmond, the City Council—shall prepare and approve an annual budget for educational purposes by May 15 (or within 30 days of receiving an estimate of state funds that the school district will receive in the following school year.)

4- That the local governing body may appropriate local funds to the school board (to supplement funds received from the state) for operation, capital outlay and debt service of the school district.

(The only strange requirement in this legislative scheme for public school budgeting is the second one. As indicated in the quote above, section 22.1-92(B) requires the school board to hold a public meeting before approving its budget, but the statute nowhere requires the school board to prepare a budget.)

City Charter:

In enacting the Richmond City Charter, the General Assembly appears to treat the school board as a special entity within the city government. Section 20.01 of the Charter provides:

The School Board shall consist of nine trustees [sic]. One trustee shall be elected from each of the nine Council districts and shall be a qualified voter of that district.

The time of election and terms of members of the School Board shall be the same as the time of election and terms of the members of the Council.

Trustees shall take office July 1 following their election.

Except as provided in this Charter the School Board shall have all the powers and duties relating to the management and control of the public schools of the City provided by the general laws of the Commonwealth. None of the provisions of this Charter shall be interpreted to refer to or include the School Board unless the intention so to do is expressly stated or is clearly apparent from the context.

The laws respecting the preparation and approval of budgets in the City of Richmond are contained in Chapter 6 of the Charter. Section 6.02 provides:

On a day to be fixed by the council, but in no case earlier than the second Monday of February or later than the seventh day of April in each year, the mayor shall submit to the council: (a) separate current expense budgets for the general operation of the city government, for the public schools and for each utility as defined in Chapter 13 of this charter; (b) a budget message; and (c) a capital budget.

Section 6.03 states:

It shall be the duty of the head of . . . each board or commission, including the school board . . . to provide, at such time as the mayor may prescribe, estimates of revenue and expenditure for that . . . board. . . for the ensuing fiscal year. Such estimates shall be submitted in a form as determined by the mayor. . . . The mayor shall . . . make such revisions in such estimates as he/she may deem proper, subject to the laws of the Commonwealth relating to obligatory expenditures for any purpose, except that in the case of the school board, he/she may recommend a revision only as permitted by § 22.1-94 of the Code of Virginia or any other provision of general law not in conflict with this charter.

Section 6.05 provides:

For any fund, the total of proposed expenditures shall not exceed the total of estimated income plus carried forward fund balance.

Section 6.09 provides:

A public hearing on the budget plan as a whole shall be held by the Council within the time and after the notice provided for hearings on ordinances by Section 4.10 of this Charter, except that the notice of such hearing shall be printed in a newspaper published or in general circulation in the City.

Section 6.11 states:

Not later than the thirty-first day of May in each year the council shall adopt the budget, the appropriation ordinances and such ordinances providing for additional revenue as may be necessary to put the budget in balance.

And, section 6.14 provides:

It shall be the duty of the school board to submit its budget estimates to the mayor at the same time as other departments and in the form prescribed by the mayor. The mayor and council may take any action on the school budget permitted by § 22.1-94 of the Code of Virginia or any other provision of general law not in conflict with this charter. The school board shall before the beginning of the fiscal year file with the director of finance its budget as finally revised and its appropriations based thereon.

In sum, these provisions of the city charter provide:

1- That the School Board [section 6.14] (or the head of the School Board [section 603]) submits to the Mayor budget estimates [section 6.14] (or estimates of revenues and expenditures [section 6.3) in the form and at the time required by the Mayor.
2- That the total of proposed expenditures for any fund shall not exceed the estimated expected income plus any balance carried forward.

3- That the mayor may make changes in the school board estimates consistent with state law.

4- That, by a date specified by the City Council, the Mayor shall submit separate current expense budgets for the city government and for the public schools.

5- That the City Council holds a public hearing on the “budget plan.”

6- That the City Council shall adopt the budget and any ordinances necessary to balance it by the end of May.

Side by side:

Comparing the state and city provisions reveals several inconsistencies. Some of these inconsistencies only relate to the date things need to be done. The substantive ones are:

1- The state law requires the submission to the governing body of the local jurisdiction of an estimate of the needs of the school system. The city code has no such provision.

2- The state law requires the use of classifications established by the state Board of Education. The city code requires that budget statements be in the form specified by the mayor.

3- The state law provides that the school board’s budget be submitted directly to the governing body. The city code provides that the school board’s budget be submitted first to the mayor who may make changes before submitting it to the City Council.

4- The state law requires the governing body to prepare and approve an annual budget for educational purposes. The city charter requires the Mayor to submit to the City Council a separate budget for public schools. However, the charter indicates that the council is to adopt a single budget for the city including the public schools.

Both the Virginia Code provisions and the city charter provisions were enacted by the Virginia General Assembly. And yet, they are in conflict. So, what do we do about these conflicts?

When a court has to apply two statutes that appear on their surface to be contradictory, it relies on a “legal fiction.” That fiction assumes that in enacting new legislation the legislature is fully aware of all other laws it has ever enacted and intends the new legislation to be compatible with those laws. In other words, the law does not favor implied repeals. It is only when the court finds that it cannot give both statutes full effect that it relies on one of two principals of statutory interpretation:

1- Later in time prevails: The assumption is that the legislature intended its most recent pronouncement to be controlling;

2- Specific controls over general: The assumption is that the legislature intended its more specific pronouncement to be an exception to the general statute.

This approach, however, makes no sense in the current instance. Merely, choosing which of the conflicting statutes should control will not resolve the basic problem. Does the General Assembly want the Richmond School Board to operate as other school boards in the Commonwealth, that is, as an instrumentality of the state that also receives funding from the City of Richmond; or does the General Assembly want the school board (for budget formulation purposes) to be an entity of the City of Richmond that also receives funding from the Commonwealth?

So, the maven has to abdicate his responsibility on this issue. I strongly recommend that the Richmond School Board and/or the City Council and/or the Mayor take this issue back to the General Assembly for resolution. I also recommend that our local senators and delegates make sure this issue is resolved when the General Assembly reconvenes in 2014.

Richmond School Board: Let the City Council and the People Know What You Need

2013-11-05T12:02:00.001-05:00

According to Zach Reid’s article in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch1, the Richmond School Board is seeking the help of the citizens in setting its priorities in formulating the budget for operating Richmond Public Schools (RPS) for the fiscal year 2014-15. The board will seek input using surveys both in writing and on the web. The input received will be “vetted” at a special budget meeting on November 23.

This maven congratulates the board on this approach. In providing services, it is always wise for an enterprise to seek the views both of its customers (families of RPS students) and its owners (the taxpayers of Richmond). On an issue as important as the future of our children we all should cooperate by participating in the budget survey.

The TD article also states that the RPS staff has already been doing its homework and has created a list of needs of the school system and has prioritized them. This certainly will help the board when it gets into the deliberative part of formulating the budget. But, it will also help the Interim Superintendent and the board comply with a provision of state law, which has not been followed in the recent past.

Section 22.1-92 of the Code of Virginia provides:

(The classifications prescribed by the state Board of Education are (i) instruction, (ii) administration, attendance and health, (iii) pupil transportation, (iv) operation and maintenance, (v) school food services and other noninstructional operations, (vi) facilities, (vii) debt and fund transfers, (viii) technology, and (ix) contingency reserves. (Virginia Code section 22.1-115)). This mandate, which is not inconsistent with any provision of the Richmond city charter, allows both the governing body (the City Council) and the citizens to know at the beginning of budget preparation what the superintendent and board estimate they need to run the school system. The only thing in the state statute that is problematic is the deadline for submission of the statement. In light of the budget schedule set out in the Richmond city charter, it would make more sense for the superintendent to submit the estimate to the City Council no later than the middle of January.

Therefore, I recommend that the Richmond School Board direct the Interim Superintendent to begin working on the mandated estimate, so that it will be ready to be submitted to the City Council by January 15, 2014.

The Real Mark Obenshain: What his daughter Won’t Tell You

2013-10-31T18:29:00.000-04:00

The Mark Obenshain we know is the one we see in his TV ads. He is the nice guy, with the nice family and a nice suburban home. He has an attractive wife and a cute daughter who is always defending him from the evil opponent who issues lies about him in his campaign. She accuses the opponent of not protecting women and flashes a bill reference number to prove it (although it disappears from the screen so fast I still don’t know what the bill is). And the media-produced Mark Obenshain is the one that appears to be in a dead heat with his opponent Mark Herring as the last hours of the campaign tick away.

But there is another Mark Obenshain. That is the Obenshain his daughter won’t talk about. That is the Obenshain who has consistently voted for right wing conservative legislation. That is the Obenshain who has earned the endorsement of many right wing conservative groups and low scores from progressive groups. That is the Mark Obenshain you need to meet.

Mark’s Supporters:

Let’s take a look at the groups that support Mark Obenshain:

Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia: The Caucus has endorsed Obenshain’s candidacy. As it describes itself, “the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia exists to promote individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party.” The national Caucus represents the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party, favoring reduced government intrusion, lower taxes, elimination of federal agencies, less regulation, a strong national defense with fewer military bases abroad, and no foreign aid. The Republican Liberty Caucus is working to make the Republican Party even more conservative than it already is.

National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund: The NRA-PVA has endorsed Obenshain’s candidacy based on the votes and positions he has taken while in the General Assembly. The NRA-PVA has also endorsed Obenshain’s running mates Ken Cuccinelli and Earl Jackson.

Family Foundation of Virginia: Based on his voting record, Obenshain has received a 100% rating from the Foundation. For those who are not familiar with the Foundation, I quote from one of my earlier posts:

As for the Virginia Family Foundation, its website indicates that its “vision is to establish a Commonwealth of strong families who are guided by faith and protected by a principled government.” The Family Foundation’s five-year plan seeks to 1- Establish Virginia as the most pro-life state in the nation. 2-Protect the institution of traditional marriage. 3-Reinforce the rights of parents to make life-altering decisions in their children’s lives. 4-Limit the undue burden placed on families by state government. 5- Reestablish Virginia as the national model for religious liberty. In the area of education, the Virginia Family Foundation favors tax credits for families “that choose non-public schools.” 1

To receive the 100% rating from the Foundation, Obenshain had to vote the right way on all 20 pieces of legislation that it supported. So Mark voted (for brevity I have omitted some of the votes):

a- in favor of HB321 in 2012, which gave a tax credit to corporations and individuals who contributed to scholarship programs that financed poor children attending private schools;

b- in favor of HB462 in 2012, which requires a woman to undergo ultrasound imaging before undergoing an abortion.

c- in favor of SB349 in 2012, which allows a private adoption agency to refuse to participate in an adoption that violates its written religious or moral convictions.

d- against SR27 in 2013, and thus against the confirmation of Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland.

e- against HB2313 in 2013, which created a new funding mechanism for transportation projects in Virginia. (The Foundation opposed because it resulted in a net increase of taxes).

f- in favor of SB1074 in 2013, which allows student organizations at state colleges or universities to discriminate on the basis of religious, political or philosophical beliefs.

g- in favor of an amendment to HB1900 in 2013, which prohibited insurance companies participating in exchanges under the Affordable Health Act from providing abortion coverage.

h- against SB701 in 2013, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

i- in favor of HB1112 in 2012, which would repeal the requirement of vaccination against human papillomavirus for female children.

j- against HB62 and SB826 in 2012, which would have repealed the provision of law that allows state Medicaid funds to pay for an abortion when a doctor certifies “that the fetus would be born with a gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.”

k-against SJ130 in 2012, which would have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution.

l- in favor of SJ287 in 2013, which would amend the Virginia Constitution to authorize “prayer in private or public settings, on government premises, on public property, and in all public schools” The amendment would also require the display of the Ten Commandment in all public schools.

American Conservative Union: Obenshain received a 100% rating from the Union which describes itself in these words:

“For more than forty years, ACU has served as an umbrella organization harnessing the collective strength of conservative organizations fighting for Americans who are concerned with liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values, and strong national defense…As America’s premier conservative voice, ACU is the leading entity in providing conservative positions on issues to Congress, the Executive Branch, State Legislatures, the media, political candidates, and the public.”

The Union is the host of the annual CPAC conference.

Marks Opponents:

These are some of the groups that oppose Mark Obenshain:

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia: Obenshain received a 0% rating from this organization.

“Our mission is to develop and sustain a constituency that uses the state-level political process in Virginia to guarantee every woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices …”

Virginia Education Association: Obenshain received a 0% rating from the VEA.

"The mission of the Virginia Education Association is to unite our members and local communities across the Commonwealth in fulfilling the promise of a high quality public education that successfully prepares every single student to realize his or her full potential. We believe this can be accomplished by advocating for students, education professionals, and support professionals.”

Some of Mark’s Recent Votes:

2013: Obenshain voted against HB1907, which increased the fine for driving while texting.

Obenshain voted for SB1335, which prohibited the disclosure of information about persons authorized to carry concealed weapons.

Obenshain voted for SB1256, which provides that a photo-ID is the only form of identification that will permit a person to vote in Virginia.

Obenshain voted for SB721, which required drug testing for certain welfare recipients.

Obenshain voted against SB975, which prohibited smoking in a car containing minors.

Obenshain voted against SB736, which requires drivers or passengers in cars to wait for a “reasonable opportunity” to open doors on the side adjacent to moving traffic.

Obenshain voted for SB1335, which prohibited the disclosure of information about persons authorized to carry concealed weapons.

2012: Obenshain voted for HB48, which allows a resident to use deadly force against an intruder, if the intruder commits an “overt act” and the resident believes he is in imminent danger of physical injury.

Obenshain voted for HB940, which repealed the limit on purchasing one hand-gun in a 30 day period.

And, so we have a portrait of the other Mark Obenshain; the one his daughter will not talk about. This is the Obenshain whose voting record has made him the darling of all the ultra-conservative groups in Virginia. This is the Obenshain who has not earned the votes of either Democrats or Independents in next Tuesday’s election. He has also not earned the votes of mainstream Republicans who want to save their party from the extremists on the right who have been controlling it for the past several years. The only intelligent choice next Tuesday is to vote for the other Mark—Mark Herring for Attorney General.

Will the Real Manoli Loupassi Please Stand

2013-10-30T11:18:00.000-04:00

First, a few disclaimers: 1- I do not live in the 68^th House of Delegates district, so Manoli Loupassi is not my delegate; 2- Mr. Loupassi is a Republican so it would have to be a strange combination of circumstances that would lead me to support him in a political race; and 3- I opposed Mr. Loupassi’s election campaign in 2007 1 (although my opposition then was based mainly on the hateful campaign he was running.

On the other hand, Manoli seems a nice enough guy. I have met him several times and we have always been civil to each other. I used to enjoy watching him preside over the Richmond City Council back when he was its president. And, Mr. Loupassi always presents himself as one of those reasonable Republicans, not a Tea Party, NRA, Family Foundation of Virginia right-wing Republican. This presentment, you may argue, is negated by the facts that Manoli has been endorsed for reelection by the NRA and scored 88 on the Family Foundation’s rating of legislators in the last section. But, as I long ago learned, words are cheap (perhaps that is why I use so many of them). For a legislator running for reelection, it makes more sense to look at his or her voting records.

So let’s look at Manoli’s voting record while in the House of Delegates:

Issues relating to women:

In 2011, Manoli voted for HB2434, which expressed the intent of the General Assembly that the state establish its own health benefits exchange (under the Affordable Care Act) that would exclude abortion coverage from all insurance offered in the state (with stated exceptions).

In 2012, Manoli voted for HB462 and SB484, both of which require a woman to undergo ultrasound imaging before undergoing an abortion.

In 2012, Manoli voted for HB62, which would have repealed the provision of law that allows state Medicaid funds to pay for an abortion when a doctor certifies “that the fetus would be born with a gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.”

In 2013, Manoli voted for HB1, which provided that “The life of each human being begins at conception.” and that “Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.”

Issues relating to firearms: (Most legislation attempting to place limits on gun purchases, ownership or use are never voted on by the full House of Delegates because they are killed by the NRA-controlled Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety)

In 2010, Manoli voted for HB885, which permits a person to carry a handgun in a motor vehicle or vessel, if the weapon is secured in a compartment or container.

In 2010, Manoli voted for HB505, which allows a concealed weapon to be carried into a restaurant or club in which alcoholic beverages are served, so long as the gun carrier does not drink.

In 2012, Manoli voted for HB48, which allows a resident to use deadly force against an intruder, if the intruder commits an “overt act” and the resident believes he is in imminent danger of physical injury.

In 2012, Manoli voted for HB940 and SB323, which repealed the limit on purchasing one hand-gun in a 30 day period.

In 2013, Manoli voted for SB1335, which prohibited the disclosure of information about persons authorized to carry concealed weapons.

Other Issues:

(Photo-ID) In 2013, Manoli voted for SB1256, which provides that a photo-ID is the only form of identification that will permit a person to vote in Virginia.

(Adoption) In 2012, Manoli voted for SB349, which allows a private adoption agency to refuse to participate in an adoption that violates its written religious or moral convictions.

(Legal Presence) In 2012, Manoli voted for HB1060, which requires Virginia law enforcement personal to ascertain whether each person they arrest is in the country legally.

(Employee Retirement) In 2012, Manoli voted for HB1129, which reduced retirement benefits for Virginia state employees.

(Congressional Districting) In 2012, Manoli voted for HB251, which established districts for Virginia’s 11 representatives that strongly favor Republican incumbents.

(General Assembly Districting) In 2011, Manoli vote for HB5005, which established districts for the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates that strongly favored incumbents, including himself.

So, trusted reader, I have shown you some of Manoli Loupassi’s votes. And I ask you, is Manoli the reasonable Republican that he would like you to believe he is. Or has he voted consistently to justify his endorsement by the NRA and his high score by the Family Foundation? To me, he seems the wrong man to represent Democrats and Independents in the 68^th District. He is also the wrong man to represent Republicans who want to reclaim their party from the Tea Party wing that is pushing their party “to the right, ever to the right…”

School Board Needs to Think Outside the Box

2013-10-15T11:53:00.001-04:00

This maven gave out a little gasp when I read this in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch: “Next schools chief to get more pay.” 1 My gasp turned to a moan when I read the sub-headline, “Richmond School Board sets minimum salary of $225,000.” Now, don’t get me wrong. As a taxpayer I am not opposed to paying people what they are worth. But, it seems that our beloved Richmond Nine are agreeing to a minimum salary that is $47,000 more than we paid our last superintendent. That is an increase of 26%. I am wondering how many home runs or what kind of low ERA would justify a 26% pay increase in the free agent market. But, what do I know of the market for urban school chiefs?

However, I am a bit disappointed that the board so easily agreed to the recommendation of their hired recruiting consultant that the new superintendent’s salary must begin with a 2. Isn’t this the school board that was so upset at the interim superintendent’s recent performance improvement plan because it wasn’t visionary and called for nothing new? Why isn’t this board willing to think outside the box when it comes to setting the compensation of its next superintendent?

A story: During my last summer in law school I worked as a legal intern for NASA. This was 1969, and I was fortunate to be with NASA during the summer of the first moon landing. But, I did do some work and I also learned some history. I learned that after the Soviets got a big first step in the space race, NASA was created with an implicit mission statement that failure was not acceptable. So, NASA rejected the traditional Department of Defense contracting model under which contractors received the same compensation regardless of how well they performed. Instead they adopted an incentive contracting model under which a contractor’s compensation depended on how well it did its job.

For example, if a contractor was hired to build a third-stage rocket to be completed by, let’s say, December 31, 1962, the contract set a base compensation for the contractor building the rocket. However, if the contractor delivered it before the target date it earned an incentive bonus. On the other hand, if it missed the target date it suffered a penalty. Likewise, if the rocket performed flawlessly the contractor earned another bonus. However, if it did not perform flawlessly the contractor suffered a penalty. Incentive contracting gave contractors a strong stake in the success of whatever NASA program they were working on.

What if, instead of simply setting the new superintendent’s salary at some figure beginning with a 2, the board insisted on a contract in which the superintendent’s compensation depended on how well s/he did the job? Why not a contract that sets a base salary but provides for bonuses if the superintendent successfully moves RPS toward greatness and penalties if the school system does not improve? I am sure that the board and a superintendent can reach agreement measures, based perhaps on the Objectives of the 2010-2015 RPS Strategic Plan. Using this kind of incentive contracting would make the next superintendent more than just an employee. He or she would be a partner in this city’s mission of creating a first rate school system for our children.

But, you may ask, what if a candidate doesn’t want to work under a contract where compensation is based on how well he or she does the job? I reply with a question. Do we want a superintendent who is not so sure of success that she or he is willing to agree to an incentive contract?

Don’t Negotiate, Mister President

2013-10-14T14:42:00.000-04:00

My neighbor (we both live in the Richmond Metropolitan Area) and majority leader in the House of Representatives, Eric Cantor, appeared as a guest columnist this week in the Richmond Times-Dispatch and lambasted the President of the United States for his unwillingness to negotiate with the Congress on issues relating to the federal budget and the national debt. 1 That’s what Mr. Cantor says, but if you read his opinion carefully you will see that his real complaint is that the president has not negotiated on its terms with one political party in one chamber of the Congress. But, let us not quibble. There have been a goodly number of people out there who have adequately criticized Mr. Cantor’s guest column. That is not what this maven wants to talk about.

In his column, Mr. Cantor asserts that many of this republic’s presidents have been faced with a Congress controlled by an opposition party and that all of them have been successful leaders because they have negotiated with that opposition. Only President Obama refuses to negotiate and is therefore a bad leader. I could do an exhaustive study to check on Mr. Cantor’s accuracy. After all, this country has been blessed with lots of mediocre and bad presidents and many of them did not lead successfully at all. But it is not for this maven to challenge this historical conclusion uttered by the product of one of Richmond’s finest private schools. And again that is not what I want to talk about.

What I do want to talk about is this sentence from Mr. Cantor’s guest column: “The president not only has refused to negotiate on issues of debt and spending but also has mocked the very idea of engaging with Congress.” Again, I will agree with Mr. Cantor’s assessment, although as a life-long and loyal Democrat I could argue. What concerns me is Mr. Cantor’s belief that this president, or any other president, has a constitutional or any other responsibility to negotiate with congressional leaders of the opposition party. I certainly cannot find such a responsibility in the Constitution.

What I find surprising is that the drafters of the Constitution said so little about the legislative process. Although there is lots of space in the Constitution dedicated to setting forth the extent of the powers of the Congress, this is all the Constitution says about how legislation is to be enacted:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.”

Article I, section 7.

Nowhere is there mention of the actual legislative process—that one chamber enacts a bill and sends it to the other chamber; that the other chamber can agree with the bill, can reject the bill, can substitute its own bill; that if the chambers are not in agreement they will meet in conference, and that only when each chamber passes the bill in identical language is it sent to the president for his approval or veto. (I suppose the drafters assumed that the process was implicit in the language they used and didn’t need to be specified.)

But, Mr. Cantor, nowhere in this description of the legislative process does the Constitution state that a president has any roll other than approving or rejecting a bill sent to him by the Congress. There is no mention of him or her being required to negotiate with leaders of the opposition party. However, maybe we have to look elsewhere in the Constitution to support Mr. Cantor’s belief. Let’s look at the article dealing with the powers of the executive branch.

The Constitution says:

“He [the president] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper…”

Article II, Section 3.

So, the president shall report to the Congress on the “State of the Union”, may recommend legislation to them, may “on extraordinary Occasions” call them into special session, and if they cannot agree he can adjourn them. But, again, there is no mention of negotiation.

I am unable to tell when the practice of the president negotiating with members of the Congress began. Mr. Cantor says that as recently as 1995 President Clinton and Speaker of the House Gingrich worked overtime to reach a bipartisan agreement that ended a debt/government shut down crisis at that time. But he does not say “as early as”, so we don’t know who was the first president to do so.

The idea that a president should participate in legislative negotiations as the head of his party is not in the system that the drafters of the Constitution designed for our republic. In fact, it is more like the British system in which the Prime Minister is both head of government and head of his or her party. The drafters, instead, based our system on separation of the legislative, executive and judicial functions. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution says “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article II, section 1 says “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article III, section 1 states “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

The Constitution provides for three separate branches of government that interact only in the few instances that the Constitution specifies. Therefore, for a president to negotiate over legislation with congressional leaders changes the delegate balance of power that the drafters so carefully structured.

But, Maven. Why mess with something that is working. What is the downside with the president and the Congress getting together to work out the terms of legislation?

First, looking at recent history, especially the last several weeks, demonstrates that the negotiation process is not working.

Second, allowing the president to participate in the legislative process gives him or her greater power than the Constitution envisioned. Making the president a kind of super legislator contradicts the Article I language quoted above that all legislative powers should reside in the Congress. The careful structure of separation of powers allows the president to propose legislation at the beginning of the process and to approve of or veto legislation passed by the Congress at the end, but not to participate in the deliberations involved in its enactment.

Third, there is only one President of the United States. She or he is elected by voters in all of the states. Each member of the House of Representatives is elected by only one four hundred thirty fifth of the American electorate. Each Senator is elected by the voters in only one of fifty states. The party leaders in each chamber, including the Speaker of the House, are chosen only by the members of their own party, usually for having survived longer than the other party members. Negotiations between a president and congressional leaders therefore are necessarily between people of unequal power.

Fourth, in the present historical context, we have a president who is personally detested by a significant minority of the population. That minority has managed to elect members of the Congress both in the House and the Senate. These members seem to be more concerned with weakening this president and in depriving him of any historical legacy than in governing. In this context, having the president participate in negotiations makes it less likely that they will succeed, because the motivation of some of the negotiators will be to embarrass the president rather than to reach a reasonable compromise.

So, this maven recommends that the president return to the constitutionally described process and refrain from negotiating with members of Congress on the content or language of legislation. On the other side, the Congress should move back to the constitutional process and stop pulling the president into the legislative process. In each chamber, if there is disagreement on legislation, the leaders of each party should negotiate with each other to try to reach agreement. If the two chambers disagree on legislation, their differences should be ironed out in a conference. This process has worked for centuries and can work again if implemented.

If You Don’t Succeed Then Plan, Plan Again

2013-09-08T13:23:00.000-04:00

We will base decisions on what is best for students. Richmond Public Schools Strategic Plan

Richmond Public Schools (RPS) Interim Superintendent Jonathan Lewis used the first day of the school year as a setting in which to inform the School Board that RPS is not performing well and to ask the board to approve a plan that will fix things. Wait; take that back. Actually, Mr. Lewis informed the board that there will be no “fix”. As reported in the Richmond Times Dispatch 1 Lewis said, “What we’re talking about really is not a fix, but a transformation.” Lewis went on to say, “Like all transformations, it’s a very complex process... To arrive [at] a place where we’ll be comfortable is several years away.” Lewis asked the board to support a multifaceted, multiyear approach that he admitted would not produce immediate results.

So, what is this maven to make of all this? For most of the time I have been a citizen of this almost tier one city on the James, I have been troubled and perplexed by the performance of Richmond Public Schools. If you ignore my multi-year fixation with our former mayor, I have probably written more about RPS then any other subject. I even had the audacity to think that my neighbors would elect me to the school board so I could transform things. I have praised RPS; I have criticized RPS. I have allowed myself to participate in a multitude of endeavors aimed at making RPS better. I have come away from all of them disappointed.

But, regardless of what I have said or done and regardless of how well our students have been doing, RPS has always had a multitude of plans to fix things. Back in the last decade, we had “New Directions.” Since I served as a facilitator at public meetings presenting “New Directions” to the public, I should be able to tell you what it was. But, I can't remember any of it. I suppose that what is not memorable is usually forgotten.

Then, with a new superintendent and new school board members we produced a five-year strategic plan. As it says on the RPS website, “Overall, more than 500 committed, passionate individuals contributed to this effort. They devoted more than 3,000 hours of their time in meeting, researching, deliberating, and coming to agreement on the action plans.” I was one of those “500 committed” and some of those 3,000 hours came out of the dwindling supply of hours left in my life. As I remember it, we did meet, research and deliberate, but I am not sure we had total agreement on the action plans. In any event the school board approved the strategic plan on June 6, 2011. If you have the time and nothing better to do, you can read the strategic plan here 2.

Now we have a new superintendent (even if only “interim”) and almost entirely new school board members, and it appears that we have a new plan (the Times-Dispatch article sometimes refers to it as an approach rather than a plan). So, what is in this plan or approach? The TD says it is a 12-point plan. A few of the points are set forth in the TD article. These are:

1- Attendance: We have to get our children to spend more time in school;

2- Teachers: We need to get more outstanding teachers to supplement the ones we already have;

3- Curriculum: We need to teach the entirety of our curricula, now just part of it;

4- Staff: Everyone needs a more-defined role and decision-making needs to be decentralized.

I understand that there are eight other points in Superintendent Lewis’s new approach that TD reporter Zach Reid didn’t have space for in his story. However, this maven is wondering exactly why we need a new plan (or approach if you prefer). After investing 500 people and 3,000 hours (not counting the enormous amount of RPS staff and consultant time and effort) in a strategic plan, wouldn’t you think we had planned enough? Wouldn’t it also make sense to take a look at how that strategic plan is working before going back to the proverbial drawing board?

Some of you readers may be skeptical and think that Richmond Public Schools has done nothing to implement the five year strategic plan. Well, you are wrong. RPS staff has spent a great deal of time implementing and (alas) re-planning the five year plan. Just take a look at the links on the RPS website page I cited above. In December 2011 and June and August 2012, RPS staff reported to the school board their efforts in implementing many of the strategic plan’s myriad action plans. RPS has even extended the planning process, with three elementary and three high schools submitting their own strategic plans. 3

However, with all this emphasis on the action plans, I wonder if RPS staff have lost sight of the objectives that the strategic plan was designed to accomplish. As stated in the report, these objectives represent “An uncompromising commitment to achieve specific, measurable, observable or demonstrable results that exceed present capability and lead to accomplishing [RPS’s] mission.” These are those four objectives:

1. Each student will graduate ready for college and career as a thoughtful reader, an effective writer, a critical thinker, and a creative problem solver.

2. Each student will achieve personal excellence by discovering and developing extraordinary potential based on unique interests and talents.

3. Each student will be a socially responsible citizen who leads the building of a sustainable global community.

4. Each student will have the undeniable audacity to fulfill dreams with integrity, passion, and confidence to positively impact the world.

Some of you skeptics may think that these objectives were just flowery language and that nobody really expected our students to meet them. Well, as one of those glorious 500 who prepared the strategic plan, let me tell you that you are wrong. We looked at these four objectives as being the core of the strategic plan. We fully expected that the action plans that we formulated would bring RPS to achieving those four objectives.

We must not forget these objectives. We must not forget that RPS is not about SOL scores or about accreditation or about graduation rates. RPS is about students. These students are people, not statistics. When our scores drop, we must not forget that individual students are not receiving the quality education that we promised them. When our graduation rates are low, again we must remember that individual students are being deprived. So, instead of a new plan or approach, which based on the four points mentioned in the TD article seem to be nothing new, why don’t we hold our RPS employees, from the Superintendent down, accountable for making our current strategic plan work.

When I ran for the school board, almost every candidate, in every city district, included the word “accountability” in their campaigns. The same is probably true of those who ran in last year’s election. Yet, I believe that not many people employed by RPS are ever really held accountable for their performances. Too many people at RPS headquarters have worked there so long that they are tainted by the “this-is-good-enough-for-these-students” attitude that prevails. Yet they still keep their jobs year after year. Too many school principals are ineffective in moving their schools to excellence, yet they are there year after year. Too many teachers are not adequate, yet they teach our children every day year after year. (My HUGE apology to those administrators, principals and teachers who excel at their jobs. I am not talking about you).

In a 2007 post on this blog, Fix Our Schools Now, I set forth five items which had to be addressed “now” if Richmond Public Schools were to succeed. These were 1- Attitude (We must consider every student in RPS to be our own biological children or grandchildren); 2- Demand Excellence (At the beginning of every school year we must expect that every one of our students will achieve A’s and not C’s); 3- Teachers (We must hold all teachers accountable for their students’ achievements); 4- Budget (Every department head must establish the necessity for each taxpayer dollar of funding they request each year); and Accountability (Every person entrusted with the safety and future of our children must be held strictly accountable for their performance).

The last item, accountability, is so significant that I need to quote from it:

If members of the City Council are irresponsible in their oversight and funding of the schools, we as citizens should vote them out at the next election. If members of the School Board are not demanding excellence from students, teachers and administrators, or if they are not adequately controlling the school budget, we citizens should vote them out at the next election. If the Superintendent of Schools is not effectively and rapidly steering Richmond Public Schools toward greatness, we should insist that the School Board replace her. If teachers are not teaching their students, we should demand that their performance improve or that they be replaced.

When I wrote this I was young and naïve about how RPS functions. (Well, at least I was naïve). I left out some of the most important people who affect the performance of our children. These are the various administrators that serve in RPS headquarters and the principals and other administrators at our schools. We must have a similar standard of accountability for all these RPS staff. Our students must succeed or you need to find a new job.

To Superintendent Lewis I say, to the extent that your new approach does not produce immediate results and we have to wait “several years” to get to where we want to be, hundreds of Richmond children will go out into the world unprepared to face business, college or the military. Superintendent Lewis, the children of Richmond have been waiting more than “several years” for the first-class education we owe them. We need no more plans; we need results.

Stuck in the Cellar? Virginia Dems Part 2

2013-02-27T11:28:00.001-05:00

So, what has happened since I wrote my 2006 post? In 2008, Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, won Virginia’s electoral votes. Obama was the first Democrat to do so in 40 years. Also in 2008, Mark Warner, the Democratic candidate, was elected to the United States Senate, drawing the most votes by any candidate in the history of Virginia. In that same election, Democrat candidates won 6 of Virginia’s 11 congressional seats, gathering 53% of the vote cast in the 11 districts. As I said at the time: “Surely, ‘twas a great victory!”

But, it was clear to me that the 2008 victory carried the seeds of future defeat. Dems Heading For A Big Fall. For one thing, I detected an attitude that 2008 was the last important election and that since Obama had won, there was nothing left to do. That was accompanied by a strong sense of complacency. The other Democrats I spoke to were sure that we would win the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general races in 2009 and that the only issue was how many seats we would pick up in the House of Delegates. On top of that, I was still concerned that the 2008 election had been won by the candidates’ campaign committees, rather than the party, and that to win in 2009 all new committees, for the new candidates would have to be organized and mobilized. And, unfortunately, for us Virginia Democrats, 2009 was as disastrous a defeat as the 2008 election had been a glorious victory. We lost the contests for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. Democrats lost 4 seats in the House of Delegates

2010 had another election for members of Congress. And it was another disaster for Democrats. Republican candidates reclaimed the three House seats they lost in 2008. Democratic candidates in the 11 House races in Virginia received less than 42% of the votes cast in all the races. (Compared with the 53% they had received two years before). In total, the 11 Democratic candidates drew less than half the votes that they had drawn two years before.

In 2011, the Democratic tailspin continued. In that election, Democrats lost control of the state Senate and lost an additional 7 seats in the House of Delegates.

And, this past year, 2012, Barack Obama was back at the top of the Democratic ticket. Mr. Obama again won Virginia’s electoral votes. In addition, former governor Tim Kaine, a Democrat, was elected to the United States Senate. However, unlike in 2008, Democrats did not gain any seats in the House of Representatives—Republicans still sit in 8 out of 11 of the Virginia House seats.

So, what are we to conclude from the past five elections? First, when Barack Obama is the candidate, he will win in Virginia. Second, when charismatic Democrats are the candidates for the United States Senate, and they run well-organized campaigns, they will win in Virginia. As for the House of Representatives, with the exception of the temporary spike in 2008, Democrats seem stuck with only 3 seats. At the state level, Democrats are still on a downward trend. We no longer control the state Senate and our seats in the House of Delegates are shrinking rapidly. At the state-wide level, in the last two elections (2005 and 2009) we have lost the governor’s race once and the lieutenant governor’s and attorneys general’s races twice.

And, there is another factor—voter turnout. As I pointed out a few years back, It’s The Turnout, Dummy, Democratic voters seem to drop at a higher rate in elections that they lose from those they win. In that post I pointed out that, although the turnout of all voters dropped considerably from 2008 to 2009, the drop was much more significant among Democratic than among Republican voters. As I said then, “Creigh Deeds’ drop in votes from those voting Democratic in 2008 was about 540,000 more than Bob McDonnell’s drop in votes from those voting Republican in 2008.” If those 540,000 Democratic voters had come out to the polls in 2009, Democrats Creigh Deeds, Jodie Wagner and Steve Shannon would have been elected to the three highest offices in Virginia.

We can see a similar pattern if we compare the votes cast for the 11 congressional seats in 2008, when Democratic candidates picked up three seats, with those cast in 2010, when Democrats lost those three seats. In 2008, about 3.5 million votes were cast in the 11 congressional districts. In 2010, only about 2.2 million votes were cast in those 11 districts, a drop of 1.3 million votes. However, the drop in turnout was not evenly divided between Democratic and Republican voters. From 2008 to 2010, Democratic voters dropped by 940 thousand. However Republican voters dropped by only about 400 thousand. Again, Democratic voter turnout dropped by 540,000 more than Republican, and so went three House seats.

Based on these two examples it appears that Democratic voter turnout drops more significantly in years after presidential elections in which Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate, than does Republican voter turnout. This bodes ill for us Democrats because this is a year after Barack Obama won Virginia’s electoral votes. It also bodes ill for Democrats in the long run because, unless he moves to the Commonwealth and starts his political career all over again, Barack Obama will never again be on the ballot in Virginia.

Now, reader, I hear a lot from my fellow Democrats that this year’s upcoming election will be different. I am told that the most-likely Republican candidate for governor is so extremely right-wing in his philosophy that he cannot be elected in Virginia. I am also told that the General Assembly, in the last two years, has enacted so many anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-gun control, anti-other good stuff bills that the voters of Virginia will come forth and “throw the rascals out.”

Fellow Democrats, you better wake up. Unless we can get those half million Obama voters who disappeared in the 2009 and 2010 elections back to the polls in 2013, our next governor will be Ken Cuccinelli. And, as I pointed out in my previous post, barring a sudden explosion of Democratic candidates registering to run between now and June, it is almost impossible that we can throw the Republican rascals out ofn the House of Delegates. I am afraid that on November 5, we will learn that no, Virginia, there is no Santa Clause.

So, what is to be done? Stay tuned to this station for the maven’s suggestions.

Virginia Dems—A Permanent Minority?

2013-02-22T15:14:00.000-05:00

“Bad news on the door step.”

No, I am not singing American Pie. Nor am I criticizing the quality of Richmond’s great metropolitan daily, which occupies my door step every morning. What I am talking about is the news that the metropolitan daily has been reporting in the nearly two months that Virginia’s General Assembly has been in session. And while I am talking about bad news, I can think back to similar stories that the Richmond Times-Dispatch brought to my house during the General Assembly session last year at time.

Let’s face it, reader; the Virginia General Assembly is not a hot-bed of progressive thought or action. In fact, I would consider it rather reactionary. Some people might even doubt that members of our legislature are acting rationally. (Establishing a commission to study whether Virginia should issue its own money, in violation of the United States Constitution, is not exactly clear thinking).

Every time our beloved law makers vote for another 18^th Century piece of legislation I assure my Facebook friends (yes, I partake of that universal depository of worthless information) that we can fix this at the polls next November. When the Senate or House of Delegates passes a piece of anti-women legislation, I urge all my friends to remember this in November. When the legislation is destructive of public education, I urge all my friends to remember in November. When the Republicans refuse to extend Medicaid coverage, I urge my friends to remember in November. And, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

But now comes the worse news: It is unlikely that any thing will change in November. Virginia has elections every year. This year we will elect a new governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. In addition, all hundred seats in our House of Delegates will be on the ballot. Now I certainly agree that the Commonwealth will be a lot better off if we manage to elect Democrats to the three state-wide offices. But in order to end the continuous deposit of bad news on my door step, we need to elect a significant number of Democrats to that bastion of Neanderthal thinking, the House of Delegates.

And there lies the rub. If my finger counting is accurate, there are currently 32 Democrats in the House of Delegates. That means that there are 67 Republicans (one delegate runs as an Independent). In order for Democrats to control the House of Delegates, they would have to pick up 19 seats in this November’s election. To even scare Republicans into being somewhat reasonable in the next session of the General Assembly, Democrats would need to pick up maybe 10 seats this November.

We need to look at one more fact. In 2011, the most recent election year for the House of Delegates, the Democratic Party of Virginia only contested 55 of the seats. Let me put it another way: In 2011 there were 45 House of Delegate races in which no Democrat appeared on the ballot. Now, this maven is not super bright, but it seems to me that for the Republicans to have gained a majority in the 2011 elections they only needed to win 6 of the 55 races in which Democrats actually ran. So, there was really no chance for the Democrats to become the majority.

So to all my Facebook friends who I lured into thinking that November would somehow change things in the House of Delegates I offer my sincere apology for deceiving you. Unless something very drastic changes between now and June 11, the date by which a candidate must file (earlier if there are party primaries), there will be a Republican controlled House of Delegates in 2014-15 and I will have to spend another two years with bad news on the doorstep.

So what is the problem here, loyal reader? Isn’t there a Democratic party in Virginia? Well, actually there is. It is called the Democratic Party of Virginia and it has offices here in Richmond, a staff, a website, a telephone number, a Party Plan and even a Platform. The Platform begins with a Statement of Common Purpose, which reads:

“The Democratic Party of Virginia is united in its efforts to elect Democratic leaders of character, integrity, ability, vision, and commitment to delivering results for Virginians.”

As best as I can see, there appears no asterisk to this Statement of Common Purpose indicating that the party is only united in its efforts to elect Democratic leaders in 55 of the House of Delegate districts. I ask the question, dear reader, how can a political party hope to become the majority party in a state when it ignores 45% of the seats in one of the state’s legislative chambers? Borrowing from the Bard, something is rotten in the Old Dominion.

For those of you who followed the maven in his more productive years, you know that I talked about the Virginia Dems over six years ago: Let’s Talk about the Democratic Party of Virginia. In that post, I began by stating: I have to admit that I have no idea what the Democratic Party of Virginia does. In that post, I stated my view that the Democratic Party of Virginia plays little role in the election of candidates. Looking at the then most recent elections, I stated that Jim Webb was not elected to the Senate and Tim Kaine to the governorship by the party. Rather, it was the individual campaign committees set up by those candidates that got them elected. Then, I ended with: Does anybody know what the Democratic Party of Virginia does?

Well, a lot has happened since I wrote that piece. I myself became a candidate and now I am a member of the Richmond City Democratic Committee. I still spend a good part of my time discussing politics, but mostly on Facebook, not on this blog. However, I am still of the opinion that despite its Platform, the Democratic Party of Virginia does not get candidates elected. Yes, since I wrote that piece, two Democratic candidates for President and two Democratic candidates for the United States Senate have carried Virginia. However, in my opinion, it was the individual campaign organizations of those candidates that won those elections, not the party. Also since I wrote that piece, the other party has elected the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. It has also captured effective control of the state Senate and expanded its majority in the House of Delegates.

Please do not get me wrong. I am not criticizing the staff and volunteers who work for the Democratic Party of Virginia. I know that they work their collective butts off every election cycle, which means every year. But working hard does not necessarily mean working smart.

More to follow--

Why Do We Give The NRA Such Power?

2012-12-22T10:31:00.000-05:00

The largest headline on the print Richmond Times-Dispatch this morning, covering more than half of the entire width of the front page, reads “NRA calls for armed guards in schools.” The number two story in the Washington Post this morning (top of the left column) reads “NRA, Put armed police in schools.” Last night on the NBC evening news the lead story involved footage of a press conference held by NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre rejecting any additional gun laws and advocating the placement of armed (that is with guns) guards in all of the nation’s schools. The press conference by the National Rifle Association took place one week after the slaughter of 26 people, including 20 young children, at a Connecticut elementary school.

If I were a visitor from another planet and read these newspapers and watched television last night, I would naturally assume that the NRA was our national legislature and that Wayne LaPierre was a high-ranking elected official—perhaps the president. Why else would we pay so much attention to the views of an organization or of one man? The alien maven would be shocked to learn that the NRA was a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and that Wayne LaPierre had been elected by only a few people.

The National Rifle Association has been powerful in our national politics for a long time. As I made clear nearly five years ago (OnGuns—An Ode in Prose) over the years the NRA has morphed from an organization of sportsmen and gun collectors to a lobby for the gun industry. It has taken a “no-compromise” position with respect to gun legislation and has convinced hundreds of members of the Congress and state legislatures that any support for even the most modest control on the purchase of firearms will result in their being defeated for reelection. It has also convinced its members that the Federal Government is devoted to taking away all their guns.

But, dear reader, is it not possible that all of us have given the NRA all this power? Even the proponents of controls on the purchase of firearms have spent most of the last week attacking the NRA in paper and electronic print. They have even gone so far as to hold the NRA culpable for the murders in Connecticut last week. Apparently, it is much easier to create and attack a bogey man than to deal directly with the complex issues raised by gun control.

What if, loyal reader, we treated the NRA differently? What if, for example, we chose to ignore it? Can you imagine what would have happened yesterday if the NRA held its press conference and Wayne LaPierre came to the podium and the room was empty? Think of it—no reporters, no cameras, no protesters. What if, regardless what it said, the media chose to not report anything about the NRA? What if I had watched the evening news last night and saw stories that gave no attention to Mr. LaPierre’s statement? What if the newspapers this morning ran no stories about the NRA’s proposal to put more guns into our schools? (Oh, I know what you are saying, what about the First Amendment? Reader, the First Amendment guarantees the NRA and Mr. LaPierre the right to say anything they want; it does not require us to listen to them.) Is it not possible that if we treated the NRA this way it would shrink from the tiger it wants us to believe it is to a snarling but powerless kitten?

Armed Insurrection?

2012-06-30T12:12:00.000-04:00

But when a long train of abuses … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence

After Thursday’s decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act, there has been some talk from our brothers on the right that armed insurrection is the only way to deal with this development. Some of our friends on the left have responded with levity suggesting that those violently opposed to health care reform are in need of mental health services or that if they don’t like it they should move to some other country. This maven, however, cannot treat these things lightly. For one thing, advocating armed insurrection against the United States might be considered treasonous. On the other hand, perhaps the Federal Government is tending toward tyranny and we should not ignore it. After all, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

To sort all this out, I thought it would be useful to compare American grievances in 1776, when we actually did engage in armed insurrection (at least as the British saw it), with the grievances of today. I include only some of the British offenses set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

British offenses of 1776 Federal Government offenses of today

Forced us to quarter troops in our homes	Forced us to buy health insurance
Cut off our trade with other parts of the world	Forced us to buy health insurance
Imposed taxes on us without our consent	Forced us to buy health insurance
Deprived us of trial by jury	Forced us to buy health insurance
Took away our charters, abolished our laws and altered our form of government	Forced us to buy health insurance
Suspended our own legislatures	Forced us to buy health insurance
Plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns and destroyed the lives of our people	Forced us to buy health insurance
Introduced armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny	Forced us to buy health insurance

Trusted reader, although it is close, I am sure you will agree that the complaints of our forebears in 1776 were slightly more serious than of those who are willing to overthrow the government in order to eliminate health care reform. So what is this totally out of proportion reaction to a court decision upholding a statute enacted by the Congress?

This maven lays the blame at the door of the Republican leadership in the Congress and their tea-drinking allies. These gentlepeople are so intent on recapturing control of the Federal Government that they will do or say anything to make President Obama appear to be an illegitimate president. Thus the accusations that Obama is not a native born American. On top of that they must show that even Obama’s legislation is illegitimate. So, after Health Care Reform passed, the Republican leadership refused to acknowledge that it was actually a Public Act, passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Immediately, they declared it not only to be terrible legislation, but invalid. They declared it to be the single-most dangerous expansion of federal power in history. They declared it to be a CLEAR violation of the constitution. They declared it to by tyranny and thus its removal as essential to the country’s survival. They declared it to be the end of life as we know it. In short, they declared their battle to destroy Health Care Reform to be Armageddon.

Unfortunately, our Republican and Tea-Party cousins believe their own rhetoric. And worse than that, there are some pretty volatile, armed people out there who have come to believe it too. When you repeat that message over and over again, is it any wonder that people start suggesting that only armed insurrection against the Federal Government will save us?

It seems to this maven that those who opened this Pandora’s box and let the crazies out need to be the ones to recage them and lock the door. I call on John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and Mitt Romney to make it clear that although they consider the Health Care Reform Act to be bad policy they do not consider it to be grounds for rebellion against the Government. Let them each announce that even suggesting armed insurrection as a solution for disagreeing with government action is not patriotic but rather is un-American. John, Eric, Mitch, Rand, Mitt it is time to call their dogs off and to declare that we are a country that resolves political dispute at the ballot box, not at the point of a gun.