Only One Man To Blame For Fort Hood Shootings

When this maven was a wee little boy I often watched television with my mother. I remember that when a particularly nasty crime was reported on the local news she would say, “Let him not be Jewish.” You see, this was back in the 1950s when the Holocaust was still very recent history and even here in the US of A Jews weren’t feeling too secure. It was also during the Red Scare and after the spy trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, so I guess Mom was justified in fearing that all Jews might be blamed for the criminal act of one person who happened to be Jewish.

These memories popped into my consciousness this week when it was announced that Nidal Malik Hasan, an American Muslim, was the person who went on a shooting spree, killing more than a dozen people, at Fort Hood, Texas. Soon after Hasan was identified, Muslim groups throughout the country felt the need to condemn Hasan and to make it clear to the rest of the American people that Islam did not encourage or condone such killings. In this country, after 9/11, Muslims are sort of feeling what my mom was feeling back in the 1950s. Don’t blame us for the act of one man who is Muslim. For me, it was déjà vous all over again.

I wonder what it is about us Americans that we always spread the blame. In World War II, after we were attacked by Japan, we assumed that all people of Japanese ancestry were our enemies. We placed good and loyal Americans in concentration camps just because their parents or grandparents were born in Japan. After 9/11, we just assumed that all Arabs and all Muslims were our enemies. Many good and loyal Americans were the victims of hateful acts and words because of the acts of 19 criminals who happened to be Muslims. Maybe it’s just that xenophobia is built into our genetic code. But, I wonder if we’d be blaming all Baptists if the Fort Hood shooter happened to be a Baptist named Jones.

So, to American Muslims I say that I understand how you feel. It is unfortunate that the Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim. I don’t blame you or Islam for his acts. We’ve got enough problems in this country. We cannot afford to start distrusting our neighbors.

Millions And Billions And Trillions Of Jobs

Reader, I know you’ve been waiting on the edge of your seat for the rest of Mr. Jobs Governor’s plans to flood Virginia with tons of new jobs. It would take many hours to discuss them all, so I’ll stick to the highlights. Okay, fasten your seat belts.

Small businesses: Mr. Jobs Governor will spur the growth of small businesses. How? Well if you look at the details of his plan, he will do it by streamlining the application process. Come on, Bob. This is not a plan. Do you really think that people are not opening small businesses in Virginia because the process is too burdensome? Nonsense! The fact is that nobody is going to open a small business unless s/he thinks it will make money. If they don’t believe that now is the right time to open a business because of the economy the mechanics of getting an application processed will not change their decision.

Keeping Virginia Competitive: This has nothing to do with attracting new jobs. It is just Bob McDonnell’s way of assuring voters in his political base that he is anti-union and opposes the “card check” proposal before the Congress.

Boosting Virginia’s Tourism, Hospitality and Film Industries: Bob has eight specific ways of doing this. He will “double the funding” of the Virginia Tourism Corporation, and increase funding of the governor’s Motion Picture Fund by $2 million. Well, Jobs Governor, where is the money going to come from? New taxes are off the table, so what current programs will you cut to get the extra money? Other things in this category involve encouraging groups to stay in Virginia for conventions, making Virginia the center of the sesquicentennial observance of the Civil War and promoting wine tourism in Virginia. These all sound nice, Bob, but just saying things does not make them so. Bob does make two proposals in this category that I support—preserving 400,000 acres of open space and reopening rest stops on the interstates.

Making Wallops Island the top commercial spaceport in America: This one is wonderful. It immediately brings to mind Mos Eisley Cantina on Tatooine in the original Star Wars movie. I would just love to see all those aliens running around Wallops Island. But, let this maven be serious. There are several commercial spaceports developing in the United States and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island on the Delmarva Peninsula is one of them. But again in this proposal Mr. McDonnell is dealing with promoting, encouraging, recruiting and vague things like that. The only concrete thing he proposes is a ten-fold increase of funding “bringing them to $1 million annually” for spaceport operations. Jobs Governor, I thought you were serious. We can’t be competitive with Spaceport America in New Mexico and Space Systems International at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on one million dollars per year. This proposal will not produce any significant number of jobs in Virginia in the next few years.

The Jobs Governor has myriad other plans for creating jobs. None of them can work until the recession is over. It is clear to me that the only job Bob McDonnell will create if elected is his own.

That’s all, folks.

Hundreds Of Jobs, Thousands Of Jobs

The United States (as well as the rest of the world) is suffering through the worst economic contraction since the 1930’s. Millions of men and women have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Nationally, the unemployment rate has risen to 9.5%. Here, in the Commonwealth, we have been more fortunate. Our statewide unemployment rate is about 6.5% (as of August). The only states with lower unemployment rates are Montana, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming, all with smaller populations and economies than Virginia.

Experts in economics give various explanations for this mega-recession. They all involve greed, under-regulation, large numbers of defaulting loans, and stuff like that. (Despite Republican Bill Bolling’s attack ads, none of these experts blame the recession on the “tax and spend” policies of Democrat Jody Wagner.) The damage to our economy has been severe and it has taken significant actions by the Federal Government, under both Presidents Bush and Obama, to avoid an even greater catastrophe.

Most experts believe that the economy has probably reached its lowest point and that recovery is starting. However, unemployment rates stay high and people are hurting. Despite our lower rate, here in Virginia tens of thousands of people are still unable to find work. Further, in some areas of the state unemployment rates are much higher.

So, along comes snake-oil salesman Bob McDonnell and dubs himself the “Jobs Governor.” Despite the world-wide recession, despite the fact that economic recovery in Virginia is tied to economic recovery in the rest of the country, despite the fact that Virginia is already one of the best-managed states and one of the best in which to do business, Bob McDonnell wants us to believe that he alone can bring jobs to Virginia.

Well, dear reader, we will look at the “Jobs Governor’s” plans in just a moment. First, however, the maven must give a very short and overly simple economics lesson. Why, you ask, do people lose jobs during a recession? The answer is quite simple. During a recession many businesses, both large and small, experience a significant drop in revenues. To offset these losses the company must cut its expenditures if it is to stay in business. One of the easiest ways to do that is to cut its payroll. Therefore, the loss of jobs. When will companies start hiring again and create more jobs? They will start rehiring when they are doing enough business to produce sufficient revenue for them to conclude that bringing on more workers will be profitable. Until that time it is unlikely that they will rehire their laid off workers (or other workers).

Despite the economic realities, the “Jobs Governor” is promising that if we elect him he will bring large numbers of jobs to Virginia. How will he do it? For sure, he won’t do what Franklin Roosevelt did during the 1930s depression. FDR put people to work by having the Federal Government hire them to perform needed work in the country. Bob McDonnell’s philosophy of government precludes him from turning the Virginia government into a major employer of those currently unemployed. So, how is Dr. McDonnell going to cure our unemployment sickness? Let’s take a look:

First, Bob proposes some “New Job Initiatives.”

1. He will expand the use of the Governor’s Opportunity Fund
2. He will appoint Bill Bolling as “Virginia’s Chief Jobs Creation Officer."
3. He will designate one Deputy Secretary of Commerce to work exclusively on rural economic development.
4. He will provide a tax credit of $1,000 per job for every company that creates 50 new jobs. In economically distressed areas the employer would only have to create 25 new jobs to qualify for the credit.

Governor’s Opportunity Fund : I won’t comment on this one because Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate is proposing more or less the same thing.

Making Bill Bolling the jobs “czar:” As my children would say, “Big Whoop!” Reader, what has Bill Bolling done in his entire private-sector and public careers that would qualify him to be “Virginia’s Chief Jobs Creation Officer?” Hey, I’m not even sure what a jobs creation officer does. Does he run a big manufacturing plant that turns out 20 or 30 new jobs every day? Does he lead posses into other states to capture jobs and bring them back to Virginia? Does he kidnap business executives and hold them until they agree to hire more people in the Commonwealth? Give me a break, Mr. Jobs Governor. This is nothing more than an idea to make Bill Bolling feel more important and to deceive the electorate.

Designating a rural development Deputy Secretary of Commerce to work exclusively on rural economic development: You know, I had no idea what this meant until I looked at the details of Dr. McDonnell’s economic plan. There it says, “We will place a greater emphasis on rural economic development by designating a Deputy Secretary of Commerce and Trade to do nothing gut recruit new business to rural parts of Virginia, where jobs are desperately needed.” Mr. Jobs Governor, this is another case of merely giving somebody a more glorified title. How exactly can a deputy secretary recruit new business during a massive economic downturn. Do you really think there are thousands of potential entrepreneurs out there that would gladly open businesses in rural Virginia if we only had a designated deputy secretary to recruit them? How can a designated deputy secretary convince existing businesses to move to rural parts of Virginia? If it was in their economic interest to do so, they would have already moved. This is another case of voter deception.

$1000 tax credits: Look, Dr. McDonnell. Whether they are large or small businesses, companies exist to make money. They will only hire more workers when they believe those workers will produce more revenue for the company than the cost of their salaries. Your plan is to grant $1,000 tax credits for each job when a company creates at least 50 jobs. (The threshold is only 25 new jobs in an economically distressed area.) Okay, let’s say that the average salary of the workers in these new jobs is $25,000 per year. To hire 50 new workers is going to cost the company $1,250,000 in salaries. The tax credits you will give them total $50,000. I may not be a businessman, Mr. Jobs Governor, but it doesn’t make sense to me to increase my company’s costs by $1,250,000 in salaries per year to save $50,000 in taxes. That’s a net loss of $1,200,000 I’ve incurred by creating jobs in Virginia. I’m sorry Bob, your offer of tax credits will not produce a single job in Virginia so long as the country is suffering through this recession.

Well, it seems that looking only at his “New Jobs Initiatives,” Bob McDonnell is not much of a jobs governor. So what else does Bob propose? To find out, tune in later.

Virginia—A Male Dominated State?

I was researching the boundaries of some of the congressional districts in the Commonwealth when I looked at the photographs of our representatives. Guess what? They are all men. And, of course, both of our U.S. Senators are men. At the state level, only about 15% of the members of either the Senate or the House of Delegates are women. All of our state-wide offices—governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general—are men.

Loyal reader, did you know that the voters of Virginia have never elected a woman as Governor? They also haven’t ever elected a woman as Lieutenant Governor. Only once have we elected a woman to be our Attorney General. That was Mary Sue Terry who served from 1986 until she resigned to run for Governor in January 1993.

Now, we may ask, trusted reader, why a state like Virginia has elected so few women to public office. Aren’t we the state that made history by electing an African American to be our Lieutenant Governor in 1985 and our Governor in 1989?

This year we in Virginia have the opportunity to elect a woman—Jody Wagner—to a state-wide position. Don’t misunderstand me. I would not vote for or against a candidate simply because she is a woman. So I wouldn’t ask you to do that either. However, in the case of Jody Wagner, she is clearly the better-qualified candidate.

If you take a minute to get past Bill Bolling’s ridiculous attack ads (the only things he hasn’t blamed on Jody, yet, are the biblical plagues), you will see clearly that Jody is the one to vote for. During the past eight years, Jody has worked for both Governors Mark Warner and Tim Kane in positions involving the financial operations of Virginia government. She deserves at least part of the credit for Virginia having the best managed state government and for Virginia being one of the best states in which to do business. Jody understands the workings of Virginia government better than any of the candidates running for any state office this year.

And Bill Bolling? During the last eight years he has presided over the Virginia Senate and served in that Senate—four years each. That’s it! There is nothing in his resume to suggest that he is qualified to be Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor, and the past four years have proved it. His record as Lieutenant Governor since 2006 is unremarkable at best. (Why else the attack ads? If he had done a good job, he could have run on his record.)

So, in voting for the clearly better candidate, we Virginia voters can also elect our first female Lieutenant Governor. This is our best opportunity in twenty years to make a dent in the male-dominated government of the Commonwealth.

Bill Bolling: Look In The Mirror

Unless you don’t have a television, you must have noticed that all statewide Republic candidates are in attack mode. It’s hard to watch any show on any network (broadcast or cable) without being inundated with attack ads against Creigh Deeds, Jody Wagner and Steve Shannon. Sometimes I find it pretty funny. First there’s a McDonnell ad telling us that if Creigh Deeds is elected he will raise taxes by the billions of dollars. That’s followed by a Bolling Ad making the exact same claims about Jody Wagner. When they come back-to-back, it’s hard for this maven to figure out who the real Democratic villain is.

But, the attack ad that almost led me to award Bill Bolling his second chutzpah award of the campaign season is the one that accuses Jody Wagner of not only wanting to tax every activity each of engages in every day, but also of running a negative campaign against Bill Bolling.

Come on Bill, since September I have only seen one positive ad from your campaign (at least here in Richmond). The rest of your campaign has been nothing but attack ads filled with lies, deception and misinformation about Jody Wagner. Where do you get the gall to accuse Ms. Wagner of running a negative campaign? Come to think of it Bill, I will change my mind and give you that second Chutzpah award. You richly deserve it.

Ken Cuccinelli: You Better Believe Him

I am often worried about how an election will turn out. Last year at this time, because of a shortage of money, sabotage of my campaign by a supporter of one of my opponents, and a string of organizational endorsements for another opponent, I was worried that I might not win the election for the School Board here in Richmond. (Of course my worries were validated on Election Day.) In many presidential elections over the years I was worried that the Republican candidates would be elected over the Democrats who I felt were much better qualified. In all those elections, I worried about the outcome.

But this year is the first time that I am more than worried; I am afraid of the outcome. In previous years, I never felt that election of the opponent to my candidate could actually turn out to be dangerous. I always felt that we would just have to wait for the next election. But this year there is the possibility that Ken Cuccinelli will be elected our next Attorney General, and that scares me.

Ken Cuccinelli, when in friendly audiences, has made it clear that he intends to be an Attorney General like none before. He intends to use the office to effectuate his agenda. He intends to use the office to turn this state back, not to how it was before former Governor Warner was elected, but to how it was in the good old days of states’ rights. In Republican debates, interviews by friendly reporters and at “tea parties” in Virginia, Ken has made it clear that he will enforce only those laws that he agrees with. He has also made it clear that he intends to fight the Federal Government in every instance in which it tries to implement a program in Virginia that he opposes. Ken has gone so far as to promise to sue the Federal Government to protect Virginia’s “sovereignty.”

Although I have previously pointed out how right-wing a Republican Ken is, his philosophy on the use of the Attorney General’s office is downright dangerous. Ken wants to undue all the progress that the Commonwealth has made in the past several decades, and to do so he has revived the doctrine of nullification and the cry of state’s rights. Nullification first arose during John Adam’s term as president when the Republican supporters of Thomas Jefferson argued that a state could nullify the effect of a federal law by blocking its implementation in that state. It is based on the theory that the sovereignty of states is superior to the sovereignty of the United States.

Nullification has raised its ugly head several times during the life of the United States. In the 1950s and 1960s several southern governors like Orval Faubus and George Wallace used the nullification doctrine, which they called “state’s rights,” to rule that the Supreme Court’s ruling outlawing school segregation would not apply in their states. They used their powers as governor to try to block integration in their states. It took the intervention of the federal government to assure that the law was implemented in those states.

I really thought that the principle that the United States Constitution and laws affected under that constitution were the “supreme law of the land” had been well established. But now Ken Cuccinelli has promised to ignore the words of Article II, Paragraph 7 of the United States Constitution and to decide himself which federal law will be enforced in Virginia. He also promises to decide which laws of the Commonwealth he will enforce.

Ken Cuccinelli acknowledges that it may take time to achieve his objectives. As quoted by the Washington Post, Ken has said, “It isn’t one dramatic step on any given day or getting one bill passed. It’s the gradual, slow, drip-drip-drip impact you can have.” 1 This is why Ken intends to be Attorney General for a long time.

Dear readers, if we the people of Virginia elect Ken Cuccinelli as Attorney General, Virginia will start moving back to the state’s rights days. Ken’s “drip-drip-drip” will gradually erode your liberties. I hope you choose to vote for Steve Shannon, Ken’s opponent, so as to stop this threat to the wonderful state that Virginia has become. The choice is yours.

Biased Reporting

A short time after it runs its feature on Creigh Deeds next Sunday, the Richmond Times-Dispatch will endorse Bob McDonnell for Governor, Bill Bolling for Lieutenant Governor, and Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General. Over the years the TD has consistently endorsed Republican candidates in major elections. I understand the policy position of the TD ownership and I have no problem with it. It’s their paper and they can do with it whatever they want.

But, dear reader, when this bias passes into news reporting, this maven must protest. Today’s paper marks the second time that I have seen the TD running unflattering photos of Creigh Deeds. Each time they have shown Deeds frowning. These photos are the type that I would expect the Bob McDonnell campaign to use in their attack ads against Deeds. They make it very hard for the voter to like Mr. Deeds. After all, who wants to vote for someone who is always frowning?

I am sure that Bob Brown, the TD photographer who covered the gubernatorial debate, must have gotten at least one shot of Creigh Deeds without a frown on his face. Yet the editors chose to run this photo.

The TD is the daily newspaper for Greater Richmond. Regardless of its editorial bent toward supporting Republican candidates, it should be neutral in its news reporting. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. I hope that between now and the election the TD stops showing its bias in the photos it uses in its news reporting.

Has Bob McDonnell Changed His Stripes? Part 3

Before I get to the substance of this posting, let me make one thing clear. I am not against religion. I am not against Christianity. In fact, some of my best friends are Christians. I do not object to our national or state leaders praying or reading their chosen scripture to help them make the really tough decisions that we ask them to make. I would prefer a leader that understands that there is a higher power in the Universe to one who thinks that he or she is the fount of all knowledge. Having said that, let’s get back to young Bob McDonnell’s thesis.

Bob McDonnell believed that all the significant institutions in society—the family, the church and the state (he was referring to civil government, not the Commonwealth of Virginia)—were ordained and established by God. Further, God has assigned to each of these institutions a specific role. As Bob put it on page 12 of his thesis,

“Each institution in society has been instituted by God for specific limited purposes. Therefore, a good idea does not necessarily translate into good policy, unless it is instituted in a proper means by an institution with jurisdiction.”

The first of God’s institutions, according to young Bob, is the family. Since God created the family in the Garden of Eden, it is an institution that precedes and is not subject to definition by the state. In Bob’s words on page 13,

“The family, as a God-ordained government has an area of sovereignty within which it is free to carry out the duties it owes to God, society, and other family members, under the covenant [of marriage].”

[Young Bob then goes on to describe the role of the Church. My maven’s license does not extend to theology, so I’ll skip over that.]

Bob McDonnell describes the role of the state (or government) in the following words on page 14 of the thesis:

“The civil government was ordained to secure the inalienable rights of individuals created in the image and likeness of God, and to facilitate a society in which other institutions are free to perform their covenantal duties to God and others. . . . Government authority is constrained both by this limited delegation from God, and by the covenant which the people have established with their leaders, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the constitution of the United States and the several states, and statutes passed pursuant thereto.”

So, it takes until page 14 of his thesis for Bob to get to the constitution and laws as affecting the authority of government, and then only in a subsidiary role to God’s assignment of jurisdiction in scripture.

Dear reader, I am somewhat troubled by Bob McDonnell’s view, which appears to be that the rules of God set forth in the Christian Bible are controlling over the law as established by the constitution, statutes and court pronouncements of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Does this mean that, if elected, Mr. McDonnell will consult scripture first before deciding whether he will carry out laws passed by the General Assembly? Does he believe that laws enacted by the Congress or the General Assembly of Virginia are only valid if they are consistent with God’s division of jurisdiction among the family, the church and the civil government. Does this mean that if he takes the constitutional oath of office that requires him to swear or affirm that he will “support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia” that he will be adding the unspoken caveat “to the extent they are consistent with the institutions ordained by God?”

Mr. McConnell says that he has changed some of his views since he wrote his thesis. Does this change include his views on government I have just described? This is the question we should be concerned with, not whether Mr. McDonnell still believes that feminism has caused the downfall of the Republic. The citizens of Virginia have a right to know whether Bob McDonnell intends to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth as written, without first deciding whether he thinks they are consistent with the Bible. Instead of telling us what a good father he has been to his daughters and how well he has treated his female subordinates, let Bob answer this basic question.

Blame It On Jody!

Three years ago I brought to your attention the Republican campaign tactic of using the “Big Lie” to try to win elections. 1 The theory is that the voters are basically stupid and that they will believe anything you say. In fact, the bigger the lie the more likely they are to believe it.

So, Republican Bill Bolling’s attack ad against Jody Wagner, Democrat candidate for Lieutenant Governor, does not surprise me. In the ad, Bill blames Ms. Wagner for everything that has gone wrong with the world, the nation and the Commonwealth in the last eight years—

· Jody raised taxes for each of the last eight years (“Every tax increase, every year.”)
· Jody caused billions of dollars in budget shortfalls.
· Jody caused huge government debt.
· Jody raised taxes on senior citizens.
· Jody is responsible for all the jobs lost in Virginia.
· Jody has “made a bad economy worse.”

Nowhere in this ad “sponsored” by Bill Bolling is there any support for these statements. It’s just accusation after accusation after accusation. Not only does Bill make Jody the scapegoat for things that have happened, he even blames her for imaginary disasters. If it sounds good, blame it on Jody!

Bill, why the big lies? Are you afraid that you can’t be reelected based on your own record?

Has McDonnell Changed His Stripes? Part 2

Let’s talk about Bob McDonnell’s views on the state’s role in regulating the sexual behavior of consenting adults.

For those of you who are not lawyers: In 1965 the Supreme Court of the United States issued the landmark decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. The Court declared unconstitutional the Connecticut statute outlawing the sale of contraceptives in the state, ruling that the law violated the privacy rights of married couples.

On pages 7 and 8 of his thesis, the 35 year old Bob McDonnell criticizes the Court’s ruling, endorsing instead the view that states had the power to “regulate the legal and sexual relationships of marriage.” On the following page, Bob says that the effect of the Supreme Court decisions in Griswold and other cases was to abandon the sanctity of the traditional family and replace it “with the perverted notion of liberty that each person should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without interference from the state.”

So, incredulous reader, Bob McDonnell believes that states should have the authority to regulate sexual relationships. He further believes that the idea that people should be able to choose how to live their sexual lives without interference from the state is a “perverted notion of liberty.”

Does Bob McDonnell really think that the Commonwealth of Virginia should be snooping around in your and my bedrooms to assure that we are not practicing that “perverted notion of liberty?” He certainly did when he wrote that thesis.

But he says that some of his views have changed since he was a young and rash 35. I certainly hope this is one of them.

Christian Right Poised To Rule Virginia

The leaders of the Christian Right in Virginia are feeling good today. The Washington Post poll shows all of their candidates—Bob McDonnell for governor, Bill Bolling for Lieutenant Governor and Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General—with significant leads over their Democratic opponents. If they can just get through the next twenty four days without the electorate finding out the truth and changing its mind, they will have one of their own in each of the top three positions in Virginia government. Then they will be able to push their agenda for “fixing” the Commonwealth.

Wait, maven, what are you talking about? Do you just assume that all Republicans are from the Christian Right?

No, trusted reader, I realize that Republicans cover a wide spectrum of views and policies, just like Democrats. But these three birds of a feather—McDonnell, Bolling and Cuccinelli—are way out on the right wing of their own party. This is possibly the most conservative ticket that the GOP has ever nominated.

Maven, maven, maven! You are exaggerating as usual. How can all three of them be as right-wing as you suggest?

Reader, you just need to look at their records as members of the General Assembly. All of them have consistently voted the “right” way on every issue supported by the Christian Right. All of them consistently received ratings of from 90 to 100 by the Virginia Family Foundation. All of them receive A or A+ ratings from the National Rifle Association. They have consistently voted against women’s reproductive rights and against any restrictions or controls on the ability of Virginians to acquire or carry guns. They were the leading proponents of what became Virginia’s constitutional marriage restrictions.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the right-wing bloggers around the state. They are positively salivating over the possibility of these three getting elected. Take a look at McDonnell’s, Bolling’s and Cuccinelli’s campaign web sites. They are equally committed to what they refer to as traditional Virginia values, the values pushed by the Christian Right and other ultra-conservatives.

Take a look at Bob McDonnell’s master’s thesis. Oh, I know that he was only thirty-five years old when he wrote it. I also know that he says he has changed some of his views in the intervening years. But, exactly what views has he changed? He doesn’t really say. If you think that his views are main-stream, take a look at some of the statements in the thesis that I quoted last month. 1

Now, we don’t know what Bill or Ken may have said in their theses, but we can look at the annual report card of the Family Foundation to see Ken Cuccinelli’s voting record in the Virginia Senate. It was an off year for Ken (last year he was the Family Foundation’s Legislator of the Year) because he only received a 91 rating. He missed out on getting the 100 because he voted in favor of SB507, which would have allowed expanded off-track betting on horse races. But let’s look how Ken did vote:

· He voted to withdraw state funding from Planned Parenthood.

· He voted to ban state funding of embryonic stem cell research.

· He voted in favor of a “Choose Life” license plate, with proceeds going to pregnancy resource centers.

· He voted against broadening Virginia’s Family Life Education course to include anything other than abstinence.

· He voted against expanding Virginia’s domestic partners benefits law to include life insurance.

· He voted for allowing state police chaplains to pray “in Jesus’ name.”

Trusted reader, I think Ken Cuccinelli’s own voting record has shown him to be a right-wing Republican.

Although I don’t have information on Bill Bolling’s votes in the General Assembly in 2005 and earlier, just look at his own web site. 2 Bill brags that he opposes women’s reproductive rights, that he opposes any restrictions on gun ownership or possession, and that he not only supported the so-called marriage amendment but used his own funds to campaign for its passage.

Reader, if these three men of the Right are, in fact, elected on November 3 (and the choice is yours) it should be a very interesting four years in the Commonwealth.

Has McDonnell Changed His Stripes?

Hopefully, the Deeds for Governor campaign will be spending more time on positive ads rather than the negative stuff that’s been keeping them distracted. However, that doesn’t mean that this maven cannot spend some of his time analyzing Bob McDonnell’s master’s thesis. Between now and the election, when the inspiration comes to me, I will be looking at some specific issues raised by Bob’s thesis. (I know that last month, in a fit of cutting and pasting, I set forth most of the significant things that Bob said in his thesis. However, it is clear to me that was just too much material to digest.)

Sadly, Bob McDonnell lives in an evil, dangerous world. On page 20 of his thesis Bob says:

“. . . [P]olicy decisions must be made with the cognizance of the nature of man. . . . [M]an’s basic nature is inclined toward evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish and deter.”

Later, on page 61, Bob says:

“Policies, however, must be sufficiently realistic to acknowledge that man lives in a broken and sinful world formed by his inherent selfishness. . .”

I am glad I do not live in Bob McDonnell’s world. I see people as basically good. Certainly they make mistakes and sometimes succumb to the urge to do bad things. But, on the whole, I believe that the citizens of Virginia are good and decent people. Not Bob.

So, how does Bob’s world view reflect on his view of the proper role of government? On page 14 of the thesis, he says:

“The state alone . . . bears the authority to punish wrongdoers, for the civil ruler is a minister of God to execute judgment and encourage good.”

Perhaps Bob’s view of the role of the civil ruler served him well as the Commonwealth’s head prosecutor. As prosecutor it makes sense to see your job as a battle against evil. However, I’m not sure this is the kind of world view we want in the man who will be our next governor.

Bob McDonnell says he has changed many of the views he expressed in his master’s thesis when he was only 35 years old. Perhaps his view of the world is one of them.

There You Go Again, Bob

This maven has observed ten or eleven gubernatorial contests in Virginia. In every one of them the Republican candidate has accused the Democratic candidate of intending to raise taxes if elected. This is such a standard part of Republican campaign rhetoric that I assume it’s required by the rules of the Virginia GOP. So, it came as no surprise to me last night that I saw and heard—

I’m Bob McDonnell, and I approved this message. . . Then comes the standard attack. Creigh Deeds intends to raise taxes. In fact, Creigh Deeds has promised that if elected he will raise our taxes. This ad even goes so far as blaming Creigh Deeds for possible increases in federal taxes. All this Deeds devilry will cost the average Virginia family thousands of dollars.

You know, loyal reader, my three young ‘uns received wonderful public school educations in the Commonwealth. All of them took civics in middle school and government in high school. All three of them learned that in Virginia only the General Assembly has the constitutional authority to enact legislation, including laws that raise taxes. They understand that no Virginia governor has the authority, under our constitution, to raise taxes.

Which leads me to conclude that either—

Bob McDonnell is deliberately deceiving the voters of Virginia, or
Bob McDonnell slept through his civics and government classes.

Ernesto Sampson Is A Republican, Right?

This maven is always fascinated by politics. While up in Northern Virginia last week, I was looking at the political signs and saw some for Bob McDonnell, which read “Fairfax’s Own.” Has Bob McDonnell moved without telling me? Hey, all’s fair in love, war and politics, right?

Signs are so interesting. In some districts, it is common for candidates to identify their party affiliation. Unless, of course, their party is in the minority. In a predominantly Republican district, it seems that a candidate will use bigger letters for the word “Republican” than for his/her own name. In other districts, those where Democrats are dominant, a Republican candidate will certainly try to hide that fact.

So, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Republican Ernesto Sampson, running for the 69th District Delegate seat made vacant by the retirement of Democrat Frank Hall, doesn’t highlight his party affiliation on his campaign signs. After all, the 69th is a predominantly Democratic district. In fact, Ernesto is so shy of the fact that he is the nominee of the Republican Party that he doesn’t seem to mention it on his campaign website either. Yup, Ernesto would like us all to forget that he represents the GOP.

If you look at his website to see why he is running, you would think that Ernesto is a Democrat. He promises that he will carry out President Obama’s education plans. Ernesto seems to be the only Republican in the country who has something good to say about our president.

The one thing on his website that indicates that Ernesto is, in fact, a darling of the GOP is the long list of Republican politicians who support his candidacy. Mr. Sampson has been endorsed by Delegates Sam Nixon, Manoli Loupassi, Tim Hugo, Bill Janis and Chris Peace, all of whom are not only Republicans but vote very conservatively in the House of Delegates. He is also endorsed by the chairs of the Richmond and Chesterfield Republican parties. So despite the sheep’s clothing that Ernesto Sampson wears, he is definitely a wolf… I mean Republican.

Getting back to his campaign signs, Ernesto Sampson does something strange. His is the only political sign I’ve seen this year that has the candidate's picture on it. Now, a picture takes up a lot of room. Putting your picture on a campaign sign cuts down room for displaying your name in the biggest letters possible. So, why would Ernesto Sampson waste space by putting his photograph on his signs?

There is one thing I forgot to mention. Not only is the 69th District predominantly Democratic, it also has an African American majority. Could it be that Ernesto Sampson put his photograph on his campaign signs so that African American voters can see that he is also African American? Can it be that Mr. Sampson is playing the “race card”? This maven certainly hopes not.

But, I am being too suspicious of Mr. Sampson just because he is hiding his Republican affiliation. I am sure that the only reason he put the picture on his signs is so that we can all appreciate how handsome he is.

Why Deeds Will Lose

Last week I was up in the Democratic hotbed of Northern Virginia. I was talking politics with some friends and asked who they were voting for for governor. They were all voting for Creigh Deeds. I asked them why. The only answer I received was “because he’s not Bob McDonnell.” Ay, dear reader, there’s the rub. None of them were particularly enthused about Creigh Deeds—he was just the ABM (Anybody But McDonnell) candidate. Even this late in the campaign, my friends really knew nothing about Senator Deeds. And, if he weren’t running against ultra-conservative Bob McDonnell, they had no reason to vote for him.

But, you may ask, isn’t Creigh Deeds the one who won the Democratic primary by a landslide? Isn’t he the one who received half of the votes cast in a three way race, in which he had by far the smallest campaign chest? How can someone who was so popular among Democrats in June be virtually unknown now?

Let’s look at Creigh Deeds’ campaign message. It is very clear to this maven that Senator Deeds is running as the ABM candidate. His campaign ads tell us why we shouldn’t vote for Bob McDonnell, but say nothing about why we should vote for Deeds. What is Senator Deeds’ campaign theme? What has he done to demonstrate that he is the person who should be our next governor? What do we know about him? About his family? What does he believe in?

On the other hand, let’s look at Bob McDonnell’s campaign. It has stayed on message from the beginning. He is “The Jobs Governor.” He has the attractive family. He is the guy with solutions to all Virginia’s problems. Even when he has been attacked based on the views he expressed in his master’s thesis, he has stayed on message. He runs some defensive ads, but mainly it’s still family and jobs.

What has happened to the effective campaign Deeds ran in the primary? Has he forgotten that he won the primary because he was the only candidate who was NOT running negative attack ads against his opponents? In the primary campaign Deeds was the one with the family (I remember that he went away to college with only a few bucks in his pocket and mom’s advice). Deeds was the one who stayed on the positive message of what a good governor he would be.

So, where did it all go bad? Surprisingly, it was when Bob McDonnell’s master’s thesis was made public. Somebody on Deeds’ campaign staff decided that this was the weapon that would win the campaign. Suddenly, all of Deeds’ campaign was focused on that thesis and how it affected McDonnell’s votes in the legislature. Gone was “Deeds will be a great governor” as a campaign theme. In came “Bob McDonnell voted against abortion and contraceptives for married couples.” And now, with the ads issued in response by the McDonnell campaign we have a “he says, he says” dispute with nobody knowing who is telling the truth. This is NOT the kind of campaign that wins elections in Virginia.

And now, this maven is getting e-mails from the Democratic governors and from the Virginia Democratic Party and from the Deeds campaign begging for more money. They all tell me that if they only have enough money they can prevent the Republicans from reversing last year’s great victory. But will more money make a difference? Not if it is going to be spent on more of the same. This campaign will not be won by money. It will be won only by a campaign message that tells me and a million other Virginia voters why Creigh Deeds is the right man to be our next governor.

Is John O’bannon Too Conservative For The 73rd?

One of the hotly contested House of Delegates races in the Richmond area is in the 73rd District, where University of Richmond professor Tom Shields is trying to unseat incumbent Republican John O’bannon. For reasons too complicated to discuss here, I attended a debate between these candidates last month. Just to see what these guys stand for, after the debate I looked at their campaign websites.

On Doctor O’bannon’s site (John is a physician), he brags about his record, including three items that show that he “Shares Our Virginia Values”—

· 100% rating from the Family Foundation
· “A” rating from the National Rifle Association
· Never voted for a tax increase

I have no intention of taking on the NRA (they being heavily armed), and (since he’s a Virginia Republican) I’m not surprised that John has never voted for a tax increase. But let’s look at this Family Foundation 100% rating.

As you know, the Family Foundation is a conservative lobbying group that is pro-life, pro-family, pro-parental authority, pro-constitutional government and pro-religious liberty. Each year the Foundation issues a report card rating the members of Virginia’s Senate and House of Delegates. As explained in its report card, a 100% rating means that a legislator voted “profamily” on all of the foundation’s chosen bills, and a 0% indicates that a legislator voted the "wrong" way on those same bills. In the House of Delegates, nearly all of the legislators that were rated 100% are Republicans (Lacey Putney of the 19th District is an Independent), while all those that rated low (nobody was so bad as to rate a zero) were Democrats.

So, how did you have to vote (and how did John O’bannon vote) to rate a 100% rating from the Family Foundation? These are some of John O’bannon’s “profamily” votes:

· John voted to require abortion clinics to provide information that fetuses experience pain.

· John voted to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.

· John voted to prohibit state funding of embryonic stem cell research.

· John (a physician) voted for a two-year delay in implementing the recommendation that 6th grade girls receive the HPV vaccine to protect against cervical cancer.

· John voted for offering women seeking an abortion an ultrasound of their fetus.

· John voted against adding sexual orientation to the state’s non-discrimination in hiring law.

· John voted against including life insurance in Virginia’s domestic partner benefits law.


Based on this record, is John O’bannon a bit too conservative for voters of the 73rd District? In less than four weeks we'll know.

A Chutzpah Award For Bill Bolling

The TV ads being run by and for incumbent Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling tell of all the things Bill plans to do if he is reelected. But, wait a second. Isn’t Bill the incumbent? Why has he done none of these things during the last three and three quarter years serving as Lieutenant Governor?

He uses the motto “New Ideas for a Better Virginia.” I don’t understand, Bill. Did it take you nearly four years in office to suddenly come up with new ideas? Have you been doing nothing since the last election, Bill?

Bill has ideas to bring jobs to Virginia. Bill has proposals for boosting the economy. But apparently Bill’s ideas and proposals will only work in a second term.

For running an ad campaign which treats the voters of Virginia as idiots, the maven grants a chutzpah award to Bill Bolling.

The World According To McDonnell

The following are some quotes from Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell's masters thesis. Trusted reader, I leave it to you whether you want a person with this basic political philosophy to be the chief executive of our beloved Commonwealth.

The modern American experience can be seen as an ideological battle between the forces of democratic capitalism and socialism, with the latter's attempt to "substitute the power of the state for the rights, responsibilities and authority of the family."

The vast majority of American children have been educated in the public school system, in which text books and courses of instruction are increasingly oriented to humanist values and a secular philosophy. The undermining of respect for parental authority in favor of state direction or individual autonomy, and the simultaneous purging of religious influence in the public schools has impaired the development of healthy family members. Values that had historically provided strength to the family, such as firm discipline and corporal punishment, patriotism, and academic achievement, were either attacked or given token attention.

The Declaration of Independence, the charter of American liberty and foundation for the U.S. Constitution, declares that our concepts of rights, duties, and authority are derived from the Law of Nature and Nature's God. From this Judeo-Christian heritage of the founding fathers, it is clear that the Creator is a God of order and authority, not chaos and autonomy. Each institution in society has been instituted by God for specific limited purposes.

The family as an institution existed antecedent to civil government, and hence is not subject to being defined by it. It is in the Law of Nature of the created order that the Creator instituted marriage and family in Eden, where he ordained that "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to this wife, and they shall become one flesh." Family arises out of this divinely-created covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, the terms of which can neither be originally set nor subsequently altered by the parties or the state. . . The family as a God-ordained government has an area of sovereignty within which it is free to carry out the duties it owes to God, society, and other family members, under the covenant.

In addition to the family and the individuals who comprise them, God has ordained the institutions of civil government and the church as the foundation of order in society. . . [I]t is these three which have sovereign spheres of jurisdiction in which to exercise authority delegated by God. Although there is some overlap and partnership in pursuing the ends of a just and moral society, each institution has certain responsibilities given exclusively to it.

The church has a monopoly over the administration of the sacraments and it alone possesses the "keys of the kingdom" to preach the gospel and determine church membership. As the mouthpiece of the Creator to be salt and light to individual souls and social institutions, the church has the teaching authority to expound upon the Scripture, and, along with the family, to care for widows, orphans, and the poor and disadvantaged. It should be the primary source of support, counsel and restoration in the event of family dysfunction.

The civil government was ordained to secure the inalienable rights of individuals created in the image and likeness of God, and to facilitate a society in which other institutions are free to perform their covenental duties to God and others. The state alone, with the exception of parental discipline of children, bears the authority to punish wrongdoers, for the civil ruler is a minister of God to execute judgment and encourage good.

Government, by definition, is to provide leadership to encourage righteousness and justice among and discourage wrongdoing among the governed. To that end, however, government is enjoined from replacing family function with agencies of the welfare state, such that dependency and apathy are generated. While families may fail in providing a high standard of care, unless there is abuse, the permissive intrusion of the government is unwarranted.

The state, more directly, may intervene to protect individual members of families, and within its police powers, may do what is necessary to advance their health, safety, and morals. However, government at all levels must "support family parenting as the first premise of its social, economic, and fiscal policy."

The family is a self-governing institution upon which the natural law confers the duties of procreation, nurture, and socialization of children through marriage.

The normative view of institutional interaction in society is seen as a symbiotic relationship of unique entities with the compatible goal of serving other human beings and glorifying God. Both church, in its provision of financial and spiritual support, and the state, in its protection of life, liberty, and marriage, have a role to strengthen and promote healthy family life. The family, in turn, must inculcate religious values, tithe, and give time for ministry in order to support the church, while exercising the discipline of self-government and stewardship necessary to produce good citizens for the body politic.

It must be made clear that the government has no independent authority to prescribe conduct for the family, rather the authority arises out of the state's duty to protect the marital covenant and individual family members.

For at least 8 years, Republican domestic policies have demonstrated that man is capable of doing good only in an atmosphere of liberty and faith, not compulsion and atheism. However, man's basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter.

There should be no intervention where Constitutional and statutory powers do not allow, where principles of federalism grant exclusive state authority and where family autonomy circumscribes. Policies presupposing that government is a benevolent agent of social change fail to understand the social and legal order, and function as a long-term detriment to building strong families. . . Policies, however, must be sufficiently realistic to acknowledge that man lives in a broken and sinful world formed by his inherent selfishness, but should be geared to facility the model.

Despite improvements made in the 1986 Tax Reform Act, Republicans should still work to eliminate income graduation, deduction ceilings in the tax code, and advocate the modified flat tax proposal of the 1984 platform. A taxation system that procures revenue based on an ability to pay, and awards deductions and distributions based on need, is socialist in its underlying philosophy, and impairs the family's ability to transfer property.

Notwithstanding Democratic rhetoric to the contrary, it is not uncompassionate and anti-family to mandate parental consent for all decisions made by minors in and out of school, and to refuse government aid to families who reject the traditional values of responsibility and accountability. While no government program can make people be good, policies should reward people when they are, and not subsidize them when they are not. For example, every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals, or fornicators. The cost of sin should fall on the sinner not the taxpayer.

The real enemies of the traditional family - materialism, irresponsibility, feminism, lust, and ultimately selfishness - are largely outside the sphere of federal impact.

I’m Sure He’s Changed His Mind

There’s been a whole lot of flak lately about Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell and his Master’s thesis at the College of Law and Government, CBN University (now called Regent University). Apparently Mr. McDonnell made some rather derogatory assertions about single mothers and working women in that thesis and some people (especially Mr. McDonnell’s opponent Democrat Creigh Deeds) think it demonstrates that he is unsuitable to be governor.

I think that this is all rather unfair. We all said things when we were young and immature that we regret saying now. Even this maven sometimes shutters in embarrassment when I am reminded of things people claim I said as a high school junior or a college sophomore. The thesis that is causing such a fuss was written by Mr. McDonnell in 1989, when he was only—let me see, 1989 less 1954 when he was born—35 years old. (I had thought he must have been younger. Thirty-five years old is not exactly a high school junior or college sophomore). But Mr. McDonnell has said that he has changed his mind about a lot of things since he wrote that thesis and I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Lots of people are zapping Mr. McDonnell for saying that the Supreme Court was stupid in ruling that states could not outlaw contraceptives, or that mothers working outside the home are one of the leading causes of family breakdown. Others criticize him for his proposal of fifteen steps that the Republican Party must follow to save America. He says that he no longer believes some of those things, so why harp on them.

I’m much more interested in the political philosophy that the young and obviously immature Bob McDonnell set forth in his thesis. A person’s philosophy probably demonstrates better what kind of officer he will be than a few hastily-typed statements.

Young Bob McDonnell’s political philosophy was not based on the constitution and laws of the United States or the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Rather, it was based on the Christian Bible—old and new testaments. Young Bob believed that all of society was created by God, “a God of order and authority, not chaos and autonomy.” It follows that “[e]ach institution in society has been instituted by God for specific, limited purposes.” The major institutions created by God are the family, the church and the state. (Apparently, Bob McDonnell’s God was not much interested in the individual.) Each is sovereign within its own realm.

In young Bob McDonnell’s thesis, God ordained the family to carry out the functions of procreation, nurture and socialization of children “through marriage.” The family must be the primary caretaker of its members and therefore must become economically self sufficient. In time of need, the family may seek help from relatives or the church (but apparently not from the state).

According to young Mr. McDonnell, God gave the church a monopoly over the sacraments and the sole authority to preach the Gospels and determine church membership. It also has the responsibility, along with the family, to care for widows, orphans and the poor and disadvantaged. In case of family dysfunction, it is the church (not the state) that is ordained to support, counsel and restore the family.

In young Bob’s thesis, God created civil government to protect the inalienable rights of individuals and to facilitate a society in which the family and church are free to perform their “covenantal” duties to God and others. The state has the sole authority to punish wrongdoers (except for the exclusive authority of parents to discipline their children). Although there may be instances in which the state may use its police powers to advance the health, safety and morals of family members, in general God has ordained the state to “support family parenting as the first premise of its social, economic and fiscal policy.”

So, it appears that to the young Bob McDonnell God’s hierarchy was family first, church second, and the state third. Mr. McDonnell clearly believed in a minimal role for the federal and state governments, mostly to create an environment in which the family (as God’s primary institution of government) can thrive. If the older and wiser Bob McDonnell were to follow the philosophy of his younger self, this maven would be concerned over the direction the Commonwealth would be heading in the next four years (should he be elected).

But, I am sure he has changed his mind.

You Just Can't Trust Him

Well, I've read the release of the president's proposed speech to America's children. Clearly, we were absolutely justified in fearing this man talking to our vulnerable young 'uns. From beginning to end, the entire address is a socialist manifesto. You just have to read between the lines.


He says: Hello everyone - How's everybody doing today?
He means: Greetings comrades.

He says: When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school.
First, this is a clear admission that he is not an American. Second, he is trying to justify his socialist plot to make everyone in American poor.

He says: I'm here because I want to talk to you about your education and what's expected of you in this new school year.
Clearly his tone is dictatorial.

He says: But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world - and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work to succeed.
This one is really devious. He is trying to blame the failure of public schools on the students rather that on the true villain - public education itself.

He says: Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer.
That guy Marx-Lenin would have loved this socialist drivel. Obviously not everyone is good.

He says: What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you're learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.
What he means: Your skills and talents belong to the government.

He says: We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don't do that - if you quit on school - you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country.
What he means: Workers of the world unite!

He says: I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have.
I told you not to vote for him!

He says: Young people like Jasmin Perez . . . Andoni Schultz . . . Shantell Steve . . .
He only uses foreign kids as examples. What about John Smith and Mary Jones?

He says: I'm thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who's fought brain cancer since he was three. He's endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries.
What he means: Lobby your representatives to pass socialized medicine.

He says: I know that sometimes you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality show star; when chances are, you're not going to be any of those things.
What he means: Don't believe the American dream.

He says: If you get in trouble, that doesn't mean you're a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave.
Clearly, he's soft on crime.

He says: Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
More socialist drivel.

He says: It's the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution.
What he means: Start planning the socialist revolution.

He says: So today, I want to ask you, what's your contribution going to be?
What he means: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

So dear reader, you can see how fortunate we are that school boards and superintendents throughout our land will protect our children by not letting themwatch the prez today.

Henry Marsh Sure Plays a Mean Game of Chess

Whether you love him or hate him, one thing you have to admit. State Senator Henry Marsh is brilliant at playing chess on the political game board. For example, just this year Senator Marsh made these great moves*:

· Pawn to King 3 (Dwight Jones from House of Delegates to City Hall)
· Pawn to Queen 3 (Delores McQuinn from City Council to House of Delegates 70th District seat)
· Pawn to Jack 2 then to Knight 3 (Carlos Brown from Henrico County through 70th District to House of Delegates 69th District seat)
(Actually, we won’t see whether that last move is successful until after Tuesday’s primary election.)

Yes, dear reader, as long as the voters ratify Senator Marsh’s moves, he will be one hell of a chess player.

*My apology to real chess players.

Carlos Brown, Where DOES He Live?

Last week, I wrote about the primary race in Virginia’s 69th District for the Democratic nomination for the vacant House of Delegates seat. I mentioned that Betsy Carr and Antione Green were each my friends and were each running for the 69th District seat. I explained that because of this I felt I could not endorse nor campaign for either of them. I mentioned the third candidate running for the seat, Carlos Brown, and said only that I did not know him. Well, being a maven, I need to know everything. So, I started researching Mr. Brown and found out that…

This is not the first time that Carlos M. Brown has run in a Democratic primary for a vacant house seat. Only about six months ago, Mr. Brown was running in the 70th District for the seat vacated by Dwight Jones when he was elected mayor. And, according to Olympia Meola’s story in the Times-Dispatch, at the time he declared his candidacy in the 70th District Mr. Brown was not a resident of the district. He lived in Henrico County, outside the district. He had to find some place in the district to call his home so that he could qualify for the primary election. 1 Apparently, this was not a problem for Mr. Brown, because by December 6, Ms. Meola reported that Mr. Brown “now lives in the district.” 2

Mr. Brown lost the primary election. However, he had so much fun in that contest that he eagerly awaited another chance to run. And would you believe it, less than four months later, Frank Hall, the incumbent in the 69th District, announced that he was leaving the House of Delegates to take an appointed position in state government. This was another chance for Mr. Brown to run for a vacant house seat. There was a bit of impediment to Mr. Brown running—he did not live in the district. (It is not clear whether he still lived in his Henrico County residence or the residence he had established to run in the 70th District back in December.) Well, this was really no problem for our nomadic friend Mr. Brown. As indicated in Ms. Meola’s April 8 article in the Times-Dispatch, “He is currently working on establishing permanent residency within the district boundaries.” 3

Mr. Brown was apparently successful in his latest relocation because according to the Virginia State Board of Elections he now lives at 5926 Fairlee Road in the City of Richmond (or at least gave that as his address in filing his candidacy papers). On the other hand, the Virginia Public Access Project, which keeps track of political contributions in the Commonwealth, indicates that Mr. Brown’s campaign headquarters are located at 3029 Four Mile Run, which is a considerable distance outside the 69th District.

So now you have the story of poor Carlos Brown who can’t figure out where he lives. In the last six or seven months he has relocated from Henrico County to a residence in the 70th District and then to a residence in the 69th District. For the sake of Mr. Brown let us hope that future elections do not require him to relocate again.

This would be quite funny were it not for the fact we are talking about the person who will represent the residents of the 69th District in the House of Delegates. Our representatives in the General Assembly are elected from local districts, not at large. Presumably this is to guarantee that citizens of the Commonwealth are represented by people who live nearby and understand the issues they face. This intent is clearly violated when individuals jump from district to district to find some election they can win. I’m not sure where Mr. Brown lived last November, but that is the place he is best qualified to represent. His changes of residency, first to the 70th District and then to the 69th District, just to run for election did not change that.

I don’t know about you, but I sort of resent people who move into a state or local election district just for the purpose of running for office. Mr. Brown’s itinerant behavior should not be rewarded by electing him to the House of Delegates.

OMG, Is It Doug?

I’m sitting in the den, minding my own business, watching the evening news, when I see that face and I hear that voice. My blood pressure starts to rise. My mouth starts to salivate. Is this a dream? Can it be real? Yes, it is! It’s Doug Wilder on the tube threatening to support Bob McDonnell, the Republican, for governor. There is even some speculation that Doug is going to become a Republican. Wow!

Okay, I need to calm down. I can’t allow myself to get obsessed about Doug again. I know that for more than two years Doug provided tons of material for this maven. I know that since Doug has dropped out of the public lime light my writing production has gone way down. With Doug back, this maven could soar again to his great levels of sarcasm and invective.

No! I will not allow Doug Wilder to draw me down that path again. I realize that I am a Doug Wilder addict. So, I can’t even allow myself to think about Doug. Let him do what he wants. This maven will just ignore him.

To the Republicans I anglicize an old Yiddish curse that my grandmother used to use—a plague on you! May Doug bring you all the grief that he brought to the citizens of River City!

Brian, You Make Me So Mad!

They’re back. Just when this political junkie had gotten used to seeing real “commercial” commercials on the tube, the political ads are back. Republican Bob McDonnell has been running these ads setting out his background, record and philosophy and has dubbed himself the “jobs governor.” Democratic Creigh Deeds tells us how little money he had when he left for college, explains his philosophy and then claims to be the best qualified Democrat to be governor. Democrat Terry McCauliffe is running ads explaining his programs and arguing that his business experience makes him the most qualified candidate to be our next governor. All of the McDonnell, Deeds and McCauliffe ads are positive. They say nothing about the rival candidates. (This, of course, is much easier for McDonnell because he doesn’t yet know who is opponent will be.)

Then there are the ads being run by Brian Moran. Rather than explaining why Mr. Moran should be our next governor, his ads attack Terry McCauliffe. I don’t know who is running Mr. Moran’s campaign, but they seem to be forgetting that Brian Moran and Terry McCauliffe are both Democrats. They also seem to have forgotten that the objective in this year’s contest for governor must be to keep the Republican Bob McDonnell from winning. By running these attack ads, the Moran campaign is giving Mr. McDonnell ammunition to use against Terry McCauliffe should he win the Democratic nomination. It is also making it a lot less likely that there will be a united Democratic party in the Commonwealth to run the fall campaign.

This maven has not yet decided who he will vote for for governor in the upcoming Democratic primary election. But I do know that any of the three Democratic candidates would make a better governor of Virginia than would Bob McDonnell. I also know that only a united Democratic campaign can keep Mr. McDonnell from being our next governor. That is why I am so angry at Brian Moran.

Jody Is The One

As I said the other day, the person is more important than the issues in most elections. This is especially true in the primary race for Lieutenant Governor between Jody Wagner and Mike Signer. You and I both know, trusted reader, that the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia does almost nothing. The only constitutional duty of the Looie is to preside over the state senate. Also, the General Assembly, in its wisdom, has chosen, over the years, to make the Looie a member of various statutory boards or commissions. But aside from that, it’s four years of doing almost nothing. So, the policy positions of Lieutenant Governor candidates don’t mean a hell of a lot.

Based on the experience of the two candidates and the time I have spent talking with Ms. Wagner, I have no doubt who I am voting for. Jody Wagner has had more experience in state government than Mr. Signer. She is also a person who I trust to do the right thing no matter what job she is doing. Finally, since I am a loyal Democrat, I see Jody as the best candidate to run against Bill Bolling.

So, next Tuesday, I urge you to vote for Jody Wagner for Lieutenant Governor in the Democratic primary.

No Liberty At Liberty

It didn’t shock me too much to read that Liberty University has banished young Democrats from its Lynchburg campus. Liberty is a private institution so it need not concern itself with such Un-Liberty type stuff as the First Amendment. And, let’s face it, Liberty’s founder, the late Jerry Falwell, did not intend for it to be educating Democrats. The university’s major purpose was and is to produce leaders for what we affectionately call the Religious Right. So the big news story should have flashed when Liberty first authorized the young Dems to function, not when it withdrew that authorization.

However, it seems to this maven that Liberty University needs to change its name. When Mr. Jefferson inscribed the words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” into what became our Declaration of Independence, I can’t help thinking that “liberty” included the right to think and express one’s views. By taking the position that doctrinal purity is more important than the right of its students to express their views, the university has forfeited the privilege of calling itself “Liberty.”

I call on you, my loyal readers, to come up with suggestions for the new name for that peculiar institution in Lynchburg. If I don’t hear from you, I will have no choice but to rechristen (no pun intended) Mr. Falwell’s university by myself.

Our Next Delegate in the 69th

When I decided to run for the School Board last year I sought the advice of my state delegate Frank Hall. After talking for a while, Frank gave me this one great piece of advice—elections do not turn on issues, they turn on personalities. If people like you they will vote for you even if they do not fully agree with your positions on the issues. If people don’t like you, they will not vote for you even if they love your positions on the issues.

Well, it’s nearly a year later. Frank’s advice didn’t help me win my election, but it sure explains how I’m going to vote in the Democratic Party primary elections next week. Let me start with the contest to replace Frank Hall in the House of Delegates (Frank has moved on to an appointed office in the Commonwealth). The candidates are Carlos Brown, School Board member Betsy Carr and former president of the Richmond Crusade for Voters, Antione Green.

Frank Hall’s principle leads me to a great case of heartburn in this election. I consider both Betsy Carr and Antione Green to be personal friends. I have known Betsy for four years. We work together in the Micah Initiative. During my campaign last summer she helped spur me on to do the grunt work of politics—knocking on doors and shaking hands. I think that Betsy is highly qualified to serve us in the House of Delegates. I would not only like to vote for her, but I would have liked to work on her campaign. But… I met Antione last year at the Crusade school board candidate forum. We quickly became friends. Although the Crusade did not endorse my candidacy, Antione and I met many times over the summer and fall discussing school issues and the campaign. I think that Antione is highly qualified to serve us in the House of Delegates. I would not only like to vote for him, but I would have loved to work on this campaign.

As you might guess, I have worked on neither Betsy’s nor Antione’s campaigns. I just couldn’t get myself to campaign against either of them. How will I vote next week? I can’t tell you now. It will be either Betsy or Antione and I probably won’t decide until I am at the voting machine.

But, you may ask, what about the third candidate, Carlos Brown? I don’t know Carlos Brown. It is possible that last year I shook his hand during the campaign, but I don’t remember. I have received several pieces of his campaign literature. I read what he stands for. I notice that he is endorsed by Mayor Jones and State senators McEachin and Marsh. Those endorsements do not sway me one way or the other.

I will not vote for Mr. Brown. Why? He’s not my friend. I don’t have any personal feelings for him. And as Frank Hall taught me—voters choose based on the person, not the issues.

My advice to you, trusted reader—vote for Betsy Carr or vote for Antione Green. They are both good people.

And to Betsy and Antione I say—Good luck next Tuesday. Whichever one of you wins the primary, be assured that I will work to get you elected next November.

Five Bucks Well Spent

I must admit that this maven is not a theater critic. Nonetheless, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you lay down five dollars to see “No More Raisins, No More Almonds” playing this weekend at the Virginia Holocaust Museum. This play, written by a survivor of the Nazi Holocaust and performed by students from Colonial Heights Middle School, shows how children caught up in the horror coped with their daily lives. The music is wonderful and the performances outstanding. It will probably be the best five dollars you have spent in a long while.

“No More Raisins, No More Almonds” will be performed on Saturday, May 2, at 8:00 PM, and on Sunday, May 3, at 4:00 PM and again at 7:00 PM. The Virginia Holocaust Museum is located at the corner of 20th and East Cary Streets in Richmond.

You’ll be sorry if you miss this one.

The Dwight & Yvonne Ad Agency

Kudos to Mayor Dwight Jones and School Superintendent Yvonne Brandon on their plan to market Richmond Public Schools to parents in River City. If I were not the modest maven I am, I would be crowing that finally somebody is listening to me. For many months I have been trying to get the message across that we in Richmond must do something to win back middle class parents to our public schools. Mayor Jones made it clear that he is dedicated to making Richmond Public Schools the schools of choice for all our citizens. In Jones words, “We’re not going to sit idly by and watch as the school system enrolls only two-thirds of the children in Richmond.”

Unfortunately, the Dwight and Yvonne marketing plan is defective in several ways—

1- It is selling the wrong product. The “Choice” marketing campaign is aimed generally at increasing enrollment in “Richmond Public Schools.” However, most of the parents that opt out of RPS do so because they believe that the individual school that their child will attend cannot provide the high quality education they desire. Thus, in my neighborhood, parents choose to move or to put their kids in private school not because they have no confidence in RPS. Rather, it is Westover Hills Elementary School, the school their child is zoned for, in which they have no confidence. Just to the west of me, parents are not opting out of RPS; they are opting out of Southampton Elementary School. To the east of my neighborhood, parents say they will move if their child is not admitted to the Patrick Henry Charter School (when it opens). It is not RPS they object to. Rather they object to their children going to Blackwell or Swansboro elementary schools. Further, in many neighborhoods in the city, parents enroll their children in RPS only because they are able to use the Open Enrollment policy to get them into Mary Munford or William Fox elementary schools.

Rather than selling “Richmond Public Schools” to the parents who currently opt out, we must sell them on their neighborhood school. Our marketing campaign must be waged on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. In each neighborhood we must market the local school, not the entity “Richmond Public Schools.” It makes as little sense to win parents over by marketing RPS as a whole as it would be to get you to buy a Chevrolet Aveo with a “Buy General Motors” campaign or to buy Dove soap by advertising Unilever Global.

2. It is targeting the wrong audience. “Choice” will be aimed, initially, at the parents in the city’s first district. The residents of the first district are presumably the city’s wealthiest and to a large extent they choose private over public schools. However, it is unlikely that any advertising campaign will change the behavior of first district parents. Their children are already zoned into what is perceived as one of the best public elementary schools in the city. So, it is unlikely that they eschew RPS because of a perceived lack of quality. I believe they send their children to private schools because that is what they do. In their socio-economic class parents generally choose private schools for the education of their children. Many of these families have sent their children to private schools for generations. They are unlikely to be swayed by any advertising campaign.

The parents that we really need to get to are those who move out of the city rather than send their children to their neighborhood school. I suggest that the fourth district, or one with similar demographics, be chosen for the marketing campaign. In the fourth district most parents opt out of RPS not because private schools are the tradition in their families, but because they have no confidence that their children will receive quality educations in Fisher, Southampton or Westover Hills elementary schools, or Thompson or Brown middle schools, or Huguenot High School. These are the parents that would much rather avoid the expense of private school or the inconvenience of moving to the counties if they could only trust their neighborhood schools. We need to target our marketing campaign at these parents.

3. The product is not uniformly good. In announcing the “Choice” campaign, Mayor Jones said that if Richmond Public Schools is “good enough” for the children of Governor Timothy Kane it should be “good enough” for everyone in the city. Mayor Jones’ statement fails to recognize that not all the schools in the city would have been good enough for the Kane children. The Kanes were fortunate to live in a school zone with a quality elementary school. Many parents in the city do not see their neighborhood school as being “good enough” for their children. Many parents in the city are already planning their children’s college careers before they start kindergarten. They need to be assured that their neighborhood school can give their children the best possible start to their education. Therefore, any marketing campaign must be combined with a neighborhood by neighborhood, school by school, crusade to make that school “good enough.” We cannot continue to tolerate a school system where not all schools are that good.

4. The campaign should not be centralized. Since it is the neighborhood school that influences parental choice, the “Choice” campaign should be moved out of City Hall and centered in each of the city’s public schools. The principal and staff of each school should have the primary responsibility of “selling” their school to the parents in the school neighborhood. They will be helped, of course, by the school PTA and Citizens Advisory Group (in schools served by Communities in Schools). They will also need guidance on the marketing campaign from RPS headquarters. However, ultimately it will be the responsibility of school principals to assure that their schools are “good enough” and that the word gets out to the neighborhood.

This kind of campaign will put us closer to my visions for RPS—

· That it will provide a first-class education to all our children regardless of ethnicity or economic situation; and

· That all Richmond parents will see their neighborhood school as the school of choice for their children.

Hard Times? Schools Get Shafted—Again

This one will be short and easy to understand.

Our pro-education mayor has submitted a proposed 2010-2011 fiscal plan that further reduces the share of Richmond’s general fund expenditures for Richmond Public Schools. The pie-chart on page 45 of the mayor’s proposal indicates that RPS will receive 24.34 percent of the city’s total general fund spending in fiscal year 2010 and 24.08 percent in fiscal year 2011. This compares with 24.71 percent in fiscal year 2009, 25.03 percent in fiscal year 2008 and 26.11 percent in fiscal year 2007. To make sure you understand I’ve prepared this little chart:

FY 2007……………………26.11%
FY 2008……………………25.03%
FY 2009……………………24.71%
FY 2010(proposed)…....24.34%
FY 2011(proposed)….....24.08%

The maven understands that the economy is in shambles and that the city’s income from all sources is down considerably. However, if all government programs in the city must suffer, the pain should be spread evenly. To restore RPS to the share of the general fund expenditures that it has in fiscal year 2009, about $2.32 million for fiscal year 2010 and $4.04 million for fiscal year 2022 must be added to the amounts proposed by the mayor. (If my figures are wrong, blame my arithmetical skills; the principal is still valid.)

And, don’t think for a second that this is enough. As I have pointed out in the past, Richmond spends considerably less for its schools than do our neighboring counties and comparable cities. Throwing Down the Gauntlet If we really care about our children, we need to dedicate more of our city budget to our public schools.

So what can you do about this injustice being done to our children? Write to your City Council member and urge him or her to add money for RPS so its share of the city’s spending keeps even with past years.

1st District……..Bruce.Tyler@Richmondgov.com
2nd District……Charles.Samuels@Richmondgov.com
3rd District…..Chris.Hilbert@Richmondgov.com
4th District…..Kathy.Graziano@Richmondgov.com
5th District…..Marty.Jewell@Richmondgov.com
6th District…..Ellen.Robertson@Richmondgov.com
7th District…..Betty.Squire@Richmondgov.com
8th District…..Reva.Trammell@Richmondgov.com
9th District…..Doug.Conner@Richmondgov.com

Who Owns Virginia?

While we’re talking money, it would be nice to know who supplies all that cash that our state politicians survive on. The best place to find that information is the Virginia Public Action Project . When you get to the main site, go to "donors" and click on contributions by industry. Here’s what you’ll find.

The largest “industry” in terms of contributions is designated “political.” If you click on the dollar amount to see the details, you will notice that these are not really contributions. They are transfers of money among party committees, candidate committees, party PACs and candidate PACs. With respect to real contributions, the top industries (and the amounts they contributed to Commonwealth politicians in 2008-09) are:

Real Estate and Construction…………………. $5,235,066
Finance and Insurance……………………………$3,302,106
Law…………………………………….………………..$3,171,167
Energy and Natural Resources…….…………..$2,660,267
Business (retail and service)……………………$2,620,600
Health Care……………………………………………$2,212,229
Technology and Communication………………$1,930,515
Organized Labor……………………………………..$1,319,936
Transportation………………………………………..$1,258,921

So, now you know the rest of the story.

It has always been my belief that whoever pays the piper has at least a major say in what tune is played. When I see a legislator vote a certain way on an issue I go to VPAP to see if part of the motivation was based on who provided the big bucks. Of course, if you care to believe that all these contributions were made out of an altruistic desire for good government, be my guest. If it makes you feel good to think that your own senator or delegate, or supervisor, or council member always votes in the best interest of all the citizens and is never influenced by those that give the money, go right ahead.

By the way, how would you like to buy this bridge I own up in New York?

TGIO—Thank Goodness It’s Over

The 2009 session of the Commonwealth’s General Assembly is over. The guys and gals representing us in Richmond did a few good things and a few bad things in the two months they spent working in our fair city. Mostly though, it was much ado about nothing. Yet our senators and delegates need to be lauded for going on the wagon during January and February. Yes, for what seemed to them like eons Virginia’s 140 went without sucking on the fund raising teat. For that they deserve a great huzzah!

Now they get the chance to get to get back to their addiction. Money, you know, is what allows our legislators to survive. All of them raise much more money than they need to get reelected. It allows them to supplement the meager amount we give them for staff and expenses. It allows them to buy influence with other legislators and others.

So, it’s back to fundraiser after fundraiser after fundraiser. And I’m glad. There is nothing more pitiful than a senator or delegate without a substantial balance in his or her campaign account. Thank goodness the assembly session is over!

Who’s On The Side Of The Kids? (Not Again!)

Well, it’s February and the Richmond School Board is going through its annual budget evaluation. For those of you who remember, it was about this time last year that this maven found the performance of the school board in formulating a budget to be somewhat lacking. I criticized the board for not fulfilling its obligation to the children of Richmond. 1 Since that time we in Richmond have had an election and elected five new members to the school board. For their sake I will go through this again.

In doing its budget work the board is subject to two statutory provisions. The first, section 22.1-92 of the Virginia Code, provides:

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… 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.

Clearly, this provision requires the superintendent and the board to base the annual budget on the needs of the school system (and its students) rather than on any other budgetary concerns. As I said last year, the board should not consider itself bound by any budgetary restraints imposed on it that are not related to the needs of the school system.

The second provision, section 6.14 of the Charter of the City of Richmond 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.

This provision in the Charter is procedural rather than substantive. It designates Richmond’s mayor to receive the school board’s estimates rather than having them go directly to the City Council as specified by the state statute. However, it does not change the required basis of the school board/superintendent submission—the needs of Richmond Public Schools. As I said last year,

it is not the job of the School Board to balance the city’s budget. Rather, it is its job to assure that the needs of the students in city schools are being met. That requires it to prepare a budget that fully funds those needs.

But, Maven, if the school board submits its budget based on needs rather than the amount of money that will be available to be spent, who will take this fact into consideration?

As I also said last year,

Under our charter, that responsibility lies with the nine members of the City Council working in cooperation with the mayor. …The council will take the budget prepared by the School Board and the budget submitted by the mayor, which combines the budgets of the various city departments and agencies, and will make decisions about how to allocate the city’s revenues. Although those decisions will be difficult, making difficult decisions is what the members of the City Council were elected to do.

I realize that at this point it may be difficult for the board to shift gears and prepare a needs-based budget rather than the “significant cuts” budget they have been working on. On the other hand (lawyers—even retired ones—always have more than one hand), if the board does not fulfill its statutory duty to inform the mayor and council of the actual needs of Richmond Public Schools, how can the mayor and council do their jobs of preparing the city’s overall budget? In submitting a budget that makes cuts based on anticipated revenues both from the state and the city rather than the needs of the school system the board is, in effect, usurping the job of the city council. It is also abdicating its responsibility to the school children of Richmond.

Who Slipped Up, Mr. President?

A funny thing happened to Tom Daschle on his way to being the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Apparently, much to everyone’s surprise, staffers on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions actually checked out Mr. Daschle’s background and discovered that he owed beau coup bucks to Uncle Sam in back taxes. I say “to everyone’s surprise” because I can think of no other reason why Mr. Daschle’s nomination would have been sent forward by President Obama. Somebody on Mr. Obama’s transition team must have believed that because Mr. Daschle is a former member of the Senate club his nomination would be confirmed without anyone checking him out. It turns out to be terribly embarrassing for Mr. Daschle and for the president. (I guess Mr. Daschle will cry all the way to his banks).

And, let’s not forget about Timothy Geithner our new Secretary of the Treasury. A few weeks back when his nomination came up before the Senate Finance Committee we discovered that he too wasn’t exactly paid up at the IRS. Again, I assume that someone on the transition team didn’t think that Senate staffers would ever discover something as insignificant as a bit of back taxes. Again it was terribly embarrassing for Mr. Geithner and for the president.

We also have the case of Bill Richardson, who was nominated by Mr. Obama to be the Secretary of Commerce. Before his name ever reached the Senate, Mr. Richardson had to withdraw because an investigation in his home state might prove embarrassing to the president.

Three cabinet nominations screwed up. Well, maybe not for Mr. Geithner because the United States Senate Finance Committee is so forgiving. (Or else they don’t really expect the rich to follow the tax laws they write.) But as far as the president is concerned these are all terribly embarrassing and they necessarily cost him a good part of the political capital he earned on Election Day. How do things like this happen?

Well, people do make mistakes.

After Mr. Daschle withdrew his name from consideration, President Obama used the politician’s second favorite tool—I screwed up; I’m sorry; I won’t do it again. Of course, this is better than the politician’s number one tool—I didn’t do it and I dare you to prove that I did. But, after a while, apologies don’t work that well. It’s like my granddaughter. At two she is quite adept at using “Sorry.” She goes over and bops her sister on the head, then says, “Sorry”. She kicks the dog because it is in her way and then says, “Sorry.” I tried to explain to her that saying sorry doesn’t change the fact that she did something she shouldn't have. In time she will learn. I hope that Mr. Obama also learns that being sorry is not the same as doing things right the first time.

Mr. Obama ran for the presidency on a slogan of “Yes we can” and promised us meaningful changes in Washington. So far, I haven’t seen it. If President Obama cannot get his staff to understand that stupid errors like these will not be tolerated, there are going to be millions of Americans really angry when his honeymoon is over.

Superintendent Selection Process Redux

After my posting yesterday, I received an e-mail from a member of the School Board stating,

Since the seating of the new board, we had 2 public meetings where we talked about the search process. Because no one from the media attended the first, we made sure to do the attached presentation at our meeting last Monday to try to shed light on the process.

The attached PowerPoint presentation contained this outline of the search process starting in May of 2008.

• May 2008
– Search committee appointed
– School board conducted public forums, sent out public surveys to determine attributes sought in next superintendent
• June 2008
– School board members presented public forum findings to search committee
– School board hired search firm through RFP process
• August/September 2008
– Search firm conducted interviews with individual school board and search firm members
– Search firm developed leadership profile and “Characteristics Desired in the Superintendent of Schools” based on 200 community, 9 school board, and 14 search committee responses
– National posting of vacancy
– School Board approved the job description
• September – December 2008
– Search firm continued to receive applicants and to actively recruit promising candidates.
• December 2008
– Search committee met with each new school board member and Mayor Jones to review the status of the process
– Search firm presented resumes of 20 candidates to search committee
– Search committee narrowed candidates to 12
– Search firm interviewed 12 and narrowed to 5
• January 2009
– Search committee interviewed 5 candidates and narrowed to 3 preferred
– Search committee presented 3 candidates to school board and provided opportunity for board to review resumes of all 5 final candidates.
– Board elected to interview the previously identified 3 candidates

The presentation also contained explanations of the rolls of the board, search committee and outside search firm in the selection process.

This maven lauds the School Board for publicizing the stages of the search process. I retract my statement that the process was “as far removed from government in the sunshine as one can imagine.” And, hopefully, I was wrong in thinking that the election had not brought change.

I must say, however, that making this presentation only days before the board revealed its choice for our new superintendent does not make up for the six months that the citizens of Richmond were kept in the dark. Had the board and its search committee been open throughout the process it is unlikely that some of my neighbors would have been suspicious of the validity of the whole search. I certainly hope that in the future the board will continue to choose open rather than closed processes (even if the laws of the Commonwealth provide an excuse to meet in closed sessions).

Government In The Dark

For those of you who thought you were voting for change in November, you need to rethink. Richmond still has both a City Council and a School Board that think they may carry out their functions in secret. Today the board appointed Dr. Yvonne Brandon as our new School Superintendent in a process that was as far removed from government in the sunshine as one can imagine. All we know is that there was a search team (whose members were subject to a confidentiality agreement) that hired a contractor to find candidates. The contractor produced the names of five candidates. The School Board reduced that to three finalists. Then they chose Dr. Brandon. We have no idea who the other candidates were. We don’t know the process the board went through to make its decision. We were simply told that they decided.

Why should we be concerned about this? During the summer when I was campaigning I met several people who told me they felt that the search for superintendent was a sham; that it was merely a cover for the appointment of Dr. Brandon, which was already a done deal. I checked with people on the search committee who told me that there was in fact a genuine search. But there are still people in Richmond who do not trust the School Board’s process, even with a new majority. The board has some work to do in convincing Richmond residents that they are to be trusted.

Then there is the City Council and the vacant 7th District seat. As you know, former delegate Dwight Jones resigned his seat in the House of Delegates when he was elected mayor. City Council 7th District member Delores McQuinn ran and was elected to the vacant House of Delegates seat. She then resigned from the City Council. Under our City Charter the council is authorized to fill the vacant seat by appointment until the next regular election. Several citizens have filed applications to be appointed to the vacancy. According to the chatter on Church Hill People’s News the selection of Ms. McQuinn’s successor will be done in the dark. According to a statement by a policy advisor for the City Council, “The interviews, as well as any further discussion and consideration of candidates will all be held in Closed Session." Only council members Chris Hilbert and Charles Samuels thought it was wrong to make this significant decision in secret.

Why should we be concerned with this? In the last few weeks there has been a great deal of talk that the selection of Ms.McQuinn’s successor is a done deal. The talk suggests that Dwight Jones approved Ms. McQuinn as his successor and that Ms. McQuinn has approved her successor who will be rubber stamped by the City Council. As in the case of the School Board, a decision by City Council to make its decision in closed session will only fuel this type of talk.

The eight people elected to the council and the nine people elected to the school board in November need to understand that they cannot govern without having the trust of the citizens of Richmond. They will not have that trust unless they do their work in the sunshine where we can watch them. The decisions to do their work in secret were bad from them and for River City.

So Help Me Dog

Okay, I’ll admit it. It probably is not as easy as it looks. For one thing, you gotta be careful to use the President Elect’s name rather than your own. It would not do for Barack Obama to start his oath with “I, John Roberts.” And then, there was the crowd. Mr. Justice Roberts is used to speaking before a few hundred people at the Supreme Court. Now he was facing more than a million. It could get one a bit nervous. Of course he could have read the oath rather than reciting it. Or, if he has difficulty reading in public, he could have printed it on a piece of paper and handed it to Mr. Obama to read. Perhaps it was the cold; perhaps it was the wind. Perhaps it wasn’t a mistake at all. Maybe it was Justice Roberts zinging one at the man for whom he mostly likely did not vote.

Was administering the oath to Mr. Obama the most important thing Justice Roberts has done so far in his career? Nope. Is it the most important thing he is going to do in the many years he will serve as Chief Justice of the United States? Nope. Is it the one mistake for which he will always be remembered? Yep. If this were a hundred years ago, in all likelihood no one would ever know of Justice Roberts’ gaff. Back then, only the people in attendance would have witnessed his mistake and only the few close enough would have even heard. But, poor Justice Roberts screwed up with hundreds of millions of people watching and listening. What’s worse, his blunder was recorded and will always be there to be viewed in generations to come.

Well, all’s well that ends well. President Obama is at the White House trying to get us out of W’s disaster. Justice Roberts is back at the Court just waiting for the opportunity to strike down Obama’s major legislation as unconstitutional.

How Guilty Should I Feel?

"What is good for General Motors is good for America" - GM Chairman and CEO, Charlie Wilson, 1955

Reader, the maveness and I make the last payment on our car number one this month. As is our usual practice when this happens, we are retiring car number two, moving car number one into the number two position and buying a new car number one. So, we have been looking at cars for a few weeks and finally decided to buy a Toyota. This is not a surprise because our current car number one is also a Toyota. What I do find interesting, especially with the economic plight facing our domestic car manufacturers, is that we didn’t consider buying an American car for more than about three seconds. We just assume that GM, Ford and Chrysler do not make a car that is better than the Japanese.

This is not the way it used to be. Our first car, nearly forty years ago, was a Chevy Nova. We liked it fine. When our family started growing, we replaced the Nova with a big Impala wagon. (I sure loved that car). We really didn’t think about buying foreign cars. Aside from simply assuming that American was best, we also had to deal with the fact that my father-in-law would have disowned us if we had bought Japanese and my mother would have gone ballistic if we bought German.

Then, at some point and for some reason, we bought a Ford Taurus. Both I and the maveness hated that car. It turned us off to Ford totally. When the maveness went back to work and we needed a second car we chose a Nissan (or were they still called Datsun back then?) After that it was Toyota and Subaru and Toyota and now Toyota again.

But that was before. Shouldn’t now be different? Didn’t the CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler fly into Washington to get their share of the mighty federal buck? Didn’t they promise us that if they didn’t get the money they would be floating belly up in the Detroit River in weeks? Don’t I owe it to all those Detroit executives to buy American so they can continue to live in the style to which they have become accustomed? Don’t I owe it to the members of the United Auto Workers who are really sweating their jobs? Don’t I owe it to the residents of the Detroit metro area who just went through the worst football season ever? If one or more of those “Big Three” goes under, the city could become a ghost town. So what if their cars aren’t as good as the Japanese; don’t I have some patriotic duty to buy them anyhow?

What is the appropriate atonement for the sin of buying Japanese? Should we be required to wear a big scarlet “J” on all our stuff? I mean, people will already know we have bought Japanese just by looking at those letters—T, O, Y, O, T, A—on the car. Should we get a bumper sticker that reads “We wanted to buy a Cadillac for $54,000 but the Devil made us get this cheap thing?”

I know, precious reader, that I should not be joking about these things. Our economy is tanking. Many thousands of Americans have lost their jobs. Many thousands more will probably lose theirs too. If GM or Ford or Chrysler go under, a whole lot more will become formally employed. That is tragic, not funny. But should I feel guilty that we did what we thought was in our best interest?

I know that many businesses in this country are badly hurt or even dying because of something they had no control over. But, I can’t help feeling that GM, Ford and Chrysler decision makers have a lot to do with how poorly their companies are doing. They’ve had decades to deal with the growing competition from Japan, Germany and, more recently, Korea. They have made many corporate decisions that might have helped them in the short run. Certainly, the executives have all been well compensated. But their short sightedness kept them from planning and developing the cars that would have kept them on top. While Toyota and Honda and Nissan and Kia and others were producing and selling cars that people wanted, GM and Ford and Chrysler were producing the vehicles they wanted to make and were spending tons on advertising to try to convince American drivers that these were the cars they should want.

There are certain corporations in this country that are so big and fill a niche that is so essential to our national economy that we are unwilling to allow them to be subject to the normal rules of a free market. So, in the last several months we have pumped billions of dollars of our money into these corporations to make sure they survive (even when their own stupid or greedy decisions caused their economic downfall). Although the sub-prime fiasco has caused many Americans to lose their homes, and a lot more, nobody thought they needed a bailout. “Losing your home? Tough, you never should have bought something you couldn’t afford.” But, did we ever say to any bank, “You guys screwed up now face the consequences.” No! They are too important.

The free market should be the one place in our society where “survival of the fittest” governs things. Instead, we have borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from our grandchildren to rescue corporations that are unfit to survive. It makes little sense to this maven. But what can we do? Saving unfit corporations has become a tradition in the US of A. How many years has it been since Tom Paxton penned these words?

I am changing my name to Chrysler
I am headed for that great receiving line
So when they hand a million grand out
I'll be standing with my hand out
Yes sir I'll get mine.

Time To Shake Things Up 1

Recently I had an e-mail exchange with Jonathan Mallard, my fellow also-ran in the Fourth District school board race. Jonathan had asked me what I thought of his analysis of the Request for Procurement (RFP) for renovations to make Fox Elementary School compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act. You can find Jonathan’s analysis at http://jonathanmallard.com/maintaining-the-curtain/

Here is how I replied to Jonathan:

Unfortunately, RPS has developed a corporate culture of indifference. We have had mediocrity or even incompetence for so long that it has become the standard of performance. I have seen this before in the District of Columbia government and the Department of Defense.
Things will only change when either the superintendent or the school board demand competency. The attitude must come from the top. The school leadership needs to communicate to all RPS employees that mediocrity or incompetence will no longer be tolerated. Employees should be given a period of time to improve. If they do not, they should be replaced with other employees who are competent.

Maven, how can you say such things? You are being terribly unfair to all the RPS people who work really hard and are doing a good job. Besides, didn’t you lambast Keith West for saying similar things last year?

Vigilant reader, you are right. There are many many RPS employees who are doing an exemplary job. But, I was not talking about individual performance. I was talking about an attitude. It’s like the old saying “Close enough for government work.” Clearly there are lots of government employees who take their jobs very seriously and will not settle for “close enough.” On the other hand, there are enough of the other kind of employee to have given birth to the stereotype.

As to Keith West, I remember two posts I wrote about him. Just about a year ago, I did lambast him for his decision, after losing his challenge to George Braxton to be chair of the school board, to walk away from his responsibilities to the children of Richmond. Keith, It’s All About The Kids Then I wrote another piece responding to his Style Weekly revelation that he and his wife had decided not to send their children to RPS because of their fears they could not receive a decent education. We Have Nothing to Fear but . . .

In Style Weekly, Mr. West said:

Will your children learn the value of honesty and hard work? Is cheating really tolerated in some classes? Will they show and receive proper respect and courtesy? Will they learn to love learning? In some classrooms the answer is yes. In a few schools the answer is yes. But consistently across the entire school system, the answer is no.

I replied:

I guess I must be lucky, because in the schools in which I have been I have seen the children learning the value of honesty and hard work. I have seen no example of cheating, let alone cheating being tolerated. I have seen children showing each other and their teachers respect and courtesy. I have seen so many young faces glowing with the love of learning.

Mr. West then said:

In every job category from custodian to central-office administrator you will find sterling examples of effort and ability working alongside people who aren’t doing their jobs and shouldn’t be drawing a paycheck. You will find some teachers who are imbuing a love of literature in their students, and others writing evaluations with made-up words and nonexistent grammar. You will find some principals prowling the halls gently correcting the transgressions of their little ones, and others hiding in their offices.

My response was:

Again, I have not been in the schools in which the support staff does not earn their pay, where the teachers are unqualified, and where the principals hide. In the schools that I frequent, I have seen just the opposite.

In my post I acknowledge that as a school board member Mr. West had been in a lot more schools than I have. I was just saying that I had not seen the poor performance that he had seen.

Since that time I have been educated by many Richmond parents. I have a list of “horror stories” on my computer testifying to the instances in which Richmond Public Schools or its employees have not done well by particular students.

But, again dear reader, I am talking about an attitude, not individual performance. What I was saying to Jonathan was that because nobody at the top of Richmond Public School’s administration demands excellence there is a belief that what we are doing is good enough. I will go beyond that to say that the citizens of Richmond are also not demanding excellence from RPS and its staff. During the school board campaign I asked Antione Green (President of the Crusade for Voters), at one of our morning coffee meetings (at which neither of us consumed any coffee), why the residents of Richmond tolerate a school system that is not first class. I pointed out to him that in Fairfax County, where my kids were educated, there is no way that parents and other taxpayers would put up with what we put up with in Richmond. If Fairfax County schools performed the way RPS does every member of the school board would have been driven out of town dressed in tar and feathers.

The first thing we need is a new Superintendent of Schools who has not spent a considerable part of his or her career at RPS. I had and have a great deal of respect for former Superintendent Deborah Jewell-Sherman and Interim Superintendent Yvonne Brandon. Unfortunately they both developed professionally within RPS and are too closely wedded to its corporate culture. They worked for too long side-by-side with the people they had to supervise when they became superintendent. Last summer when the School Board appointed Dr. Brandon as interim superintendent I knew that they were choosing someone who was well qualified to run our school system. But I was a little disappointed by Dr. Brandon’s announcement that she would carry on the programs and policies of Dr. Jewell-Sherman. I would have been a lot happier if she had said that she intended to make changes for the better.

I set out the talents we needed in our new superintendent last spring. The Next Superintendent Now I add the additional qualification that the person we choose should come from outside RPS. Only an outsider can bring us new ideas. Only an outsider can change the corporate culture of RPS. Only an outsider can come to the job without any “debts” owed to others in the system.

This year we have a new mayor. We have five new members of the school board. We need a new superintendent too. We need someone like Michelle L. Rhee.

Who, you may ask, is Rhee? Rhee is the Chancellor (when the school system is big enough that is what they call their superintendent) of the District of Columbia Public Schools. Depending on who you talk to, Rhee is either the great savior of D.C. Public Schools or a publicity-seeking, power-hungry, out-of-control administrator who doesn’t care who she hurts in carrying out her objectives. I think the jury is still out on whether she is either of the above or something in the middle. But, what I like most about Rhee is her attitude that the public schools in Washington are there to serve the needs of the children, not the desires of any adults or block of adults. This has made her very unpopular with the District’s teachers union. Just last week, Rhee announced her plan to remake Washington’s teacher’s corp. Ms. Rhee intends to remove a “significant share” of teachers (those who are not succeeding) and to retrain all the rest. Rhee Plans Shake-Up of Teaching Staff, Training.

I am not suggesting that we need such radical steps in Richmond. But, we need to rethink the way we train, evaluate and compensate our teachers. In one of my earliest opinions involving RPS, I said:

We must hold all teachers accountable for their students’ achievements. We must have a performance appraisal system that measures how effectively our teachers teach. We must do a regular evaluation of each teacher’s students to see how many are truly excelling. We must not accept as an explanation that “I used the same lessons last year and it worked with those students.” Although ultimately it is the student that learns, we must expect our teachers to prepare lessons that will enable each of their students to perform at their maximum capacity.
We must retrain all our teachers in new teaching methods. There have been many improvements in teaching methodology in recent years and we must make these developments available to all our teachers. We should not settle merely for teachers to be recertified periodically. We must insist that they constantly improve. Since many of our students are at risk because of their background, we must make sure that all our teachers know how to help these children.
Fix Our Schools, Now

Then, in October, in an attempt to inject some life into my school board campaign, I wrote:

I propose that we move RPS employees, including administrators and teachers, from a system in which pay increases are based on college degrees and longevity to one based on performance. Let me be clear, I do not propose that compensation be based on student SOL scores. As I have said several times here and in the questionnaire from the Richmond Education Association, there are far too many factors other than teacher performance that affect how well students do on SOLs. We need to develop a system in which we can measure how much progress students are making in a particular year (by comparing where they are in September to where they are in June). We also need to handicap that system so that teachers in schools with concentrated poverty can compete fairly with teachers in schools that are primarily middle class.
We need to start with a voluntary system for teachers already working for RPS. Teachers would be given the option of staying in a compensation system based on longevity and degrees or moving to the merit system in which pay raises are not guaranteed but can be significantly higher than on the longevity scale.
I expect that the Richmond Education Association will participate with the School Board in designing this new compensation system.
From Outside The Box

One of my campaign advisers urged me to postpone this type of suggestion until after the election. She feared it would cost me votes.

But, getting back to Chancellor Rhee, Richmond needs a superintendent who will put the needs of our children first. We need a superintendent who understands that nobody is “entitled” to be employed by RPS. We need a superintendent who is willing to really shake things up.

Politics And Money In The Old Dominion 1.5

Loyal reader, did you see the story in the Metro section of the Washington Post on New Year’s Day? It says that, although money can’t buy you love, it can buy you endorsements if you want to run for state or local office in Virginia. 1

It seems there’s a guy named Jon Bowerbank who wants to be the Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth. He recently was endorsed by Delegate Lionell Spruill, Sr., as the best Democrat to take on incumbent Tim Bolling. What the endorsement announcement did not indicate was that Bowerbank had just hired Spruill as a political consultant. Of course, Bowerbank was not “buying” Spruill’s endorsement. Spruill has made it clear that his services are very valuable because he has contacts all over the state.

There must be something to Spruill’s assertion because Democratic gubernatorial candidate Brian Moran has also hired Spruill as a consultant to the tune of $7,500 per month. And, you guessed it, Spruill has endorsed Moran’s candidacy.

Getting back to Bowerbank. Four years ago he raised over $37,000 for the campaign of Leslie Byrne to be Lieutenant Governor. In his effort, Bowerbank contributed his own money and convinced his wife and stepson to also donate to Byrnes campaign. Also, by some coincidence, nearly a dozen of Bowerbank’s employees also contributed to Byrne’s campaign. This year, Byrne returned the favor by endorsing Bowerbank for the office she didn’t win. Of course there was no quid pro quo—Virginia is not Illinois. Byrne did acknowledge, however, that "When someone shows an interest in you, they show a loyalty to you, there is an inclination to return that."

Bowerbank also donated funds to Senator J. Chapman Peterson to help pay off part of his campaign debt from 2007. You’ll be pleased to know, loyal reader, that Peterson has endorsed Bowerbank’s candidacy. Was it purely a coincidence? No way! According to Peterson, "Was that a factor in my trying to help him? Of course it was. Obviously, when you make a contribution, it helps you get your foot in the door."

Don’t think for a moment that this is just a Democratic practice. Over the years, Republican Paul Jost has distributed more than $1 million to candidates around the Commonwealth. When he decided to run for a vacant House of Representatives seat last year, he was endorsed by the same people he contributed to. Was there anything wrong with this? Not according to Jost. "It is not a quid pro quo. I never gave money to someone and said, 'Hey, I will give you money if you endorse me.' But certainly life is about doing favors for people and them doing favors for you."

And then there are the parallel attempts of Brian Moran and Terry McAuliffe to spend their way to the Democratic nomination. Since 2006, Moran has donated nearly $300,000 to state and local candidates in the Commonwealth. Although McAuliffe, as the new candidate on the block, has not yet filed his first campaign finance statement, he has been spreading cash all over Virginia to help his candidacy grow. (The Post article said nothing of spending by the third Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, to win the nomination. However, Deeds most recent finance statements indicate that political donations only constitute about 1% of the money his campaign has spent).

So, loyal reader, what are we to make of this mix of money and politics in our beloved Commonwealth. Perhaps Republican Delegate David Albo of Fairfax put it best. He said he will never support a candidate unless that candidate has contributed to his own campaigns. As Albo put it, "You have to develop relationships, and contributions are the easiest way to do it."

Politics And Money In The Old Dominion 1.0

Last week I expressed my astonishment and misgivings about Seventh District Representative Eric Cantor raising $4.5 million in “campaign” contributions during the last election cycle. Fund-raising at this level is obviously for a lot more than just running for re-election. But money is not just a Republican thing. Just this week I was invited to a special reception for the Honorable Delores McQuinn, candidate for the 70th District House of Delegate seat formerly held by our new mayor Dwight Jones. The reception is scheduled for January 8; two days after Ms. McQuinn will have already been elected to the House. After all, she is running unopposed. Just so everybody understands that this is not just an opportunity to shake hands with the new Delegate, the invitation indicates the following range of “contributions:” Friend--$150.00; Patron--$250.00; Sponsor--$500.00; and Benefactor--$1,000.00.

Now, if Ms. McQuinn’s election were being contested and if this was two or three weeks ago, I would understand the need for this fund raiser. But, as this morning’s article in the Times-Dispatch indicates, Ms. McQuinn is not taking this election for granted. 1 According to TD reporter Olympia Meola, Ms. McQuinn’s campaign raised more than $36,000 in December, of which more than $27,000 was spent—all for an uncontested election. Now it appears that Ms. McQuinn needs even more money. Obviously, Ms McQuinn does not need the money to get elected. She will already be elected by the time of the fund-raiser. So, what is this money for? Well, for one, Ms. McQuinn will have to run for re-election next year. But, that’s ten months away. Why the need for a fundraiser now?

As is becoming more and more apparent to this maven, members of Congress and members of the General Assembly need a minimum amount of money in their campaign accounts just to garner any respect. Any senator, representative, senator or delegate has to have tens of thousands of dollars in the “war chest” at all times. Very little is going to be spent on getting re-elected. It will be spent, however, on buying influence within the national or state parties, or within the legislative body. Or it might be spent to put people in debt to you for favors in the future.

So, I urge you all, whether or not you are going to the reception, to send those checks into Ms. McQuinn. We can’t send her to Richmond (the capital, not the city) without a respectable amount of cash on hand. The voters of the 70th District, whether or not they bother voting tomorrow, are depending on you to make their delegate a force to be reckoned with.

Race-Based Politics? In Richmond?

In his January 1 TD column, Michael Paul Williams had this to say about Douglas Wilder’s mayorship:

“Wilder gets props for changing the arc of Richmond history by ushering in a new era of civic democracy. In doing so, he aided Richmond in its maturation beyond race-based politics.” 1

Like Mike Williams I would like to think that Richmond has gotten beyond race-based politics. But, being a little closer to the political process this fall, I am a bit less optimistic about things than Mike is. When I was canvassing voters for my own campaign I spoke with many voters. Some of those voters wanted to talk about the mayoral race. All of the African American voters that indicated their choice for mayor to me supported Dwight Jones. The Caucasian voters who spoke to me about their choice were not united in who they supported, but they all strongly opposed Dwight Jones. I know it’s not a reliable sample. Further, I don’t know (because I didn’t ask) why the white voters I spoke to opposed Delegate Jones. So, let’s look at some research I did for a piece that I started but never published back in October.

According to the 2000 Census, six of Richmond’s nine council districts have a majority black population. (“Black” and “white” are the terms used by the Census Bureau). The three other districts have black populations of 4% (First), 31% (Second) and 27% (Fourth). This census data is eight years old so things may have changed but I don’t think the changes are significant.

Now, let’s look at the election results. Dwight Jones received just under 40% of the votes cast for mayor in Richmond. He won a plurality of the votes in six of the nine council districts, enough to be elected. The three districts that Delegate Jones did not carry in the election were the First, Second and Fourth districts—the same three districts that had majority white populations in the 2000 Census. In the First District, the district that had less than 10% black population according to the census, Jones only won 9.8% of the vote and finished third behind Bill Pantele and Robert Grey. In the Second and Fourth districts, Jones won 23.1% and 25.9% of the vote respectively. In the six districts that he did win, Delegate Jones received 37.9% (Third), 42.6% (Fifth), 57.4% (Seventh), 61.3% (Sixth), 63.1% (Eighth) and 65.1% (Ninth).

I know that there are a whole lot of factors (other than race) that motivated voters on Election Day. But, to this maven, it appears that there was some correlation between the race of the voters and the candidates they favored for mayor on November 4. I know that on the City Council and the School Board race seems a less significant factor in determining who gets elected. However, unlike Mike Williams, I don’t think that race-based politics is a thing of the past in Richmond.

What does this mean for Mayor Dwight? He must work just a bit harder to demonstrate to those people in the districts that he did not win that he is their mayor too. In governing, he must address the needs of the city as a whole, rather than just the needs of the communities that supported him in the election. He also has to divorce himself from the attitude that was reported in the TD last week. According to that account, Senator Henry Marsh considers Mayor Dwight to be next in the line of Richmond’s black mayors. 2

Dwight Jones must not think of himself as a black mayor. He must think of himself as the mayor of Richmond who just happens to be African American. And, he must communicate that attitude to all the citizens of our fair city. He also must communicate his view that politics in Richmond is not a battle between whites and blacks over who controls the city. Only then will be begin to mature beyond race-based politics in River City.

Happy New Year Mister Mayor

In his January 1 piece TD columnist Michael Paul Williams pointed out the change that the end of Douglas Wilder’s term as mayor will have on the jobs of reporters and molders of public opinion here in Richmond. In Williams’ words:

“L. Douglas Wilder's departure from the mayor's suite in Richmond City Hall should leave local news gatherers in a state of mourning. Wilder's headline-seeking antics were the gift that kept on giving. Our new minister-mayor, Dwight Clinton Jones, reserves his fiery pronouncements for the pulpit. Jones the politician is as taciturn as Wilder is flamboyant.” 1

Of course, this maven has known for months that it will be harder to find things to write about with Mayor Doug leaving. Although Doug and his behavior provided much grist for my mill to grind last winter, since he announced that he would not run for re-election I only wrote about him once and that was to wish him good luck in the future.

Style Weekly, in its “Score 2008” on December 23, went so far as to declare Doug to be no longer relevant:

"We thought about writing a long perspective piece on the legacy of Mayor L. Douglas Wilder… but then we realized no one really cares anymore. It’s official: Wilder was such a complete bust that he merits only a couple of paragraphs.
* * *
No, it wasn’t a dream. Wilder did beat up lots of people and took credit for a whole bunch of things that don’t actually exist. But pinch yourself. It’s over now." 2

Here we are, only three days into the term of Dwight Jones as our mayor and things are radically different. When Mayor Doug took over (was it only four years ago) he came out punching by challenging sweet heart severance deals that had been given to certain city officials in the waning days of the old regime. It was clear that Doug was arriving at City Hall in a war mode. He was the knight that would fix everything in Richmond in short order.

As for Mayor Dwight—
· First, he writes an OpEd declaring education to be his highest priority;
· Second, he delivers a sermon in which he makes it clear that he cannot fix what is wrong with Richmond, that the citizens of our fair city must work hard during these tough times to make things better;
· Third, he tells the members of City Council that he will cooperate with them rather than trying to force them into submission. (In the mayor’s words: "I offer to you the hand of cooperation and the hand of collaboration, and I offer to you an open door. If you receive that offer . . . I believe that we can do great things together. That's what the city is expecting." 3

Well, we haven’t even gotten to the first Monday of Dwight Jones’ term. But as of now I’m willing to say Happy New Year Mister Mayor.

Dems Heading For A Big Fall?

Surely, ‘twas a great victory! For the first time in more than forty years, a Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, won Virginia’s electors, capturing more than 52% of the vote. Democrat Mark Warner won the U.S. Senate seat by an overwhelming landslide. Democratic candidates won previously Republican House of Representatives seats in the Second, Fifth, and Eleventh congressional districts. Oh yes. For Virginia Democrats, ‘twas a great victory!

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a reception for the Virginia presidential electors sponsored by the local Democratic committees. There was a moderate sized crowd, and it was fascinating for a college Political Science major like me. I always think of the electoral system by which we elect our presidents as an archaic relic of the eighteenth century. But here were eight or nine of Virginia’s electors describing the constitutional function that they had carried out earlier in the day. As the speeches went on, the gathering morphed into a belated election victory party. Everybody was bragging about what a great job they hand done to move Virginia out of the red. Now, all they had to do was concentrate on next year’s House of Delegates races to turn Virginia truly into a blue state. I mumbled under my breath, “We’ll be lucky to keep the State House.”

So why is the maven so discouraged when everybody else is so upbeat? For one thing, I am trying to avoid complacency. It is vital that Virginia Democrats not get into the mindset that the Commonwealth will become a permanently blue state by means of some inevitable historical development. That will not happen. Nothing is inevitable. Virginia will become a blue state only if lots of people put in the kind of time and effort they did this year to get Obama and Warner elected.

I am also not quite secure with the ability of the Virginia Democratic Party to get candidates elected. As I stated two years ago, Let’s Talk about the Democratic Party of Virginia, the Democratic Party does not elect candidates in Virginia. Rather it is the individual candidate committees that elect candidates to office. After this year’s election, I am convinced that I am still right.

The kind of party politics that I grew up with in Brooklyn is long gone. Now campaigns are run by professional political consultants hired by candidates rather than by political parties. One result of this change is that candidates don’t have any real loyalty to the party since they do not have to rely on the party to get elected. They run their own campaigns and raise their own money. The campaign staff they hire and the volunteers they recruit do not feel any loyalty to the party. When the election campaign is over they go back to doing what they were doing before the campaign. They generally do not transfer their talents to the state or local party.

This fall there were separate committees operating to elect Barack Obama as president and Mark Warner as senator. There were also eleven separate committees working to elect or re-elect members of Congress in the eleven congressional districts. They did not necessarily work together with the state Democratic Party or with local Democratic committees. This led to a rather chaotic situation, at least here in the City of Richmond.

At the September meeting of the Richmond City Democratic Committee, it became apparent to me that the committee as an entity was not a major player in the November elections. Rather than urging those present to work within the party for the election of the Democratic slate the message was to volunteer through the Obama or Warner headquarters within the city.

At the same September meeting, the followers of mayoral candidate Dwight Jones had sufficient members present to have the committee vote to endorse Jones for mayor. Although this vote was overturned by the state Democratic Party, the Jones supporters were again able to garner enough votes at an October meeting of the committee. (I am not criticizing Jones for this action. I also had my supporters work to get the committee to endorse my school board candidacy.) What did Jones gain from this endorsement? He was able to portray himself as a Democrat in his campaign literature and his name appeared as part of the Democratic slate on the party’s sample ballots. However, his campaign continued to be run by his own campaign committee.

During the last weeks before the election I tried to contact the Democratic leader for the fourth district (in which I was running) but without success. I e-mailed the members of the Richmond City Democratic Committee residing within the fourth district to find out who was covering the polls on Election Day. The few replies I received indicated that it was the Obama campaign, rather than the Democratic Committee that was staffing the polls on Election Day. I contacted the fourth district leaders for the Obama campaign to try to coordinate Election Day activities. I was told that they had everything under control and did not need my help.

During the final days before the election I found out that there was some kind of screw up with sample ballots and that I wouldn’t be receiving as many as I felt I needed for the election. I was told not to worry because the Obama campaign had lots of sample ballots which would benefit my candidacy. I found out at about 6:00 PM on Election Day that the sample ballots being distributed by Obama volunteers at the polls in the fourth district did not even have my name listed.

During the last weekend of the campaign I also discovered that only two of the six precincts in the fourth district had Democratic Committee members assigned as precinct captains. Fortunately, several of my friends had volunteered to cover the polls for me on Election Day.

I am not setting forth these facts as a complaint. My failure to win the fourth district school board race was not the fault of the Richmond City Democratic Committee. Even if the committee was well organized and worked for my election I would probably have still lost for a multitude of reasons. I do set forth these happenings to point out that the committee is not meeting its stated objective of promoting “Democratic principles through the support and assistance in the election of local, state and national Democratic candidates.”

The 2009 election will be tough for several reasons. First, Republican leaders throughout the country have indicated that winning the Virginia gubernatorial race is the key to the party’s recovery from the 2008 elections. GOP Aiming to Plant Seeds of Its Resurgence in Va. Governor's Race There will be tons of money coming into the Commonwealth and all the stars of the GOP will be working to win our State House.

Second, the Virginia Republican Party is united behind Bob McDonnell as its candidate for governor. The Dems, however, already have two declared candidates and most likely will have a third ere long. So, this spring, while Mr. McDonnell is concentrating on the general election campaign, the Democrats will be bogged down in what may be a divisive primary campaign.

Third, Bob McDonnell has been serving as Virginia’s attorney general for the last three years and is clearly better known to voters in the Commonwealth that any of the potential Democratic nominees. This will give him a clear advantage in the November election.

If Virginia is to truly become a blue state the state Democratic Party must organize itself to provide maximum support for whoever wins the primaries. Local committees, like the Richmond City Democratic Committee, must also organize to assure that the Democratic candidates for all offices are fully supported in their campaigns. We Democrats cannot rely on a charismatic candidate, like Obama or Warner, to turn on the electorate.

One final thing. In this year’s election campaign I saw very little support of one Democratic candidate for another. While individual candidates were happy to run as Democrats because they thought it would help their own candidates, there was only one instance that I am aware of where a Democratic candidate urged the election of all Democrats running for office. The week before the election, I received an automated telephone call from third district representative Bobby Scott urging voters to vote for Barack Obama and the entire Democratic ticket. This has to change.

Cantor Raised How Much?

Reading my Times-Dispatch on Saturday, I was drawn to the lead story in the Metro section, “Cantor to keep donated money.” The gist of the story was that Seventh District Representative Eric Cantor was not going to return $2,300 in campaign contributions he received from Robert I. Toussie. If you remember, Toussie’s son was pardoned by President Bush last week and then his pardon was revoked when Bush learned that Toussie senior was a major contributor to the Republican Party. I don’t care too much about the Toussie issue. If Toussie merited a pardon before the disclosure of his father’s largess, I would assume he still merited one after the disclosure.

What did open my eyes was this statement in the story: “Cantor’s campaign raised $4.5 million this election cycle.” Did I read that right? Four point five million dollars? Why would an incumbent running for re-election in a safe Republican district need to raise $4.5 million dollars in campaign contributions? Considering that he was running against a political unknown, I am sure that Mr. Cantor could have easily been re-elected without spending a cent on his campaign.

Reader, you know that since I am a Democrat and mostly a liberal I am not a great fan of Eric Cantor. I’ve never met the guy, but I just don’t like his politics. As I have expressed here, and in a letter to the TD back in 2006, I think that Cantor is a big part of the cause for the problems that we face in this country after eight years of Republican governance. But that is not what this is about. What this is about is the outrageous campaign finance laws that permit members of Congress to raise obscenely large amounts of money and use them for just about any purpose they care to.

The federal campaign finance laws are administered by the Federal Election Commission. In the regulations the Commission has issued to implement the laws there is a Part 113 entitled “Use of Campaign Accounts for Non-Campaign Purposes.” I would have hoped that these regulations would put severe limits on what campaign funds can be used for. Instead, they seem to legitimize every use of the funds other than the member of Congress putting it directly into his pocket or her purse.

So what kind of things does our Mr. Cantor spend campaign funds on? First, he spends on salaries and benefits for a staff. (These are all based on financial statements filed with the Federal Election Commission by “Cantor For Congress.”) From the financial statements we cannot tell whether these expenses were for a separate campaign staff or to augment federal funding for Mr. Cantor’s Washington or Seventh District staffs. (Please keep in mind, dear reader, that I am not suggesting that Mr. Cantor is doing anything illegal. He spent a significant amount of his campaign funds for legal consulting, so I must assume he got good advice.)

Mr. Cantor spent big bucks on airline fares, hotel rooms, car rentals and other expenses of travel in many places around the country. I cannot tell whether these trips were related to his re-election campaign or his campaign to become Minority Whip. Mr. Cantor also spent a significant amount on catering for various events. Again, many of these were neither within the congressional district nor in Washington so it is hard to tell how they related to the campaign.

Mr. Cantor’s campaign spent a lot on fundraising consultants. Payments to G.R. Seppala and Associates, in Wayzata, Minnesota, for fundraising consulting amounted to over $85,000 during the campaign. (This amounts to more than Mr. Cantor’s opponent spent on the whole campaign.) To me this suggests that Cantor for Congress is more a money producing entity than an election campaign committee. When you pay that kind of money to one consultant, you are obviously expecting a rather big return on your investment (like maybe $4.5 million).

Mr. Cantor also spent a big chunk of his campaign funds on what I call “win friends and influence people” expenditures. He contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the election campaigns of other Republicans around the country. These are the kinds of contributions you surely want to be making if you’re running for Minority Whip. He sent money to the National Republican Congressional Campaign, the Nevada Republican Party and local campaign committees. One of the larger contributions was $5000 to the John Doolittle Legal Defense Fund. (Mr. Doolittle, one of Mr. Cantor’s former fellow Republicans in the House, is charged with corruption and is in need of lots of money for his defense.)

So, trusted reader, what are we to make of this? We have a campaign finance system that allows representatives and senators to raise huge amounts of money and use it for purposes not directly related to their re-election campaigns. Is this the way we should be electing our public officials? We need the Congress to go back and look at the campaign finance laws again and impose restrictions on themselves. Write to you senators and representative and urge them to fix a system that seems out of control.

Merry Christmas Etiquette

Tuesday night I went to the ABC store to purchase a bottle of brandy. After the financial transaction was complete the sales clerk wished me a “Merry Christmas.” Instantly I was caught in the dilemma that every non-Christian in this country faces every December. I certainly appreciate that the sales clerk thought enough of me to extend his best wishes. However, because I am a Jew the words “Merry Christmas” present a problem. Since I don’t celebrate Christmas someone’s seasonal greetings in terms of Christmas is unimportant to me. In fact, sometimes I get a little resentful. Why should anybody presume that because it is December it necessarily means that everybody is a Christian? I often get the strong urge to reply “and a Happy Chanukah to you,” but that would just come across as hostile. So, I might reply “the same to you” or “happy holidays to you,” but I still walk away feeling upset.

There was a time, a few years back, when it became fashionable to drop “Merry Christmas” and just speak in terms of “Happy Holidays.” It was a time when everybody was being sensitive to the Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and other non-Christians in our society. Then there was the claim from some Christians that Christmas was under attack. They demanded that “Merry Christmas” be brought back. They even threatened to boycott businesses that insisted on using “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” So now we have the strange situation of people wishing both “Happy Holidays” and “Merry Christmas,” as if Christmas was not included in the definition of holiday.

So, what to do with my problem? I suggest that your seasonal greetings be customized to match the recipient. If you know you are speaking to a Christian then certainly “Merry Christmas” is appropriate. However, if you know that the person you are addressing is not a Christian then “Merry Christmas” is not appropriate. It makes as much sense as you wishing me “Happy Birthday” on YOUR birthday. In those instances “Happy Holidays” makes more sense (even though there are many people who don’t celebrate any holy days in December). Dear reader, what do you think?

To all my Christian friends I wish a very Merry Christmas. To my Jewish friends I wish a happy fourth day of Chanukah. To my friends who are neither I wish a very happy holiday season.

Be Of Good Cheer!

After reading through the Times-Dispatch this morning I am feeling real good about this holiday season. Of course, the lead article about Circuit City’s continuing plunge was a bit of a downer. But you can’t just look at the big headlines. You have to read and analyze and then synthesize to get to the really good stuff.

I start with Zach Reid’s front page piece “Why we feel compelled to give.” After interviewing VCU’s Everett L. Worthington, Zach concludes that we American’s truly believe it is better to give then receive. (Of course, Zach didn’t see my family’s Chanukah party on Sunday where an entire generation of our future engaged in a joyful orgy of receiving.) So, keep in mind that we Americans are a giving people.

Also on the TD front page there is an Associated Press story with the headline “Banks keep quiet about bailout cash.” For those of you who were not paying attention, last fall (about the time that the Republican National Committee was warning us that Barack Obama’s policies would lead to socialism) the high officials dealing with the economy in our Government came out with their “the sky is falling” prediction. Apparently, or so they said, the financial crisis in this country was so severe that Western Civilization was about to go under. (Why they felt that the economy was basically sound until that point they didn’t say.) The only way to save us from a disaster that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like a Sunday school picnic was to buy all the bad debt that our big banks were saddled with. Under this rescue plan, the big banks would get a big infusion of cash that they could use to make more loans and the Federal Government would own the bad debt. The tax payers would be protected because some day that bad debt would become good debt and we would be paid back. The price tag--$700,000,000,000 (seven hundred billion dollars). (By comparison, NASA runs the entire space program for about twenty billion dollars per year, the entire Environmental Protection Agency runs on less than five billion per year, the Department of Veterans Affairs costs about forty two billion per year.) Well, despite this maven’s warnings (700 Billion Tax Hike To Pay For Bailout), the Congress provided the $700 billion to save our free market economy. Sometime after the congressional action, the Secretary of the Treasury decided that instead of buying up the bad debt he would just give the money to the banks.

Well, according to the article, when the AP asked the banks what they had done with the money, they refused to answer. Apparently their view is that the money is now theirs and they don’t have to tell anybody what they are doing with it. They may be loaning it, or they may be keeping it on deposit, or . . . (continued on page 8).

Another AP article “Bailed-out banks’ execs got $1.6 billion.” This article indicated that the 116 banks that have received federal rescue dollars this fall gave their top executives a total of $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses and other compensation during 2007. The article pointed out such gems as:

1- The president and CEO of Goldman Sachs received compensation of $54 million in 2007. The top five executives of Goldman Sachs were compensated at $242 million. Before Goldman Sachs’ blip fell off the radar, it explained its executive compensations as essential to retain and motivate executives “whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels.” Goldman Sachs received $20 billion in federal rescue money on October 28;

2- The CEO of Merrill Lynch received compensation of $83 million last year. This executive who was formerly with Goldman Sachs came to Merrill Lynch in December of 2007. For his one month’s work for Merrill Lynch he received $57 thousand in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and $68 million in stock options. Merrill Lynch received $10 billion in federal rescue money on October 28.

After reading these three articles and blending them in my mind, I am feeling really good. First, we Americans are a people that love to give. Second, we must look at the $700 billion not as a bailout (or something else nasty like that) but as a gift to the banking industry. Third, the banking industry will use this gift to provide adequate compensation to their top executives. Now, I don’t have to worry that the children or grandchildren of these execs might have to do without this holiday season. So, everybody comes out ahead. We taxpayers satisfy our urge to give. The corporate execs get enough money to make it through what would otherwise have been a sad holiday season for them.

In rescuing the wealthy we Americans did some real good. Some might ask why we don’t make a similar rescue effort for those in our society who are truly suffering this holiday season. The answer is simple—doing that would amount to socialism.

I’m Back!

It’s been at least six weeks since this maven last spoke to you. During that time the world has changed a great deal:

1- Barak Obama was elected our next president winning a majority of the popular vote and a decisive margin in the Electoral College;

2- The Washington Redskins stopping playing over their heads;

3- The voters of the Commonwealth elected Democrats for President, for Senator, and for a majority of congressional seats for the first time since “Democrat” had an entirely different meaning in Virginia;

4- The American economy went further into free-fall with hundreds of thousands losing their jobs;

5- The James Madison Dukes and the Richmond Spiders are both in the semi-finals of a football division that actually chooses its national champion by playoffs;

6- America’s remaining financial institutions accepted hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer largess and did nothing with the money;

7- The Governor of Illinois, with an unpronounceable name spelled “Blagojevich,” gave an entirely new meaning to “let the free market decide”;

8- The Richmond Renegades played a hockey game in which the their opponent’s players served more penalty minutes than there are minutes in a game;

9- Dwight Jones was elected mayor of River City;

10- Hillary Clinton agreed to serve as our next Secretary of State.

And-- this maven lost his bid to serve on the Richmond School Board.

I could say that the election was close, that I only lost by 2553 votes. But let’s face it, I got thumped. I could blame all kinds of unexpected adversities that plagued my four month campaign. However, the fact is that more people voted for Andrea Graham Scott than voted for me.

Looking back at Election Day, I can say that I would have much preferred to have won. Finishing second is not something to be ashamed of, but it’s no great honor either. I really loved the campaigning and meeting with the voters. I loved the intellectual stimulation of expressing my ideas for fixing Richmond’s public schools. I loved the support I received from so many of my neighbors.

So, what’s next? I will get back to working with the kids in our public schools. They have such great need for a caring adult in their lives. I will continue working to make my neighborhood school one that my neighbors will send their kids to. I will do what I can to make sure that our new mayor and the members of the City Council and School Board give the citizens of Richmond the high-quality government to which they are entitled.

Let’s face it, dear reader; mavening can certainly be a full time job. As for politics—it was great fun, but it was just one of those things.

What This Campaign Is Really About

Now, that we are down to the last five days in the School Board race, this maven is thinking again about how I got here in the first place.

Why am I running?

· I am running for the children of Richmond. Although Richmond Public Schools has made considerable progress in the last four or five years, and although there are particular schools or programs that are outstanding, I am convinced that many of our children are not receiving the quality education to which they are entitled.

· I am also running because my religious upbringing taught me that if I see injustice in the world I am obligated to do something to fix it. To me the fact that the quality of education that children in Richmond receive varies significantly with the school they attend is a significant injustice. The fact that some of our children finish their education in Richmond (either by dropping out or graduating) without receiving the skills they need to make it in the world is also a significant injustice. We need to do better.

· Further, I am running because I am deeply concerned with the fact that middle class families are leaving the city to seek what they feel are better educational opportunities for their children. I am worried that if this trend is not reversed, we will end up with a very family-unfriendly city. We must stop this middle class hemorrhage.

· Finally, as a taxpayer, I am running to change the business climate at Richmond Public Schools so that waste and mismanagement of the taxpayers’ money stops.

What I will do? If elected,

· I will work with parents and school principals to make neighborhood schools work for all our children. Our neighborhood schools can be the core around which we build healthy and safe neighborhoods. Getting parents involved in our neighborhood schools will strengthen their ties to the neighborhoods and will improve the learning experience for everybody’s children.

· I will add funding to the Richmond Public School budget for four International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programs. I intend that one of these programs will be implemented in a fourth district school. I have previously explained why I think that the International Baccalaureate approach to learning will teach our children how to think, how to gather information, how to make decisions, how to understand that everything is related, how to communicate and how to relate to a world of different people from different cultures. International Baccalaureate Revisited.

· I will bring accountability to Richmond Public Schools. My twenty five years experience with the Government Accountability Office in Washington has given me the knowledge and skills necessary to uncover and eliminate unlawful and wasteful spending in government programs, including Richmond Public Schools.

· I will involve the entire Richmond community in providing a high quality education to our children. Neither a new Superintendent of Schools nor the nine members of the School Board will be able to make the changes we need to make Richmond Public Schools great. We need the involvement of our next mayor, the city council, the PTAs, the Richmond Education Association, the business community, our three universities, faith and civic groups, parents and those without children to join in this endeavor.

· I will bring new ideas to Richmond. Since my children did not grow up in Richmond, I have experienced what other successful school systems are doing. I have already suggested 1-changing curricular emphasis from teaching children only the facts they need to pass SOLs to teaching them the skills they need to compete in a global market place; 2-further rewarding our teachers and administrators by offering them an optional merit pay system that will enable them to earn larger pay increases each year; 3- creating “hybrid” or contract schools, in which school principals are given greater autonomy to achieve certain goals and have the opportunity to earn greater compensation based on how well their school performs; 4- creating an “Order of Richmond Heroes,” and offering bonuses to quality teachers who will agree to teach in our more difficult schools; 5-extending the school year or the school day to provide more learning time for our children.

Why I am the best candidate

· Unlike other candidates who talk about their “passion for education” or who run on slogans, I have demonstrated my commitment to the children of Richmond by working as a volunteer in Richmond Public Schools for almost as long as I have lived in Richmond. I have worked in Westover Hills, my neighborhood school, and in Carver School, which is located in one of the poorer neighborhoods of our city. My experience has enabled me to understand the issues that school administrators and teachers deal with on a daily basis. I have also been active in Friends of Fourth District Schools, which is working to improve all the schools in the district.

· I have established relationships with others committed to bringing great schools to Richmond. These relationships will help me build community support for making our public schools the best in Virginia.

· I am a uniter. I will work to get all the stakeholders in RPS to understand that they are all in the same boat and must work together for the good of our children. I will convince parents in all economic circumstances that they are not adversaries fighting for a limited piece of the education pie.

· I understand that politics is the art of getting things done. The word “compromise” is part of my vocabulary. I also understand that I do not have all the answers. I will work well with the other members of the school board.

· I am impatient. I am tired of continuous discussions and planning. We know what has worked in other school systems. It’s time to stop planning and start acting.

So, dear reader, that’s what it’s all about. By late Tuesday night we will know which of us the voters of the Fourth District have chosen to represent them on the Richmond School Board. We will also know who they elected to serve them in such lesser offices as president, senator, representative, mayor and councilperson.

Too Inexperienced

Fellow Americans. Troubled times lay before us. Our nation will be challenged like it never has before. Can we afford to have a man in the White House who has not been tested in crisis? This is no time for on the job training. The man from Illinois is too inexperienced to be president. He has only served in the Illinois legislature and briefly in the Congress. Never has he had to face what lies before us. We cannot afford to take the risk. Therefore, on Election Day you must reject Mr. Lincoln and vote for Senator Stephen A. Douglas for President of the United States.

Patrick Henry Volunteers Needed

Now that the Patrick Henry charter school contract has been approved by the school board, volunteers are needed to make the school a reality. On Saturday, November 8, at 11:00 AM (lasting no later than 2:00 PM) a volunteer rally will be held at the school, 3411 Semmes Avenue (at the intersection of Forest Hill Avenue). If you are interested in volunteering to help get the school going, you should attend this rally. They even promise to feed you.

Good “Religious” Hate

Well, the maven did something stupid. I responded to a hate message about Senator Obama and now I am being overwhelmed with all kinds of nastiness in my email. The original message, mailed to a whole bunch of addressees, used a letter from a Christian missionary in Africa that spoke of years of violent oppression against them in that African country. The conclusion was that electing Obama would result in similar oppression here in the U.S. of A. As I often do when I get indignant, I fired off a reply and clicked on “reply all.” That was a big mistake. Now I am getting hate mail from everybody on the list.

What did the maven say that brought on such indignation from the haters? I said,

I have no need for this hate and fear campaigning. If I had any doubt about who I was voting for, you have cleared it up. I'm voting against hate and voting for Obama.
Leviticus 19:18

The scriptural citation was in response to all the cites that filled the hate message. (For those of you not familiar, I was referring to “love your neighbor as yourself.”)

I am sorry, but I have real trouble with anyone who uses religion to stir up hate. I feel the same way about Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other religious hate that relies on some scriptural text to justify its position. I was raised to believe that God loves all people and that God expects us to love each other.

Why this very selective reading of scripture? Why do the haters ignore all the messages of love in the holy books of all religions? Do these people really think that God wants us to hate each other? To this maven, using God’s name to stir up hate against other humans is nothing but a profanation of that name. We have enough problems in this world without the purveyors of hate trying to stir up people’s passions to do evil. The hate has got to stop!

I Guess They Think We’re Stupid

One of Republican Jim Gilmore’s TV ads accuses Mark Warner of lying. The ad says “he promised not to raise taxes but he raised taxes” or something like that. Well, this maven has read the Constitution and laws of Virginia and I know that in this Commonwealth the governor has no power to raise taxes. Only the General Assembly can do that. I guess Mr. Gilmore and his campaign publicists figure that the voters of Virginia are too stupid to know the difference.

I saw one of mayoral candidate Robert Grey’s TV commercials. Mr. Grey pledges that he will increase the amount of school funding that is spent in the classroom to 75% of the whole. Of course, under the laws of Virginia it is the school board that is given exclusive authority to run the schools and it is the superintendent of schools and the school board that have the exclusive authority to prepare the annual Richmond Public School budget. I guess Mr. Grey and his campaign publicists figure that the voters of Richmond are too stupid to understand.

Mayoral candidate Bill Pantele’s mail out ad claims that he has reduced the real estate tax burden while on the City Council. Of course Mr. Pantele doesn’t acknowledge that the City Council is a corporate body of nine members, so he could not single handedly have reduced anything. He also expects that voters in Richmond might not notice that in fact their real estate taxes have gone up every year that he has been on the council. Mr. Pantele’s TV ad claims that he “hired” extra police for the city and “saved $25 million” by ordering an audit of Richmond Public Schools. It is amazing to me that a single councilman, with no executive functions, could have accomplished so much. I guess Mr. Pantele and his campaign publicists think that voters of Richmond are too stupid to know the real facts.

Reader, the only way we can demonstrate to these candidates that they cannot make these outlandish claims and get away with it is to vote against them next Tuesday. Before you cast your X on Election Day, check to see whether they appeal to your intelligence or toss you distortions expecting you to be too stupid to know any better.

Hey, I’m A Democrat

Thursday night, the Richmond City Democratic Committee endorsed this maven for the school board seat in the city’s fourth district. This brings me full circle to my early days of being a Democratic precinct captain in Brooklyn, USA. I don’t know if I hold the record for the political career with the longest interruption, but who cares. I would sure prefer running as a Democrat than as a candidate without a party. And, I’m proud to be running with all the rest of Virginia’s Democrats. Let’s get out there next Tuesday and put this country and city back on the right track.

No Clue

Thursday was the day from hell for this school board candidate. I went to meet the voters at an Oktoberfest at a local retirement residence, then went to a PTA meeting at one of our elementary schools, and ended up at the final candidates’ debate of the campaign. Also scheduled on Thursday was a public meeting at one of Richmond’s high schools to deal with a violence problem and the meeting of the Richmond City Democratic Committee. I really wanted to be at both of those events but just couldn’t make them.

For me, the most eye-opening event was the PTA meeting at J. B. Fisher Elementary School. Fisher is one of the elite elementary schools in the City of Richmond. It is in a middle-class neighborhood that is somewhat isolated from the rest of the city and is one of those open enrollment schools that parents elsewhere in the city try to get their kids into. Well, what opened my eyes was that there were about forty parents attending that meeting. No, dear reader, that is not a typo. There really were about forty parents at that PTA meeting. Now, I often go to PTA meetings at Westover Hills Elementary School, my neighborhood school. Usually, about seven or eight parents show up for those meetings. And, earlier in the week, we candidates were at a PTSA meeting at Huguenot High School. Again, there were less than ten parents at that meeting.

The forty parents at the Fisher PTA meeting prove what I have been saying here for a long time. Middle class parents generally are more involved in their children’s schools. That is why I am so determined to reverse the exodus of middle class families from River City. We need those parents in Richmond’s schools working to make those schools better.

At the debate, my opponent Adria Graham Scott made a remark that suddenly made everything clear to me. Adria is the one that has been getting all the endorsements, has all the professional campaign help and also the big campaign bucks. I don’t remember exactly what the question was, but Adria came out with, “We are lucky in the Fourth District because our parents support our public schools.” Well, my pen dug a big question mark and then an exclamation point into my pad.

Adria, where have you been all these years? Is it possible that J. B. Fisher is the only school in the city you have been in? Is the Fisher neighborhood the only neighborhood you have been in? Because, I know that in most neighborhoods in the Fourth District the parents do not support our neighborhood public schools. In fact as I have said again and again right here, my middle-class neighbors are leaving the city in droves because they don’t support our neighborhood schools. Haven’t you noticed that Adria?

Now, I have been stressing in this campaign that I am the only candidate who understands Richmond Public School’s problems from the inside because I have been working as a volunteer in those schools for more than three years. But, I didn’t realize how much I know and how little Adria Graham Scott and John Lloyd and Jonathan Mallard really know about our schools. (At least Jonathan does realize that our middle class parents do not support our public schools.)

Adria, you need to wake up to the truth. Because, if your endorsements and your campaign staff and your money win you this election you are going to be in for a rude awakening. Since you only know Fisher, you are going to be surprised that most of the schools in the city are not nearly as good. You need to know that Southampton and Westover Hills elementary schools have 67% and 76% respectively of their children on free and reduced lunches, while Thompson Middle School has about 80% receiving subsidized meals. And you need to know that these schools have such high concentrations of free and reduced lunch children because their parents cannot afford to use private schools, home educate their kids or move out of the city. And, if you end up on the school board, you will not only be representing the kids from Fisher Elementary but also the kids from George Washington Carver Elementary, where I volunteer each week. Carver has a free and reduced lunch population of over 95%. Adria, if you’ve never been with these children, you cannot possibly understand the problems they have to overcome to succeed in school. And, Adria, you’re going to have to learn about the injustices that are widespread in Richmond Public Schools, because if you are elected you are going to be dealing with those problems every day for the next four years.

Well, tomorrow will be only the eighth day left before the election and I have to be out campaigning. I’ll be back with more revelations about our political system soon.

Chutzpah Squared

It has been many months since the maven has issued a chutzpah award. It is often difficult to find someone whose statements or positions are so outrageous and so full of gall that they merit the word chutzpah. But, the time has come for another award. Today the maven’s chutzpah award goes to (drum roll) Senator John McCain of Arizona.

So, you may ask, what has Senator McCain done to merit this highly prestigious award? Precious reader, John McCain has made himself the first presidential nominee in our nation’s history to run against the incumbent president of his own party. After trying to gain the Republican presidential nomination for at least ten years, when he finally achieved that prize John McCain suddenly became the Anti-Republican.

A Republican? Me? Oh no, I’m not a Republican. I’m a Maverick. I know the country is going down the tubes, but don’t blame me. I’m a Maverick, not a Republican. The economy sucks? Not my fault, I’m a Maverick, not a Republican. The world is facing a climate crisis worse than humans have ever known. But, that’s not my fault. I know that Bush and Cheney and the Republicans were fiddling while the earth’s temperature continued to rise. But that has nothing to do with me. I’m not a Republican, I’m a Maverick. While in control of the White House my party’s president added nearly five trillion dollars to the national debt. But I disagreed with that all along. I’m a Maverick.

Oh, I voted in agreement with President Bush 90% of the time. But, you gotta understand. After the way W whupped me in the 2000 race, I knew that to get the nomination next time I would have to appear to be even more Republican than Mr. Bush. But, when I voted to support President Bush, my fingers were crossed behind my back. I didn’t mean those votes. After all, I’m a Maverick, not a Republican.

But, you may ask, is McCain really the only candidate to run against his party’s incumbent president? What about John Adams in 1800? Didn’t he run against his own party? Sorry, reader, that was different. In 1800, it was Alexander Hamilton and his ultra-Federalists who campaigned against their party’s incumbent president, Adams. It wasn’t Adams running against his party. Well, what about Millard Filmore running in the 1856 election? Ex-president Filmore did run in the 1856 election, but not against the incumbent of his own party. In fact, the incumbent president, Franklin Pierce was not running for reelection. Okay, maven, what about Teddy Roosevelt in 1912? Now you’re getting close, reader. Teddy Roosevelt did seek to wrest the Republican nomination from his former protégé William Howard Taft. And when he couldn’t get the Republican nomination, TR did run for president as the nominee of the Progressive Party. But, he was not a Republican running against the incumbent president of his own party. No, John McCain is quite unique.

Even though he has been a Republican for his entire political career, this year John McCain has abandoned his own party. Even though he has been in the Senate for more than twenty years, John McCain wants us to believe that he never voted for anything that his party wanted; that he was always a Maverick. And for that Senator McCain deserves the maven’s chutzpah award. Congratulations, Senator.

Fear And Loathing In The Extreme

I was behind a pickup truck as I turned from Huguenot Road onto Buford Road last week. The truck stopped at a traffic light and I pulled up behind it. On the back window was a large sign that read “Be Afraid” at the top. Then there was a drawing of Barack Obama in an angry pose. Below that were even bigger letters reading “Be Very Afraid.” I was impressed by the deep level of hate expressed by whoever designed and marketed that sign.

Last night the maveness called my attention to an anti-Obama ad she saw on the tube. Tonight I saw the same ad. The ad was sponsored by the ultra-conservative group, Let Freedom Ring. It was entitled “Never Find Out” and it basically painted the disaster to the world that would ensue if Barack Obama is elected president. It’s filled with some pretty outrageous and unsubstantiated claims. Or course, it is not the purpose of Let Freedom Ring to tell the truth. Rather, its purpose is obviously to scare people out of voting for Senator Obama. This, remember is the same Let Freedom Ring that thinks that George W is the greatest president ever, wants to undo Roe v. Wade, favors going back to the original intent of the Constitution, wants to limit the power of the judiciary, encourages the family as the basic building block of society (so long as the family centers on a heterosexual couple), and wants to restore prayer to our schools. Considering its agenda it is not surprising that Let Freedom Ring is afraid of Barack Obama.

Now, the maven has seen lots of election campaigns. (No, I am not old enough to remember the dirtiest of all elections—the 1800 contest between the Federalists and the Jeffersonians). And maybe my memory plays tricks with me. However, I get the feeling it is getting unusually nasty out there. I mean I remember the “mushroom cloud” ad that the Dems ran in 1964 to scare people out of voting for Barry Goldwater. It was pretty devastating. But, this year there seems to be a concerted effort by those on the right, including the Republican National Committee (whose ads are clearly the best in terms of effectiveness) and the McCain-Palin campaign, to personally attack Senator Obama and portray him as outside the spectrum of political acceptability. The supporters of McCain-Palin don’t have any real issues to talk about, so they are trying real hard to scare everybody. Their message—“electing Obama is unthinkable.”

Is there any way that we the voters can affect the level at which our political campaigns are run? How do we get candidates for public office to concentrate on the issues rather than character attacks? Well, campaigns run these fear and loathing ads because they think they work. The only way we can raise the level of the public debates in this country is to demonstrate to the candidates that we will not be fooled by their slime campaigns. We need to send a message to the Republican National Committee and to the McCain-Palin campaign, and of course to Let Freedom Ring on Election Day by voting for Barack Obama for president. And, if you happen to be one of those people who is exit-polled, tell them that you refuse to vote for a hate-monger or a candidate supported by hate-mongers.

Citizens of Virginia! On November 4 the choice is yours. Will you vote based on fear and loathing? Or will you look at the issues and vote for the man most qualified to be president? I urge you to vote for Obama because he is the real instrument of change. Voting for McCain is asking for four more years of Republic misrule.

Lonely At The Side Of The Road

Just to let you know, I have been running a pretty bare bones campaign for the school board. Not being a long-time resident of Richmond, it has been pretty hard for me to find people who want to contribute to my campaign. So, at the beginning of the summer I purchased only 125 campaign signs (at about four bucks each). I figured I would put them only on major thoroughfares where they would get the most visibility. No need to blanket the whole district I thought.

After the manufacturer sent signs with the wrong color scheme (I guess they didn't realize that red, white and black were only patriotic colors in Nazi Germany) and then finally replaced them, I started planting my signs at strategic locations in the district. But, a not-so-funny thing started happening. As quickly as I put my signs out, they started disappearing. For those of you who live in Richmond, this might ring a little bell in your memory. Wasn’t it just two years ago, in a school-board race, in the very same Fourth District in which I am running, that there was a big sign war? Didn’t a supporter of one candidate take down all the signs of the other candidate? Didn’t the candidate losing signs set up a sting and catch the unsub red handed stealing his signs? (This is apparently not a crime in Richmond because of a strangely worded sign ordinance.)

Now I knew who was probably taking my signs. But, what was I to do about it? After the loss of about 40 signs I decided I was not winning this sign war. So, I adopted the Charleton Heston approach. I decided to stand along the major routes in my district holding up my sign and waving to the crowd. That S.O.B. will have to pry my sign from my “cold dead fingers” if he’s gonna steal one again. So, Monday evening it was the south end of the Nickel Bridge (on which the toll was just raised to $.35). On Tuesday, I stood along Forest Hill Avenue. Wednesday I was at the south end of the Huguenot Bridge (no toll at all). Thursday I took off to attend a PTA meeting and a candidates’ debate. Tonight I tried the Forest Hill exit off the Powhite Parkway.

So, what’s it like standing on the side of the road, holding up a campaign sign and trying to look friendly. At first, I felt kind of foolish. Then, when a few people started honking at me it felt better (although I am not quite sure that the honks were in support or because they thought I was an escapee from an asylum). From the practical side, I can see and be seen by a lot more potential voters than walking from house to house or up and down stairs to knock on doors. Of course, I don’t know whether or not they will actually remember me at the polls next Tuesday.

Mostly it’s lonely. I try to make eye-contact with drivers or passengers as they go by. But that gets harder as the sun goes down and it starts getting darker. I know they can still see me (or at least my sign) with their headlights on, but it’s not the same. All I see coming toward me are cars that are dark on the inside. I feel more and more alone out on the side of the road even though lots of cars are rolling by. Finally, when I’m not sure I can be seen any more I take my sign and go home.

I’ll do it again Monday and every evening rush hour between now and the election. The lonely candidate at the side of the road.

Lies, Fear and Smear, Two Years Later

Two years ago, in one of my first posts as the James River Maven, I said:

Lies, Fear and Smear
The Democrats want to lose in Iraq. The Democrats want to raise taxes. The Democrats want to destroy marriage. The Democrats are in favor of pornography. If the Democrats win control of the Congress, al Qaeda will attack us here at home. If the Democrats win control of Congress, the economy will collapse. The Democrats owe no allegiance to the people of America. Every Democratic candidate is under the control of those left-wing Liberals Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and John Kerry. A Democratic victory will mean the end of American civilization. I’ve got a list of 250 communists in the Democratic Party. Oops, forget the last one; I forgot what year it is.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” So said Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister of Nazi Germany. Murray Chotner used the big lie technique to bring us Richard Nixon. Karl Rowe used it to bring us George W. Bush. And now President George and his Republican buddies are using the big lie technique in a desperate attempt to hold on to power for the next two years.

Whether it’s the political ad trumpeting the lie or the stump speech stirring up fear, the one thing the Republicans don’t want the voters to look at is their record over the past six years. The campaign strategy is simple: make the Democrats look so evil that the voters will reelect us even if we have done a terrible job. We have to make the people afraid to vote for a Democrat.

This lie-fear-smear strategy appeals to the most basic of human emotions. It is based on a desire to get people to vote from their gut rather than from their mind. It is based on an elitist mentality that says that the American people aren’t smart enough to deal with issues. It’s based on a suspicion that if the electorate actually voted on the issues, they might vote against our side. Therefore, lie to them, terrify them, cover your opponent with slime. But at all costs, don’t let the voters think.

Citizens of Virginia! Isn’t it about time that we told the purveyors of lie, fear and smear that we don’t fall for this outrageous campaign tactic? Go to the polls next week and show them that we Virginians can vote with our minds, not with our instincts. Show them that we are not too stupid to understand issues. Show them that despite their smokescreens we can see that “the Emperor is naked.” Six years of Republican mismanagement is enough. Vote Democratic.

This year it’s McCain and Palin, instead of Bush and Cheney, but our good buddies in the GOP are still using lies, fear and smear as the basis of their attempt to extend their control over the White House for four more years. If they succeed this year by diverting the voter’s attention from their ruinous reign it could prove disastrous for our country and the world.

So, citizens of Virginia, I must again exhort you to vote with your mind, not with your instincts. Vote for Obama-Biden. Vote for Warner. Vote for Scott or Hartke for Congress. It’s time to really get the red out.

What I said to the Dems

On Thursday night, the Richmond Democratic Committee is scheduled to endorse candidates for the otherwise non-partisan city elections on November 4. I am hoping that, unlike the other groups that have endorsed candidates in the fourth district school board race, the Democratic Committee will base its decision on who will do the best job for the children of Richmond. Below is the questionnaire from the committee that I submitted.

1. What is your political affiliation?

__X_ Democrat ___Independent ___Republican

2. Why are you seeking the endorsement of the Richmond City Democratic Committee?
I have been a Democrat all my life. (The legend being spread that my parents hung a picture of FDR over my crib may or may not be true.) I grew my political teeth working as a Young Democrat for the Monroe Democratic Club in Brooklyn, New York. I always had the fantasy of running for office, but family responsibility led me to take a job with the Federal Government where political activity is illegal. Now that I have finally become a candidate, it would make things complete if I were running with Democratic endorsement. It would make all those mornings after crying about Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Don Beyer and Mary Sue Terry a little easier to deal with.

3. What do you see as the greatest strength and greatest weakness of Richmond Public Schools?
Strengths:
The biggest success stories in Richmond’s public schools occur within the schools themselves. In the last three years I have seen dedicated, excellent teachers and administrators, working with volunteers from the community, make learning work for children from the a wide range of economic backgrounds. My success stories are the individual students who come to school every day and are thriving in Richmond Public Schools.

Weaknesses:
The biggest failure of Richmond Public Schools is its continuing inability to convince middle-class parents that their children can receive a quality public education in the City of Richmond. In the Fourth District, where I live, when most middle class children reach school age their parents do one of four things: 1- If they can afford it, they enroll their child in private school; 2- If they can afford it, they choose to home-school their child; 3- If they know the rules of the game, they use Richmond Public Schools’ open enrollment policy to put their kid into one of Richmond’s elite public schools; or 4- They move out of the city. Based on the demographics of my neighborhood, I would say that option 4 is the most popular.

This lack of confidence by middle-class parents is bad both for the school system and for the city. Over the last several years the enrollment in Richmond Public Schools has dropped by an average of 500 students per year. The Superintendent’s proposed budget for 2009 showed this trend continuing into the future. The result has been that we have a student body that is of a lower economic status than the city population as a whole. Further, because most of our middle class parents with young children now live in Chesterfield or Hanover or Henrico, the demographics of the city are becoming distorted. If this middle class bleeding continues the population of the City of Richmond will become divided between only the rich and the poor and only between the young and the old. (For more details see my blog, James River Maven, http://jamesrivermaven.blogspot.com/2008/07/am-i-obsessed-with-middle-class-parents.html)

4. How can the Mayor, City Council, and School Board work together to improve our schools?
Under state law, responsibility for running the schools is vested exclusively in the school board and the superintendent it hires. The mayor has no formal role. The role of the City Council is to make sure that the school system is adequately funded.

The mayor should function as a cheerleader for and as a marketer of Richmond Public Schools. The mayor should use his political leadership to rally the citizens of Richmond to support a world-class school system for our city. He should offer all his aid and support to the school board and the superintendent. And, if the superintendent or the board are not adequately fulfilling their jobs, he should call them in, with no reporters present, to give them a “pep-talk.”

The Council needs to provide the funding that RPS actually needs, not imposing a ceiling in advance as it has in the recent past. Also, since many of the problems facing Richmond children academically result from problems they face outside of school, the Council must make sure that the City provides adequate services to families so that all our children start school prepared to learn.

The kind of cooperation needed to make sure that RPS works for all children in the city, regardless of their ethnicity or economic situation, requires a mayor, council members and board members who are more interested in getting things done than in satisfying their egos. Next year, it is crucial that all the parties stop playing politics and get on with the task of building new schools and renovating our older schools so that our children can learn in the best environment we can provide for them.

5. What qualifications do you want to see in School Board Chair and Superintendent of Schools?
The chair must be a leader and a uniter. We cannot afford another school board term in which factions on the board are fighting each other to the detriment of our children. We also need nine school board members who understand that they are not always “right” and that governing often means compromise. (I intend to end the Fourth District “monopoly” on board chairs. I will not seek the chair.)

I set forth the qualifications necessary in a superintendent on my blog, James River Maven, last spring. I said:

Our next superintendent must be a leader. The superintendent needs the ability to get the myriad employees of RPS to follow her agenda. She has to be the motivator that gets everyone to work at their full potential. Leadership ability should be demonstrated by success in some leadership position either in academics, business or the military.

Our next superintendent must understand organizations. RPS is often accused of having too much bureaucracy. The superintendent needs to be able to analyze the RPS organization and eliminate those positions that are unnecessary in giving our children an excellent education.

Our next superintendent must be committed to accountability. The attitude of employees in any institution is set at the top. The superintendent must not only be honest himself, but also convey to everybody who works for RPS that their job is a public trust. He must make it clear that he will not tolerate any employee who uses taxpayer money improperly.

Our next superintendent must understand the Richmond problem. A significant number of parents in the City of Richmond have indicated their lack of confidence in RPS by leaving the city to find a better educational opportunity for their children elsewhere. The superintendent must be able to deal with this problem first by making RPS a superior school system and second by convincing parents that their children will thrive here.

Our next superintendent must understand our school population. Seventy percent of RPS students come from families with economic difficulties. The superintendent must understand the challenges that these children face in obtaining their education and must have a plan for how to help them reach their full potential.

Our next superintendent must have a vision for RPS. She must be able to articulate her vision of where she expects RPS to be going in the next two years, the next five years and the next ten years. She must be able to convince the taxpayers that their investment in RPS will pay off in class after class of productive young citizens. She must show us the route to greatness.

Our next superintendent must be a unifier. Making RPS into a world-class educational system requires the participation of teachers, parents, civic and faith groups and the business and academic communities. The superintendent must be able to unite these various stakeholders in a common purpose—the education of our children. He must also be able to work productively with the school board, the city council and our next mayor.

6. What is your number one priority to improve Richmond Public Schools?
Our number one priority must be to stop the abandonment of RPS by our middle class families. This will require us to revitalize our neighborhood schools and to reverse an unfortunate attitude that has arisen with the school choice movement. Traditionally education of our children was an undertaking of the entire community. The community raised the funds, built a school, hired teachers and participated in making sure their children were receiving a high quality education. The community and the school reinforced each other. In my part of town, for example, the Westover Hills neighborhood and the Westover Hills School grew together. Under school choice, however, education has become just another commodity that families “shop” for. If parents are unhappy with their neighborhood school they look elsewhere for their child’s education. In my neighborhood that means that most of them move out of the city.

My goal is to reverse this trend by convincing parents that they have the power to take ownership of their neighborhood school and make sure it works for their children. Just as parents in the Munford, Fox, Fisher, and Holton zones have done, I will work with the parents of the fourth district to reclaim their neighborhood schools as their own. I would also help any other member of the school board to use these tactics in their districts. We can revitalize the city by building stronger communities around our neighborhood schools.


7. What do you propose to do to decrease violence in Richmond Public Schools?
Violence in the schools is not solely an RPS issue. Usually the tendency to violence originates in our neighborhoods and migrates into the schools. Therefore, we need to have a multifaceted approach to solving the problem. First, we need to assure that the RPS “Standards of Conduct” are strictly enforced. We should not tolerate teachers, school administrators or central office administrators who think that enforcement of these standards is optional. Second, we must engage in violence reduction programs in which RPS, Richmond Police Department, other city agencies, private groups like Communities in Schools and outside contractors work cooperatively. We should use as a model the agreement that was entered into this summer by RPS, Richmond Police Department and the Center for Neighborhood Enterprises to establish a Violence-Free Zone Safe School Initiative at George Wythe High School. The Memorandum of Understanding setting up this program can be examined as an attachment to the School Board’s August 4, 2008 agenda. http://www.richmond.k12.va.us/schoolboardnew/index.htm


8. What do you propose to improve the services that the Richmond Public Schools provides to children with special needs?
The first thing we must do is to make all of our school buildings ADA compliant. Too many years have gone by since the court order was issued mandating that RPS do this. Unfortunately, political bickering among the mayor, council and school board has resulted in this objective not being fulfilled. We can no longer delay. Second, we must make sure that RPS is fully compliant with all federal and state requirements in providing services to special needs children. We also have to adopt the attitude that special needs children are entitled to as high a quality education as the other children in our city.

9. What do you propose to increase student achievement in the Richmond Public Schools?
--We must place higher demands on our administrators, teachers and students. As shown in the TD article today on Richmond Community and Open high schools and the Franklin Military Academy, treating the SOLs as minimums rather than as the prime goal of our schools leads to a higher level of student achievement. We must change our curricular emphasis from teaching only the facts required by the SOLs to teaching our children the skills they need to function in our Twenty First Century world. Our children need to be prepared to compete on a global scale. We need to give them the critical thinking skills they need to succeed. Most of the content of what we teach our children today will be just a historic curiosity in fifteen or twenty years. So we have to teach our children how to think, how to gather information, how to make decisions, how to understand that everything is related, how to communicate, and how to relate to a world of different people from different cultures. To accomplish this change we need to provide training to our teachers to equip them to teach with the changed emphasis.

--To further reward our educational professionals, I propose that we consider offering RPS administrators and teachers a pay system in which pay increases are based on performance rather than on college degrees and longevity. Let me be clear, I do not propose that compensation be based on student SOL scores. There are far too many factors other than teacher performance that affect how well students do on SOLs. We need to develop a system in which we can measure how much progress students are making in a particular year by comparing where they are in September to where they are in June. We also need to handicap the system so that teachers in schools with concentrated poverty can compete fairly with teachers in schools that are primarily middle class.

This would be a voluntary system for teachers and administrators working for RPS. Teachers would be given the option of staying in a compensation system based on longevity and degrees or moving to the merit system in which pay raises would not be guaranteed but would be significantly higher than on the longevity scale.

I invite the Richmond Education Association to participate with the School Board in designing this new compensation system. A voluntary system like this was recently implemented in Prince Georges County, Maryland, with the cooperation of its teachers union.

--To assure that children in all neighborhoods in the city receive the same high quality education, I propose the creation of an “Order of Richmond Heroes” composed of high quality teachers who agree to teach in our more difficult schools. We would offer a cash bonus to those teachers who agree to move to these schools and stay there for at least three years. Only teachers who have demonstrated high levels of performance, either in RPS or other school systems, would be eligible to apply.

--To provide school principals with greater incentives, I propose that we experiment with making some of our schools into hybrid schools, being somewhere between regular public schools and charter schools. I envision schools in which principals enter into contracts with RPS to achieve a certain level of improvement over a fixed time period and are given increased independence to achieve that goal. The compensation of participating principals would be based on how well the students in their schools perform.

It may be that the nine members of the School Board will decide not to implement these suggestions. However, we at least need to discuss them. The futures of our children are far too precious to consider any proposal to be “off the table.”

From Outside The Box

It is becoming more and more apparent to this maven that 2009-10 will be a lean year for Richmond Public Schools. Our beloved Commonwealth is suffering from a severe shortage of revenues and I expect that our city too will be facing shortfalls. So RPS is going to have to get along on less money than it needs. I still am hoping to find money to bring the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Program to Richmond. And I expect to apply my knowledge of government accountability to eliminate more wasteful spending. But, it’s time to start thinking outside of the proverbial box for other solutions to RPS’s problems. So, in no particular order:

Performance Pay: I propose that we move RPS employees, including administrators and teachers, from a system in which pay increases are based on college degrees and longevity to one based on performance. Let me be clear, I do not propose that compensation be based on student SOL scores. As I have said several times here and in the questionnaire from the Richmond Education Association, there are far too many factors other than teacher performance that affect how well students do on SOLs. We need to develop a system in which we can measure how much progress students are making in a particular year (by comparing where they are in September to where they are in June). We also need to handicap that system so that teachers in schools with concentrated poverty can compete fairly with teachers in schools that are primarily middle class.

We need to start with a voluntary system for teachers already working for RPS. Teachers would be given the option of staying in a compensation system based on longevity and degrees or moving to the merit system in which pay raises are not guaranteed but can be significantly higher than on the longevity scale.

I expect that the Richmond Education Association will participate with the School Board in designing this new compensation system.

Hybrid Schools: I propose that we experiment with making some of our schools into hybrid schools, being somewhere between regular public schools and charter schools. I envisage schools in which principals enter into contracts with RPS to achieve a certain level of improvement over a fixed time period and are given a certain amount of increased independence to achieve that goal. The compensation of principals participating in the program would be based on how well their schools perform.

Richmond Heroes: I propose the creation of an “Order of Richmond Heroes” composed of high quality teachers who choose to teach in our more difficult schools. We could offer a cash bonus to those teachers who agree to move to those schools and stay there for at least three years. Only teachers who have demonstrated high levels of performance, either in RPS or other school systems, would be eligible to apply.

Great Schools Richmond: We need to form an umbrella group, composed of representatives from the PTAs, the teacher’s union, the business community, our three universities, faith and civic groups, and other citizens interested in our children, to mobilize the Richmond community to make RPS a great school system. The group would both serve as an advocate for our schools and would monitor the schools to assure a high level of performance.

Rescue One: We need to recruit individuals, families, faith communities and businesses in the Richmond Metropolitan Area to “adopt” one child attending Richmond Public Schools and assure that child’s academic success. There are far too many children in Richmond who start school handicapped by the effects of multigenerational poverty. All of us in the Richmond “village” are responsible for assuring that those children get the skills they need to make their life dreams a reality.

Sounding the Alarm, Again

This maven has been talking for a long time about the failure of Richmond Public Schools to gain the confidence of middle class parents and how this failure is the major cause of the bleeding of our middle class to the counties. For example, An Open Letter to Doug and Jackie and Paul and Bill and…; You Got Trouble Folks! Right Here In River City. As I mentioned in my post yesterday, I have been having some problem getting people to understand how dangerous this exit of our middle class is to the future of the city. Just this morning I was discussing this with Antione Green of the Richmond Crusade for Voters and now a member of the board of the Patrick Henry charter school. We concluded that it is the surrounding counties, rather than the City of Richmond, that are perceived as “family friendly.”

So, I was pleased as punch to read in the Washington Post yesterday about a new study done by the Brookings Institution, the 21st Century Fund and the Urban Institute entitled “Quality Schools, Healthy Neighborhoods and the Future of DC.” To look at the long copy of this study click here. For the even longer version try here .

Now, Richmond is Richmond, and D.C. is D.C., and things are a lot different in these neighboring cities. But both cities are perceived as being family unfriendly and both have a steadily declining public school enrollment. (In D.C. that decline is mainly in the non-charter segment of the public schools.) So, I am going to quote from the report’s executive summary but substitute “Richmond” for every mention of ”D.C.“ or “District of Columbia.”

By improving its public schools, expanding affordable housing, and revitalizing its neighborhoods,[Richmond] has an opportunity to sustain its growth and become a more family-friendly city. It can retain and attract more families with children and increase the share of families that send their children to public schools. It can reverse the decline in public school enrollment … by 2015.

For this to happen, the city must strategically link its education policy and investments with development of affordable housing and neighborhoods to better serve the families already living here, attract new families with children to city neighborhoods, and encourage young couples with preschool-age children to stay. Today, serious challenges stand in the way.

Strong ties between neighborhood schools and their communities can benefit both children and neighborhoods. But in DC, disparities in school quality combine with housing patterns to limit both diversity and equity. Every neighborhood should have quality schools and family-friendly housing options affordable for a range of income levels. The city should make a major effort to improve school quality where the child population is already high or growing and expand affordable, family-friendly housing in all the city’s neighborhoods. More specifically, policies
should:

1. Target increased educational and out-of-school time investment to neighborhoods of greatest need: where lots of families already live and do not have high-quality school options.

2. Move quickly to preserve and expand affordable housing in neighborhoods that are currently undergoing gentrification as well as in historically high-priced neighborhoods that are already served by quality schools; and promote a welcoming environment for racial, ethnic, and economic diversity in all schools.

Educational options can give families access to academic programs and school settings that best meet their children’s needs. But in DC, many families do not have access to high-quality schools, and the relationships among students, families, and their public schools are weak in all but the most affluent neighborhoods. The city should have a public education system where families and students can make good school decisions and then build strong, lasting relationships with schools so that schools meet families’ and students’ needs. More specifically, policies should:

3. Ensure that the public education system supports parents and students in using options to their advantage.

4. Provide support for families and students to establish long-term commitments with schools and for schools to maintain a long-term presence in their communities.”

The effect on the city of the continued drop in enrollment in our schools and the hemorrhaging of our middle class to the suburbs is an issue that must be addressed whether this maven, or any of my able opponents, is elected to the Richmond School Board. It is an issue that must be addressed by whomever is going to be our next mayor. The underlying problems that cause this crisis are beyond the control of Richmond Public Schools and our schools alone cannot fix them. We need to unite the whole Richmond community to fix things.

So, I issue the following challenge to Dwight Jones, Bob Grey, Bill Pantele, Paul Goldman and Lawrence Williams: over the next week formulate your answer to what you will do to make Richmond family-friendly and reverse the perception that children cannot receive an adequate public school education in our fair city. Then I will meet any, some or all of you at any location at virtually any time to continue this discussion that is vital to Richmond’s future.

For the remaining weeks of this election campaign we must focus our attention on the families and children of Richmond. We must discuss all options for making Richmond more family-friendly. We must think inside and outside of the box. We have a golden opportunity, but a short window, to plan and take some action to assure that Richmond becomes the great city it can be.

Speaking of Endorsements

Let’s get this straight. I am upset that I did not get the endorsement of the REA, or the Crusade for Voters or the Coalition for a Greater Richmond. If they had endorsed me, I would be a lot closer to winning this election. And don’t forget that those endorsements came with money or campaign help, which I can sorely use. So, it’s not a matter of sour grapes when I say that I would much rather have the endorsements I have than the ones I have lost. Because, dear reader, my endorsements are from people who know me and have worked with me and have watched me during my years of involvement in Richmond Public Schools. None of my endorsements come from guessing the preferred answer to a questionnaire or smiling the right way at an interview. I got all my endorsements the old fashioned way.

George Braxton. It is not a secret that when George decided not to run for reelection to the School Board he asked me to run for his seat. George and I have been cooperating on behalf of the children of Richmond as long as I have lived in Richmond. I have provided him support when he was right and criticism when he was wrong. He knows my ideas and my dedication, so it really is meaningful to me when George says:

Bert is the only candidate ready and able to take over the board seat in January. He demonstrates a keen understanding of education policy and his volunteer activities have let him see Richmond Public Schools from the inside.

Erin Bishop. I met Erin Bishop when I joined Friends of Fourth District Schools. Along with other members of the FoFDS Board of Directors, we have worked hard to support the schools and children of the Fourth District. Erin has said about me:

I have worked with Bert Berlin on school issues for the past three years. He is not a politician--he is truly committed to improving our schools. I like his ideas, and I admire his dedication. We would be lucky to have his service to our School Board!

I’d rather have Erin on my side than the whole REA.

Rev. Benjamin Campbell. Ben Campbell is one of the spiritual leaders of the Richmond area. Three years ago he started Metro Richmond at Prayer. He is the co-chair of the Micah Initiative. He is a trustee of the Richmond Public School Foundation and was chosen to be on the search committee for the new Superintendent. Ben and I have known each other since I became a Micah volunteer. In Ben’s words:

Bert Berlin is a thoughtful and determined man, a good listener, a serious volunteer, who is willing to put himself out for the children and public schools of Richmond. He’s the kind of person we all need on the School Board.

Tom Klein: Tom Klein is my connection to the business community. He is currently Chair of the Richmond Business Council of the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce and heads its education committee. Tom and I have known each other since I moved to Richmond and when he learned I was running for the School Board, he asked to join my “team.” Tom says:

I support Bert Berlin because he is the best equipped to advocate for the changes needed to make the Richmond Public Schools the destination of choice for all school age children. Bert has been supporting the schools well before it was known that there was an open School Board seat.

Mieko Manual Timmons: Mieko is one of the city-wide coordinators for the Micah Initiative. She has also served on the Richmond Council of PTAs. Mieko and I, along with Mary Hetzel, worked together to form a new Micah Initiative project at Carver Elementary School with volunteers from my congregation. Mieko says,

I enthusiastically support Bert Berlin for the 4th District School Board Representative because he has demonstrated passion and commitment for our children in Richmond Public Schools for years, as a volunteer and strong advocate. He has worked well with school officials, parents, and students. He has gained their trust through hard work and consistency. With a vote of confidence from the School Board Chairman, that confirms for me that he must be the right person for the job. I also commend him for his dedication to public service.

Tichi Pinkney-Epps: Tichi is the past president of the Richmond Council of PTAs. I met her last year at a breakfast sponsored by Hope in the Cities. Since then, we have been cooperating on making Richmond Public Schools a much better school system. Whether or not I win the election, I expect to continue working with Tichi to mobilize the Richmond community to provide a great education for the children of Richmond. Tichi says:

I have had the opportunity to engage with Bert on many issues regarding public education in the City of Richmond. I believe he will be an asset because of his open-mind and profound ability to see the issues from all sides without deference to personal bias and special interest.

So, I ask you loyal reader, who would you rather have endorsing your candidacy? The REA, the Crusade and the Coalition, or George and Erin and Ben and Tom and Mieko and Tichi? For me this is a no brainer. Who needs the money and the campaign support when I have friends like these?

No City For Old Men

This maven is becoming the Rodney Dangerfield of Richmond. I simply cannot get any respect. (R-E-S-P-E-C-T, for you Aretha fans.) As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the Richmond Education Association, our local teacher’s union, did not endorse me for election to the School Board. That is after I spent several hours filling out their questionnaire and was interviewed by a panel of three teachers who, quite frankly, had no idea what I was talking about when I said that Richmond’s biggest problem was our disappearing middle class. So, who did the REA pick as their choice for the fourth district school board seat? Adrea Graham Scott—at least twenty years younger than me, female, African American, well-spoken, and just plain nice.

Then, there is the Richmond Crusade for Voters. I participated in the Crusade’s candidate forum. The maveness and I joined the Crusade. The maveness and I attended the Crusade’s annual banquet (at a cost of $100). We had a great time and met a whole bunch of good people. So, I figured when the Crusade called me in for an interview this was my big chance. Another interview, another panel who really didn’t understand the point I was making. So, who did the Crusade endorse for the fourth district seat? Adrea Graham Scott—at least twenty years younger than me, female, African American, well-spoken, and just plain nice. Another “terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day” for the Maven.

Maven, I’m beginning to detect a pattern here.

Wait devoted reader. Don’t jump to conclusions.

Then, I received a call from the Coalition for a Greater Richmond. These are the good government guys. These are the guys who are searching for new leadership for the Metro Richmond area. They wanted to interview me. So, eagerly I went off to talk to them. Guess what, dear reader. For the first time in this process I felt that this panel actually understood my concerns about Richmond’s middle class bleeding off to the suburbs to find better schools for their kids. I explained my plans to deal with this problem. I went home from the interview feeling really good. Then, just last Friday came a letter from the Coalition. I held it in my hands like a high school senior anxious to find out if my favorite college had accepted me. I peeled open the letter slowly, like Charley peeling open a Wanka Bar looking for the golden ticket. I read the letter. The Coalition endorsed. . . Adrea Graham Scott—at least twenty years younger than me, female, African American, well-spoken, and just plain nice.

Now, trusted reader, I am ready to admit that there seems to be a pattern here. This maven is in a batting slump. I am 0 for 3. No hits, no runs, who knows how many errors.

So, let’s analyze this. If I were a group endorsing a candidate for the Richmond School Board, who would I choose? Would I choose a curmudgeonly grandfather who has actually worked in the schools for the past three years, who understands from the inside what problems the schools face, who has been studying and writing about Richmond Public Schools, who has concrete proposals for making the schools better (especially here in the Fourth District), who has relationships with many of the VIPs in Richmond (mayoral candidates, city council members, school board members), and who knows how to get things done? Or would I choose somebody who is at least twenty years younger than me, female, African American, well-spoken, and just plain nice, but who does not have my experience, and runs a campaign based on slogans rather than plans (“I’m passionate about parental choice” “Great Schools Build Great Communities”)? So, who would I choose? What does Adria Graham Scott have that this maven doesn’t have?

Well, for one thing, she is a woman and I am a man. Can there be some form of gender discrimination going on here? Well, I hope not. Of course, Adria is African American and I am Caucasian. I would hate to think that in the year 2008 any group in Richmond would base its endorsement on the color of a candidate’s skin, so I will not accept that this is a matter of race. Adria is well spoken, but so am I. Adria is just plain nice and I often let my anger get the best of me. Well, maybe it is the nice versus nasty that wins her the endorsements.

Wait, Maven, what about the she’s “at least twenty years younger than me?” Let’s face it, Maven, she’s young and you’re old.

Stop right there, reader. This maven does not feel old! For weeks I’ve been walking around the Fourth District, up and down lots of stairs, talking to my neighbors. In the words of James Brown, “I feel good!” I am motivated. I feel like I am doing what I am supposed to be doing. It’s almost like I’m on a mission. So don’t tell me I’m old!

Maven, how old are you?

Eureka! That’s it, dear reader. I figured it out. It’s not gender, it’s not skin-color, and it’s not even my temper. No, it’s all about the future. Let’s face it; I am sixty-four years old. At the end of my school board term, I’ll be sixty-eight. I expect that if I feel I am accomplishing something I’ll run for another term on the School Board. But that will be it. I have no expectation, and neither does anybody else, that I’ll ever run for City Council, or the General Assembly, or mayor, or even the Congress. I have no future.

But Adria is all future. When Kathy Graziano is ready to retire, I can see Adria running for City Council. If there is a vacancy in the House of Delegates or the State Senate, I can see Adria running for those seats. I would not be in the least bit surprised if one day Adria became mayor of our fair city. And, from what I have learned about her during this campaign, I would be proud to support her in any of those endeavors.

But, devoted reader, the trouble is not the future. The trouble is now. Frankly, with regard to Richmond Public Schools, Adria does the talk but not the walk. Richmond Public Schools is not where her experience lies. Before George Braxton announced his retirement, Adria was certainly a good parent, but the general educational welfare of the children of Richmond was hardly on her radar. In short, this is not Adria's time.

So, now I understand. The REA and the Crusade and the Coalition did not endorse Adria Graham Scott as the best candidate for the School Board in 2008. Rather, they endorsed her for her potentially shiny future. They all want to jump on the band wagon and to be able to say “we endorsed her back then.”

Hey, out there, I’ve had a great time writing this. I finally understand what Paul McCartney meant when he wrote these words back in 1967:

"Will you still need me, will you still feed me, When I'm sixty-four?"

700 Billion Tax Hike To Pay For Bailout

Let’s just say, hypothetically of course, that the Republicans were fiscally responsible, rather than the borrow and spenders that they are. Let’s also say, as hard as it is to believe, that they just wouldn’t allow the government to spend money it didn’t have. If that were true, than President Bush’s bailout plan for Wall Street would include a $700 billion tax increase to pay for itself. I just wonder how much support there would be for the bailout if that were true.

Well, dear reader, the bailout proposal does contain that massive tax hike. It’s just being deferred for a few years. Like the other four or five trillion dollars in additional debt that the spendthrift Republicans have added to our national credit card since Mr. Bush took office, sooner or later somebody has to pay the piper. Since it won’t be them, our avoid-paying-taxes-at-all-costs leaders just don’t care. So what if they are crippling our grandchildren with an incomprehensibly big debt to pay for things they never used?

The next time you see those McCain-Palin ads that talk of Senator Obama and his liberal allies “promising” to raise our taxes, just remember that it is Senator McCain and his Republican allies that have raised our grandchildren’s taxes by trillions of dollars over the years. And ask Senator McCain how many of those deficit appropriations bills, which have increased our debt so dramatically, he voted against.

International Baccalaureate Revisited

Wednesday night, at a District Four school board candidate forum, this maven and one of my opponents, John Lloyd, disagreed on how to define the International Baccalaureate (IB) program. Part of John’s platform is to increase the number of IB schools in Richmond. Although John, like me, is deeply committed to the children of Richmond, it was clear from his words that he has not read my description here of the various IB programs, and that he is living in IB’s past.

At the forum, John told the audience that the IB program is only the program for eleventh and twelfth graders that currently exists in Richmond at Thomas Jefferson High School. John is well meaning but wrong.

The International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) runs three different and distinct programs—the Diploma Programme (that’s the way they spell it), the Middle Years Programme and the Primary Years Programme.

The oldest program, the Diploma Programme, was originally set up to provide children of diplomats and other government employees working overseas a standardized education and high school diploma so that they could be admitted to colleges and universities around the world. It is the program that operates at Thomas Jefferson High School.

The Middle Years Programme, for students grades six through ten, is the program that RPS has running at Lucille Brown Middle School and at Thomas Jefferson High School. Unfortunately, RPS chose to run the Middle Years Programme as a school-within-a-school program, benefitting only about 80 students at Lucille Brown.* I am convinced that had it been operated as a full school program Lucille Brown would not have had the problems it has had in meeting state and federal standards.

Then, there’s the Primary Years Programme (PYP). For you who have been following my campaign, you know that a key part of my platform is to add funding to the RPS budget for four PYP schools in Richmond—two north of the river, two south. Currently, Richmond has no PYP. As far as I know, none of the other candidates for school board (in any of the city’s nine districts) is campaigning to bring PYP to our elementary schools. So, let’s talk about PYP…

As do all other schools in the Commonwealth, an IB PYP school will teach our children all the knowledge mandated by the state. IB students will be well prepared to excel on the SOL tests. But IB students will get a whole lot more.

The IB teaching method is based on five elements:

Knowledge
Significant, relevant content we wish the students to explore and know about, taking into consideration their prior experience and understanding.

Concepts
Powerful ideas that have relevance within the subject areas but also transcend them and that students must explore and re-explore in order to develop a coherent, in-depth understanding.

Skills
Those capabilities the students need to demonstrate to succeed in a changing, challenging world, which may be disciplinary or transdisciplinary in nature.

Attitudes
Dispositions that are expressions of fundamental values, beliefs and feelings about learning, the environment and people.

Action
Demonstrations of deeper learning in responsible behaviour through responsible action; a manifestation in practice of the other essential elements.

IB’s PYP teaching method is also based on several transdisciplinary themes:

Who we are
Inquiry into what it means to be human.

Where we are in place and time
Inquiry into orientation in place and time – local and global perspective.

How we express ourselves
Inquiry into the ways in which we discover and express ideas.

How the world works
Inquiry into the natural world and its laws, the interaction between the natural world and human societies

How we organize ourselves
Inquiry into the interconnectedness of human-made systems and communities.

Sharing the planet
Inquiry into rights and responsibilities in the struggle to share finite resources with other people and with other living things.

Aside from providing our children with the knowledge they will need to compete in an international setting, the Primary Years Programme is also designed to develop the following skills in our children:

Thinking
Comprehension – Grasping meaning from material learned; communicating & interpreting learning.

Social skills
Resolving conflict – Listening carefully to others; compromising; reacting reasonably to the situation; accepting responsibility appropriately; being fair.

Communication skills
Reading – Reading a variety of sources for information & pleasure; comprehending what has been read; making inferences & drawing conclusions.

Self – management skills
Time – Using time effectively and appropriately.

Research skills
Collecting data – Gathering information from a variety of first – and second-hand sources such as maps, surveys, direct observation, books, films, people, museums and Internet.

Finally, the PYP encourages students to strive to be:

Inquirers : They develop their natural curiosity. They acquire the skills necessary to conduct inquiry and research and show independence in learning. They actively enjoy learning and this love of learning will be sustained throughout their lives.

Knowledgeable: They explore concepts, ideas and issues that have local and global significance. In so doing, they acquire in-depth knowledge and develop understanding across a broad and balanced range of disciplines.

Thinkers : They exercise initiative in applying thinking skills critically and creatively to recognize and approach complex problems, and make reasoned, ethical decisions.

Communicators: They understand and express ideas and information confidently and creatively in more than one language and in a variety of modes of communication. They work effectively and willingly in collaboration with others.

Principled: They act with integrity and honesty, with a strong sense of fairness, justice and respect for the dignity of the individual, groups and communities. They take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences that accompany them.

Open-minded: They understand and appreciate their own cultures and personal histories, and are open to the perspectives, values and traditions of other individuals and communities. They are accustomed to seeking and evaluating a range of points of view, and are willing to grow from the experience.

Caring: They show empathy, compassion and respect towards the needs and feelings of others. They have a personal commitment to service, and act to make a positive difference to the lives of others and to the environment.

Risk-takers: They approach unfamiliar situations and uncertainty with courage and forethought, and have the independence of spirit to explore new roles, ideas and strategies. They are brave and articulate in defending their beliefs.

Balanced: They understand the importance of intellectual, physical and emotional balance to achieve personal well-being for themselves and others.

Reflective :They give thoughtful consideration to their own learning and experience. They are able to assess and understand their strengths and limitations in order to support their learning and personal development.

Maven, this all sounds wonderful, but what’s it going to cost?

Well, reader, it’s not going to be cheap. First there’s the cost of staff training. Then we need IB program coordinators. If we implement the four PYP schools that I envision we will need one coordinator for the north of the river schools and one for those to the south. Then there’s the annual IB fee that is currently over six thousand dollars per school per year. In sum, it won’t be cheap. But, aren’t our children worth it? Besides, not all the money has to come from the RPS budget. There are grants available (from the U.S. Department of Education, for example) to offset IB costs, and I am sure that many of our local businesses would be willing to bear parts of the expense.


*In the past, the IB organization has given schools leeway to run the MYP as magnet schools, schools within schools, or whole school programs. Recently, however, IB is strongly encouraging programs to be whole school, as the IB teaching and learning methods elevate the learning of all children.

REA Rejects Maven

The local teachers union—the Richmond Education Association—has chosen not to endorse the maven in the school board election this year. Who did they choose? Well, I bet it was either John Lloyd, or Jonathan Mallard, or Adria Graham Scott. The REA will make their choice public next week.

I guess I should be bitter. I guess I should complain of discrimination. If they chose Jonathan, I should yell “age discrimination”; if they chose Adria, I should yell “sex discrimination;” if they chose John—well, John is as old and as male as me, so I don’t know what I should yell. But you know as the old saying goes, you can lead the REA to water but…

So what did the REA turn down? I am publishing the REA questionnaire and my responses so you can know.


"1. At a time when expectations for student achievement are increasing and funding resources appear very limited, what actions would you take as a School Board member to encourage and promote student achievement?

First, I am not willing to accept that resources are necessarily limited. When I am on the School Board I will work for adequate funding for Richmond Public Schools. Over the last two years, the mayor and the city council have imposed budget limits on RPS, which have actually lowered the percentage of the city’s annual budget that goes to our schools. I do not consider the School Board to be bound by any future funding limit from the council and mayor. Under state law it is the responsibility of the School Board, not the council or mayor, to prepare the budget for the school system. When the School Board submits a budget based on an arbitrary ceiling imposed by the mayor and council rather than one based on the true needs of our students, it is abdicating its statutory responsibility.

Regardless of the funding available, I intend to establish higher expectations for our students. We must have more rigorous course curricula. We must have more gifted and talented programs. We must have more honors courses in high school. We must no longer be satisfied with our children graduating high school. Our goal for them must be to continue their educations past high school. I have heard some people in this city say that because of their disadvantaged backgrounds many of our students are unable to perform at a higher level. I cannot accept this. We must understand the difficulties many of our children face from growing up in poverty. However, we must never accept poverty as an excuse. I believe that children will perform at the level we set for them. If we ask them to merely pass SOLs that is what they will do. On the other hand, if we insist that they excel, I am convinced they will do so.

2. Are you familiar with the RPS Operating Budget for 2008-2009? If so, are there areas or programs you believe can be reduced or eliminated in order to create a budget savings or free money for other programs or projects? Are there areas or programs you would consider off-limits to budget cuts? Are there areas/programs that you consider underfunded?

I have reviewed the RPS operating budget. Quite frankly, it is hard to tell from the budget what areas or programs money is being spent on. I see RPS spending broken down by Object Class (like salaries, benefits, supplies and materials). I see the budgets for each individual school. I see a long list of budgeted expenditures broken down by the office that spends them. But I don’t see much in the way of program descriptions. I see detailed organizational charts, but no indication of what each box on the chart does. I will have to do more research to determine whether there are programs that can be reduced.

There is one line that I have serious difficulties with—internal audit. I do not know why RPS needs an internal auditor. It also doesn’t seem to me that the internal audit function is working. The one thing that an internal auditor should be doing is making sure that an external auditor does not find serious instances of mismanagement. Obviously, the internal audit function at RPS has not done that. Internal audit is funded at $445,000 for fiscal year 2009, an increase of $22,000 over last year. I’m not sure it is worth it. (The City Council has authorized a study of whether the RPS auditing function should be incorporated into the City Auditor’s office).

I’m also not quite sure what we are getting for the half million dollars we will be spending on New Direction start-up costs.

Since our school administrators and our teachers are the most precious asset that we have in RPS, I would consider any cut in salary or benefits to them to be off-limits. RPS must show our teaching professionals that we appreciate all that they do for us. We cannot consider cutting their compensation.

I intend to add to the RPS budget for next year funding for four International Baccalaureate primary years programs, to be instituted at two elementary schools north of the river and two south of the river. The IB primary years program will teach our children critical thinking skills and show them how everything in the world is interconnected. It will better prepare them for the complex world they will face fifteen or twenty years from now. The IB programs will not be honors or magnet programs. They will be full school programs and all children attending the neighborhood school will be IB students. These full school IB programs are working successfully throughout the country.

I am also open to trying other things. In deciding where RPS goes next, we need to look at such things as extending the school day by an hour each day to provide more learning time, extending the school year to provide more learning time, offering bonuses to teachers to teach in the schools that have the highest concentration of students receiving free or reduced lunches, making pre-K available to all children in Richmond, and providing incentives to students for staying in school and for learning.

3. a) Are you familiar with the Richmond Public Schools Capital Improvement Program Budget FY2008 – 2012 and the Capital Improvement Projects Ordinance No. 2007-59-108? a) Do you believe that this program budget will address all of the school maintenance, renovation and replacement needs of Richmond Public Schools? Explain your response. b) As a member of the School Board what will you do to make sure this plan is implemented?

a- I have studied the capital improvement budget and the ordinance. However, without examining every building in the district, I cannot possibly know whether adequate funding has been budgeted to cover all the needs of the system. I must trust that the incumbent board, RPS administration and their contractors have adequately assessed the district’s capital needs.

Having spent most of my career at the Government Accountability Office examining the operations of large organizations, I know that there are often significant changes made between planning and completion of projects. I assume that as we go forward with these capital improvements we will find that the program budget probably underestimates some of the costs.

b- In the ordinance, the City Council has assigned to the mayor and the Chief Administrative Officer responsibility for implementing the capital budget. Therefore, as a member of the board I can make sure that the plan is fully implemented only by watching and by using the board’s political influence to keep pressure on the Administration. If there is insufficient progress I will ask the citizens of Richmond to pressure the mayor to get the job done.

4. In the last five years, two high schools and two middle schools were consolidated, three elementary schools were closed, and two alternative programs were moved into existing school buildings. Do you support further restructuring which could include the closing of additional schools and changes in attendance zones?

The School Board is responsible for making sure that the taxpayer’s dollar is being spent lawfully and efficiently. If it is clear that restructuring will save money, I will support it. The disruption of restructuring can be minimized by tying school closing and zoning changes to the construction of new facilities or renovation of existing facilities. Without having studied the performance of every school in the system, I cannot now address specific needed restructuring changes.

5. Do you believe that there is a correlation between staff morale and student achievement? If so, what would you do as a board member to improve the morale of RPS employees?

There is certainly a connection between teacher morale and student achievement. If a teacher does not look forward to going to school each day; is not enthusiastic about helping students to learn; feels unappreciated by administration, parents or students, it has to affect student performance. Both my wife and daughter are teachers and I know that their students learn better when their teachers are “up” for the day. I have seen this in classrooms both at Westover Hills and Carver schools. When a teacher is having a good day and is really enthusiastic about teaching, the students sense this and they catch the enthusiasm. When, however, the day is not going well, the students sense this and they have more difficulty learning.

When I am on the School Board, I intend to spend as much time as possible in the elementary, middle and high schools in the fourth district. I intend to interact with teachers and let them know that I appreciate what an important job they are doing. I will also be there to listen to them so that I can really appreciate their concerns. I will work with school administrators to establish some kind of awards or recognition programs for teachers. It is not enough to wait for one week per year to show teachers that we appreciate them.

6. Health insurance costs have been rising for many years, and the costs to RPS employees for their share of health care premiums are becoming prohibitive. Would you support maintaining the same benefits for employees without increasing the cost to employees?

To me, any increase in health care costs for employees is equivalent to a cut in salary. Therefore I will support the same benefits without increased costs for employees.

7. In your opinion, is the administration of RPS structured in such a way as to optimize both its efficiency and effectiveness? If not, what changes do you believe would lead to a more efficient and effective administration?

After carefully examining the RPs organization charts included in the 2009 school budget, I can honestly say that I can’t answer the question. However, I understand from School Board Vice Chair Lisa Dawson that RPS is finally getting around to hiring a consultant to do the staff audit recommended last fall by the Crupi Report. This study will inform the School Board whether particular functions and positions within the RPS structure are providing adequate value to merit being funded in the future.

Further, as I stated on my blog “Our next superintendent must understand organizations. RPS is often accused of having too much bureaucracy. The superintendent needs to be able to analyze the RPS organization and eliminate those positions that are unnecessary in giving our children an excellent education.” Assuming that the next superintendent is chosen after I am on the board, I will try to assure that the successful candidate has that skill.

8. The REA believes that the RPS Standards of Student Conduct contains appropriate standards for student behavior, as well as fair and suitable responses to violations of the code. What actions do you believe should be taken when the building administration does not enforce the RPS Standards of Student Conduct? What actions do you believe should be taken when the central administration does not enforce the RPS Standards of Student Conduct?

All RPS policy must be followed both within schools and at central administration. The job expectations for all school administrators and all employees at central administration must make it clear that the board expects that the Standards of Student Conduct will be enforced. There must be some disincentives described for those who refuse to enforce these or other policies.

We need to experiment with incentive programs to discourage unacceptable behavior in school. When my wife was teaching at Langston Hughes Middle School in Fairfax County, she planned and implemented an experiment called “Panthers on Track.” Using money supplied both by the School Board and by the private sector, Panthers on Track provided a May out-of-school reward for those students who had a certain number of points by a cut-off date. Each child in the school started the year with sixty points and would lose points for each disciplinary problem. For those children who did not have the requisite points the reward day was spent attending presentations by police or guidance counselors, making up missing work, or spending time setting goals. During the first year of Panthers on Track, the number of school incidents requiring discipline decreased by half.

9. What motivated you to seek election to the Richmond School Board?

First, when I was a child, my father had a severe case of Multiple Sclerosis. He was unable to work. My mother had to stay home to care for him so she also couldn’t work. If it were not for my grandfather, who provided housing and financial support, we would have had to go on welfare. Coming from this poverty situation, I am convinced that had I not received a high quality public school education I would never have achieved what I did in my life. I thus owe a debt to my parent’s generation for providing me with a first-class public school education. Now that I am retired, I have time to pay that debt forward by working to make sure that all the children of Richmond receive a high quality education to prepare them for achieving their life goals.

Second, since I have been in Richmond I have volunteered in the schools as a Micah volunteer at Westover Hills Elementary, as a CAG member at Westover Hills, and as the Micah team captain for my congregation at Carver Elementary. I have watched excellent, dedicated teachers enabling their students to learn. I have worked with individual students helping them overcome their learning difficulties. Now, it is time for me to move into a position where I will be able to help more than just a few children.

Finally, I have two grandchildren living in Richmond, the oldest of which will start RPS in 2009. So, I have a selfish reason for wanting to make sure that the education we give our children is the best possible.

For me, providing a world-class education to all the students of this city, regardless of ethnicity or economic situation, is a matter of social justice. This city’s future is its children and I am committed to making sure we provide them with the skills they need to compete in the world they will face in ten or fifteen years.

10. Like most school districts, Richmond is experiencing a teacher shortage as many veteran teachers are retiring and teachers with less than five years of experience are resigning to go elsewhere, while the supply of new teachers remains low. What ideas do you have for retaining experienced teachers and for attracting and retaining new teachers?

First, we must make sure that RPS’s compensation package for teachers is as good as the surrounding jurisdictions. We cannot attract teachers if we don’t pay as much as our competitors.

Second, we must demonstrate to our teachers that we value them by treating them as the professionals they are. We must show them recognition for the miracles they perform on a daily basis. We need to create something like an “order of Richmond heroes” for those of our teachers who choose to teach in our more difficult schools. Everybody in the city, from the mayor on down, has to make honoring teachers a high priority. We need to make each week “teacher appreciation week.”

We must also provide more help to our younger teachers. We must use our experienced teachers or retired teachers as coaches. We need to provide as many professional development opportunities to our teachers as we can. There will probably be some beginning teachers who discover in their first two years that teaching is not the right career for them. However, we must make sure that none of them abandons teaching because we didn’t provide them with the help they need to succeed.

As I indicated in my answer to question 5, I intend to spend as much time as I am able interacting with the teachers in Fourth District schools. I will demonstrate to them as best I can that I really appreciate what they are doing for our children.

11. Describe what you believe should be the relationship between the Richmond School Board and the Richmond Education Association.

In most areas, the School Board and the REA should be partners. As I indicated in the statement declaring my candidacy, the School Board shouldn’t make decisions or implement new programs without consulting with the REA.

I attended two of the public meetings for the board’s New Direction last fall and I was very upset to learn that teachers knew almost nothing about the plan. How can the board plan an entirely new framework for our public schools without involving teachers in the decision making? How can the board implement a proposal that will require teachers to do much more work without talking to the teachers first?

When I am on the board, I will make sure that we get REA input on matters we consider before making decisions.

12. The perception exists that cronyism is rampant in RPS. If so, do you view it as a problem and how would you address it?

I’m not sure whether the perception of cronyism is accurate. If it does exist in RPS, it certainly is a problem. Every position in central administration and every position in each school should be filled on the basis of merit, not on the basis of who you know. If the problem is real, we must make it clear to everybody with authority to hire personnel that decisions must be based on merit. We cannot afford the public perception that hiring or promotion decisions in RPS are made on other than a merit basis.

13. Richmond must compete with surrounding school districts (Henrico, Hanover, Chesterfield, etc.) to employ personnel. Do you believe that Richmond must maintain competitive salary schedules in order to retain and attract employees? What would you do as a member of the School Board to ensure that this happens?

I certainly agree that Richmond Public Schools must maintain competitive compensations packages in order to retain and recruit personnel. As a member of the Board, I will examine the compensation packages of surrounding jurisdictions to assure that we remain competitive.

14. Are you familiar with the current salary schedules for Richmond Public Schools employees? If so, do you think any adjustments need to be made in these schedules? Please explain your answer.

The current salary schedule for teachers is very strange. If my math doesn’t fail me, teachers spend two years in step 4, four years in step 5, three years in step 6, two years in step 8, seven years in step 13, two years in step 15 and reach step 20 after thirty two years of service. This makes no sense to me. Time in step requirements should be fairly uniform over the salary schedule. Freezing teachers with eighteen years experience in a single step for seven years can’t possibly be good for morale.

15. Some people believe that teacher compensation should be based upon how well their students score on certain standardized tests, such as the SOL assessments. What thoughts do you have concerning pay for performance and merit pay plans?

Generally, I support merit pay systems. I believe they provide incentives to employees to perform better.

However, I have serious reservations about measuring teacher merit by the achievements of their students, especially on standardized tests. There are too many factors other than teacher quality that affect student performance. This year at Carver, I worked with one girl who was trying to cope with watching her uncle die of gunshot wounds, another child who was living with her grandmother because both her parents had “passed,” and another child who was kept out of class for two weeks just before SOLs because her vaccinations were not complete. Obviously, how these children perform on standardized tests depends on a lot more things than their teacher’s skills.

Merit pay for RPS teachers would make sense only if the system is “handicapped” to take into account the difficulties that many students experience for many years because they have not been properly prepared before beginning school. A teacher who has a class of 18 students, all of whom receive free or reduced lunch, cannot be fairly measured against a teacher who has a class of students, none of whom need meal subsidies.

I read that Prince Georges County, Maryland, and its education association have agreed on a merit pay provision in their contract. I also understand that the District of Columbia has merit pay provisions in its teacher’s contract. I have heard that these are based on teacher choice. Teachers can opt to remain subject to a seniority system for salary promotion. Or, they can opt to participate in the merit pay system, which will allow for more rapid salary promotion for those teachers that excel.

16. The Standards of Learning and Standards of Accreditation are having an enormous impact on student instruction. Do you believe that RPS should be doing more to insure greater success for all of our students?

Clearly RPS should be doing more to promote the success of all our children. However, I am concerned that our SOL-based curriculum is not teaching our children what they need to know.

Because they are multiple-choice tests, the SOLs require our children to learn facts. They are “what” and “where” and “when” tests; they are not “how” and “why” tests. We should be teaching our children skills, not facts, but the SOLs push us in another direction.

We need to prepare our children to compete on a global scale. Teaching them facts makes no sense because most of what we teach our children today will be just historic curiosities in fifteen or twenty years. We have to teach our children how to think, how to gather information, how to make decisions, how to understand that everything is related, how to communicate (even though I cannot even imagine the technology they will use for communication) and how to relate to a world of different people from different cultures.

Our teachers need to find a way to prepare our children for the SOL tests they must take and at the same time give them the tools to succeed later in life. We need to teach our children the skills they will need to function fifteen or twenty years from now. If we teach them how, they will be able to find the facts they need to know electronically or, if they still exist, in books. At the rate knowledge is expanding we can never teach our children all the “facts” they need to know. We need to teach them to think.

17. For a number of years, RPS has had difficulty finding qualified substitutes to place in the classrooms when regular teachers must be absent from their jobs. As a solution, current employees are often asked to teach the students of absent teachers in addition to their own class. Do you believe that those employees should receive additional compensation for assuming the extra workload?

I believe that teachers or other school professionals who are asked to serve as substitutes should be compensated for the extra work that they do in dealing with the additional students.

However, this is only a Band-Aid approach. We need to fix the substitute problem. We must make sure that we pay substitutes enough to attract them. We also need to do some serious marketing. We need to dispel the belief among potential substitute teachers that RPS is not a good place to work. We also need to make use of student teachers as potential substitutes. Further, students in our three local universities could make excellent substitutes. We need to work with the universities to find a way to use these students as substitute teachers.

18. Do you support outsourcing RPS school services by contracting for these services from private, for-profit companies? (Such as, transportation, school security and custodial services.)

As a taxpayer in the City of Richmond I am in favor of procuring services at the lowest possible cost so long as the services are performed competently. If, in fact, the private sector can provide those services as well and more cheaply then we can do them in house, we have an obligation to outsource. On the other hand, as someone who has spent his entire career as a government employee, I question whether the private sector can really provide services as well and as economically as public employees.

19. Should RPS provide training to educational support professionals to become licensed teachers and/or to advance to other higher positions?

Yes, RPS should provide training to educational support professionals to help them become licensed teachers or to advance to higher positions. Money spent improving the qualifications and abilities of staff is always a good investment. It also shows that RPS cares about its employees. Further, because these individuals are already working for RPS, it is more likely that they will continue their careers at RPS.

20. Truancy is a major issue in Richmond Public Schools. The city now has the responsibility for addressing truancy. The program has not been successful and the truancy rate is increasing again. As a School Board member, what will you do to address this very serious problem?

Truancy is a serious problem. However, to deal with it we need to determine its underlying causes. I think that truancy at the secondary school level may be caused, in part, by a student’s unsuccessful experience in elementary school. If a student feels he is not succeeding in school or that she is stupid, that child is not going to want to be in school where his or her negative perceptions might be shown to be true. Providing a better elementary school experience for children will make them more anxious to go to middle school and high school.

If on the other hand, a child is truant because he doesn’t have adequate clothing, or has inadequate health care, or she has to babysit for a sibling, we are facing entirely different problems. We need to have greater support from Communities in Schools or similar organizations to deal with those non-academic problems that make it less likely that our children will attend and succeed in school. These are not problems that our schools are designed to deal with. Richmond needs to minimize these problems for our children if we expect them to stay and succeed in school.

We need to consider incentive programs to get our students to come to school and concentrate on their studies. I have read of some schools that actually promise students a cash payment at the end of the year if they meet attendance requirements and they perform well academically. We might combine this with a team approach in which the rewards are given to all members of a succeeding team. This will provide peer pressure on all the children in the team to attend school and do their best.

21. Are you familiar with the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also referred to as “No Child Left Behind”? If so, what is your understanding of this law?

As I indicated recently in my blog , I am very much opposed to the No-child-left-behind law. “I am convinced it was planned by people who are opposed to public education. With its constantly escalating requirements it seems deliberately designed to make public school systems fail.” No-child—
· encourages teachers to teach to the test,
· assumes that the only factor that determines a child’s success is the school,
· places its emphasis only on reading, writing and math, which discourages schools and teachers from teaching other subjects,
· makes no allowance for students who do not speak English,
· is based on the assumption that standardized tests can actually measure student learning, and
· makes it harder for some school districts to hire “qualified” teachers.

We can only hope that the Congress, in its wisdom, will make significant changes before extending the law. In the meantime, as I suggested in my answer to question 16, we must help our teachers to teach in a way that guarantees our students do well on their standardized tests and at the same time teach them the skills they need to survive in the future world they will face when they finish college.


So, trusted reader, I ask you, why would REA choose someone else? I trust the voters of the fourth district will disagree.

Please Sir, Can I Have Some More—Vouchers, That Is

After reading Republican Delegate Chris Saxman’s OpEd in the August 11 Times-Dispatch , I am a changed man. Delegate Saxman’s concern for the poor children trapped in a system of failing government schools is so genuine that I need to rethink my attitude. Up until now I had thought that Mr. Saxman’s creation, School Choice Virginia, was just a mechanism for opponents of public education to move a big chunk of the public education dollar to private schools or homeschoolers. Now I realize that Mr. Saxman‘s motives are pure. But, Mr. Saxman is missing a big part of the problem. So…

Today I am announcing the creation of Police Choice Virginia and Fire Choice Virginia to further free the Commonwealth’s poor from coercive government services. The two groups will lobby the General Assembly for legislation granting choice to the poor when faced with crime or fire. Under the legislation, each poor family will be issued Virginia Police Vouchers and Virginia Fire Fighting Vouchers. These vouchers will afford these families the choice of using either government or private police and fire fighting services when they are faced with a crisis.

It doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence to know that the poor in our society are the victims of failing police and fire departments. Just look at the evening news and it is clear that the bulk of violent crime takes place in poor neighborhoods. This is a clear indication that our government police departments are not doing an adequate job in protecting the poor. And, wait until the winter. Almost all the victims of space heater fires will be the poor. Clearly the government fire departments are not protecting them.

Isn’t it about time we gave the poor the same choice that the wealthy have. You don’t see banks using government police to guard their money. No, they hire Brinks or Pinkerton or some other private police to protect their assets. Shouldn’t the poor have the same option? Police and fire-fighting vouchers are the solution to this inequity.

The availability of these vouchers will encourage the development of efficient private companies providing police and fire-fighting services. The competition from the private sector will be good for the government police and fire departments. Knowing that they have lost their monopolies in fighting crime and fires, the government departments will have to do a much better job or risk being closed down completely. It will clearly be a win-win situation.

With the poor being rescued from intrusive government services by school vouchers, police vouchers and fire vouchers, we will be well on our way to a government-free society. Next year I will form Library Choice Virginia, Social Services Choice Virginia, Parks and Recreation Choice Virginia and Public Works Choice Virginia. Soon, every citizen in the Commonwealth will be walking around with a wallet full of vouchers. We will all have choice and we will all be so happy!

Public Education Under Attack

The Richmond Times-Dispatch would not publish this letter I wrote. They said it was too long. Well, I figure that I know a place to publish it where being too long is never a consideration. Here it is, beloved reader.

Editor
RTD

I must take issue with your support of Republican Delegate Christopher Saxman’s creation of School Choice Virginia in your July 25 lead editorial. Although you portray school choice as a way to help poor people choose their schools, the fact is that School Choice Virginia, to the extent it is successful, will significantly weaken Virginia’s public education system by diverting tax dollars to other education providers.

Regardless of the rhetoric of Delegate Saxman, the true nature of School Choice Virginia is clear from the membership of its board of directors. According to Tyler Whitney’s article in the July 23 Times-Dispatch, the board will include representatives of “church schools, the Virginia Catholic Conference, home schoolers and the Family Foundation of Virginia.” None of these are exactly supporters of public education. Church schools and home schoolers are participating in School Choice Virginia because they want a slice of the public education money pie. They are not altruistic supporters of public education. The slice of the pie they are trying to get will be at the expense of our public schools.

The Virginia Catholic Conference “represents the public-policy interests of the Commonwealth's Catholic bishops and their two dioceses.” It engages in advocacy on issues of respect for life, social justice and education and family life. The advocacy done by the Virginia Catholic Conference is important in the continuing advancement of the Commonwealth. However, in the area of education, the Virginia Catholic Conference’s main goal is to attain public financial support for its parochial schools. Again, the public funding it seeks will reduce the amount of money available for our public schools.

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.” Attending non-public schools, presumably, will enable parents to raise their children “free from intrusive government involvement.” As in the case of the other supporters of School Choice Virginia, the tax credits that the Virginia Family Foundation seeks will inevitably result in less available funding for public schools.

In your editorial you say that school choice is good for two reasons. First (not in the order you set them out) you say that choice is needed because “different families have different needs.” Certainly that is true, but I’m not sure that “different needs” justify using public funds to support private and religious schools or home schooling. The differing needs of families can be met within our public school system.

I don’t understand the obsession with choice. When I reached school age, my parents had only one choice—enroll me in the local neighborhood school. My neighborhood public schools provided me with a top quality education. When my children reached school age, my wife and I had only one choice—enroll our children in the local neighborhood school. Our neighborhood public schools provided our children with a superior education, which not only allowed them to be admitted to the College of William and Mary and the University of Virginia but also prepared them for their successful careers.

Second, you say that choice “would introduce competition where it’s needed most.” Presumably, you agree with the statement by Kevin P. Chavous, quoted in Tyler Whitney’s article, that competition “will force the [public school] system to be all it can be.” Proponents of school choice constantly argue that competition will make public schools better. However, has anybody demonstrated that competition from private or parochial schools and from home schooling actually improves public school performance? Sometimes competition does not strengthen competitors. Sometimes, especially if one of the competitors has an unfair advantage, it results in the other competitor simply dying. Diverting funds to private or parochial schools to get public schools to perform better is like the outmoded medical practice of bleeding the patient. Bleeding may or not have cured the disease, but it nearly always managed to kill the patient.

We cannot fix our education system by paying parents to choose options other than public schools for their child’s education. The key to providing a first-class education to all our children is to involve the entire community—parents as well as those without school-age children, teachers, the business and academic communities, faith-based and civic groups—in making our neighborhood public schools work. Let’s use our public dollars to support and perfect what the Virginia Constitution calls for—“a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth.”

Maven On The Air

Tonight I am announcing that the maven’s super, hi-tech, beautiful, spanking new, you’ve-got-to-see-it-to-believe-it campaign website is up and walking. For those of you who are curious, go see it at bertberlin.com.

However, because of the shocking nature of the website I make this disclaimer:

1- Parental discretion is advised.

2- Do not view if you have uncontrolled hypertension.

3- Avoid at all costs if you are pregnant or may become pregnant.

4- Do not view alone.

5- Do not view if you have urinary incontinence.

6- Side effects may include headache, nausea, diarrhea, painful joints, blurry vision, and/or fatigue. In several cases insanity was reported.


View at your own risk!

Middle Class Obsession Revisited

Well, the maven was in too much of a hurry yesterday. I left out one more important reason why we need to attract more Richmond parents to enroll their children in our neighborhood schools. That reason is money.

As I said back in March,

The City of Richmond receives less state education payments per student than do our neighboring jurisdictions of Chesterfield, Hanover and Henrico. The major reason for this disparity is that Richmond has so few children enrolled in its public schools compared to its population and tax base. Thus, under the state’s “composite index of local ability-to-pay,” Richmond appears to “need” less funding per student. If our school enrollment continues to drop, as projected by RPS, we will get less and less money from the state.
You Got Trouble Folks! Right Here In River City

What the state funding formula means is that despite the fact that Richmond needs to spend more per student than our neighboring school districts because we have far more special-needs students and because the 70% of our children receiving federally subsidized meals need a lot more school services than do their middle-class counterparts in the suburbs, we are actually receiving less state education funds per student than Chesterfield, Hanover or Henrico counties. The state formula rewards the school districts that have higher student enrollment even if those jurisdictions don’t really need to spend more money per student.

There are two ways that we citizens of Richmond can deal with this grossly unfair state allocation formula. First, we must urge our state senators and delegates to change the funding formula in the General Assembly so that such need factors as number of special needs students and percentage of poverty students is included in the formula. Second, we can do what is necessary to attract to Richmond Public Schools the children in our city whose parents are considering other options for their education. Simply from the standpoint of receiving adequate education funding from the state, we cannot afford to allow any more of our parents to opt out of Richmond Public Schools.

Am I Obsessed With Middle Class Parents?

My baby son—thirty years old, six foot four inches tall—is acting as my Jiminy Cricket. He told me that he thinks my concentration on attracting middle class parents to RPS as a key issue in the school board campaign goes against my commitment to social and economic justice. He thinks that I should concentrate on fixing our schools for the students who are already in attendance. He also worries that the parents of students who already attend RPS will think that I don’t care about their children.

Well, Ethan, I hear you loud and clear. However, there is method to my apparent madness. For several reasons, I know that we must convince all parents in Richmond that they are stake holders in RPS if we are to make it into the first-class school system it needs to be.

First, as I have said before (The Next Superintendent) we need to look at Richmond Public Schools as a business. “At one end we take in young minds ready to learn; at the other end we produce young men and women who are prepared to deal with their life goals, whether in college, in the business world or in the military.” As with any business, in order to succeed RPS has to have a great product and to market it to all its prospective customers. And just like Coca Cola, which will never be happy until it controls 100% of the soft drink market, we should never be satisfied until we attract all the children in Richmond to RPS.

Second, as I have also said before (An Open Letter to Doug and Jackie and Paul and Bill and . . . ), the continued hemorrhaging of our middle class parents to the suburbs to find what they perceive of as a better education for their children is not healthy for our city. Further, the continued use by parents of the RPS open enrollment policy to avoid sending their children to their neighborhood school is not healthy for the neighborhoods of Richmond. As I said in my open letter to mayoral candidates back in March,

Providing great schools for our children is not just a matter of economic and racial justice. It is vital to the overall health of the city. A city with a population composed of just the old and the young, with nobody in between, is not healthy. A city population of just the affluent and the poor, with no middle class, is likewise unhealthy. When the middle class leaves a city it takes with it a significant part of the tax base.

If we want to have a city that is vibrant and safe and a wonderful place to live, we must invest in our public schools. How can we attract people to live in Richmond if we do not have great schools? How do we attract businesses to Richmond? Do we tell them this is a great place to work but advise them that their employees should live in the counties because our schools just aren’t that good?

Third, I am concerned that if middle-class parents are not committed to Richmond Public Schools, the number or people advocating on behalf of our public school children will decrease further in the future. As I said here at the end of April, if the number of students attending Richmond Public Schools continues to decrease by about five hundred student each year,

it means that the number of voters in the city who consider adequate funding of the public schools to be in their own best interest is shrinking. How many of the current members of the City Council represent a district in which the quality of and funding for Richmond Public Schools is really a make-it or break-it issue? Will the winning candidate for mayor in November really need to capture the parent vote to be elected?”
School Issues: The Playing Field

Fourth, there is a practical reason. I am convinced that strong parental involvement is necessary to make our neighborhood schools work.

GreatSchools.net, beside ranking schools on student academic achievement, also ranks schools based on parent assessment of several factors, including parent involvement. In describing what the parent involvement ranking means, GreatSchools.net says:

Evaluate the quantity and quality of parent involvement. In a highly rated school, parents play important leadership roles on the school site council, PTA and in other organizations. A school with strong parent involvement attracts a large percentage of parents to school functions. The school offers a variety of opportunities for parent participation, such as school events, classroom projects and schoolwide committees. Parents are respectful of teachers and the principal, and the teachers and principal seek out and value input from parents.

Let’s look at the three elementary schools in district four (sorry about my obsession with district four, but that’s the place I live and understand best). The latest data published on the RPS website shows the approximate economic background of the students of our schools. At Westover Hills, about 76% of the students are receiving federally subsidized meals. At Southhampton, 67% of the students are receiving subsidized meals. At Fisher, only 27% of the students receive subsidized meals. On GreatSchool.net, the three schools are rated on parent involvement as Westover Hills, 2 out of 5; Southampton, 4 out of 5; and Fisher 5 out of 5.

These figures are not surprising. I believe that most middle-class parents have more time available to get involved in their child’s school than do most parents who are not earning as much. Let me make it very clear, I am not suggesting that less affluent parents care less about their kids than do those with greater income. I don’t believe for a second that a parent’s concern for his or her babies varies with income.

I know that if we can get middle class parents in the Westover Hills zone to commit to their neighborhood school that parent involvement will go up. The same is true for Southampton. The experiences of such north side schools as Munford, Fox and Holton make this clear. And, when parental involvement goes up the educational experience of all children at that school will improve significantly.

So this is why I spend so much effort trying to win over middle class parents. We must make them see themselves as stake holders in RPS. Once we are able to convince all the parents in the city that what happens in our public schools matters to them, I know that every child in our schools will benefit.

Neighborhood Schools: TheThree Ps

The first time I wrote to School Board Chair George Braxton I said,

In the years I have lived in Richmond, I have noticed a very strange demographic pattern. About half the people in my neighborhood are empty-nesters like my wife and me. Most of the rest of my neighbors are young couples, either without children or with pre-school-age children. When children in my neighborhood reach school age, their parents do one of three things: 1- they move out of Richmond to Chesterfield or Henrico counties; 2- they send their children to private school; or 3- they home-school their children. I think that the only children who attend public school are those whose parents cannot afford any of the other options.

Two days each week, I tutor at Westover Hills School. In both of the classes I work in, all the children are African-American. In fact, almost all of the children in the school are African-American. I have looked at the statistics on the Richmond City Public Schools website, and I find that in most of Richmond's public schools African-Americans constitute 80% or more of the student body. My experience, and those statistics, indicates to me that although more than thirty years has passed since the end of "massive resistance," Richmond still has segregated schools. This segregation is not the result of the law but of the perception by those parents who can afford other options that their children cannot receive a quality education in Richmond public schools.

What I find particularly troubling with regard to Richmond's segregated schools is that no one seems to talk about them. I hear a lot of talk about building new school buildings or how many children are passing SOLs. But nobody talks about whether children can get a quality education in segregated schools. Nobody talks about how to overcome the perception by middle class parents that keeps them from sending their children to Richmond public schools.

I think that not much has changed since I sent that e-letter. I have discovered that there is another tool that middle class parents use to keep their children out of neighborhood schools—Richmond Public Schools’ open enrollment policy. Aside from that, it is still clear to me that the parents living in Westover Hills, my neighborhood, do not send their children to Westover Hills Elementary School, and that the parents in neighborhoods like Stratford Hills and Southampton do not send their children to Southampton Elementary School, their neighborhood school. It seems that the only fourth district neighborhood school that is being used by residents of its neighborhood is Fisher.

About two years ago, Fourth District City Councilperson, Kathy Graziano, invited residents of the Fourth District to “take back our schools.” I had real difficulty with the “take back” language, which I thought suggested that our schools had somehow been stolen from us. Nonetheless, I answered her call and became involved with what became Friends of Fourth District Schools (FoFDS). FoFDS has been quite successful in other aspects, but we still have not cracked the parent confidence problem.

So, what is it that stands between fourth district middle class parents and our neighborhood schools? I have heard—

I don’t want my child to stand out in class because she is different from the other children.

I can’t risk my child’s future on an experiment.

The other children in the class are low achievers. They will bring my child down to their level.

I’m concerned that my child will not be safe in the neighborhood school.

If my child goes to RPS he will never get into a good college.

As a father who has guided all three of his children through public schools (and later through public colleges) in Virginia, I can understand these concerns. The lives of our babies are precious and we want only what is best for them. But, I wonder how many of these concerns are based on reality. I wonder how many parents have even walked into their neighborhood school to see if their fears and concerns are valid. Most important, I wonder whether parents are looking at their neighborhood school with themselves in the equation.

In certain neighborhoods in the city parents have united to make their neighborhood school work for their children. I know, for example, that the parents in my daughter's neighborhood on the north side of Richmond have decided to make Linwood Holton work as their neighborhood school. Now, Holton has become a superior school with a diverse student population. It is working. It is working because of the partnership between the principal of Holton and the parents of the neighborhood.

Recently, at a school board meeting, I spoke with a member of the board from the north side of the river. We spoke about the Patrick Henry charter school and about public schools in general. She asked me why we "south siders" couldn't do what the parents in Munford, Fox and Holton have done. She said that all we had to do was put together a group of determined parents to go into our neighborhood school and simply inform the principal that we were enrolling our children and that we expected him or her to make the education experience work for our kids. We need to enroll several of our children, join the PTA and make sure that the school works for us.

So here is my plan for "Parents Partnering with Principals.” Parents of four year olds who will be starting school in September 2009: form a group and visit Westover Hills or Southampton and tell the principal that you intend to enroll your child in their school. Tell her that you expect that she will do what is necessary to see that your child receives a quality education in her school. I will go with you. I will support you. You parents of three years olds: start doing the same thing. You have an extra year to get things together and make things work. Parents of two year olds: ditto. Join your neighborhood school’s PTA. It is never too early.

What I really don’t understand is what we have to lose. We in Richmond pay a lot more in taxes than our neighbors in the counties, whether we are homeowners and pay tax as part of our monthly mortgage payments or are renters and the cost of the tax is passed on to us by our landlords in our rent. Our tax payments entitle us to certain services from the city, the most important of which is a top quality public education for our children. You parents have chosen to live in the City of Richmond for a reason. Does it make sense for you not to use your neighborhood school? To me it’s like paying to be a member of a swim club and never using the pool. It makes no sense.

Parents have made neighborhood schools work for them in the cases of Munford, Fox, Fisher and Holton. Are we not capable of doing the same thing? Parent, you need to get involved in Friends of Fourth District Schools and work together with other parents. Get your neighborhood association actively involved in making your neighborhood school work. We have three good elementary schools in the fourth district. We can make them even better and we can make them work for our children if we are only willing to try. It’s all a matter of the three P’s: Parents Partnering with Principals.

One more thing, and this is addressed to Richmond’s business community. You need to get more involved in Richmond’s neighborhood schools. I don’t understand how you can expect Richmond to reach its full potential as a great city if we don’t have great schools. How do you expect to attract other businesses to the city? Do you tell them that Richmond is a great place to do business but that their employees need to live in the counties if they want good schools for their children?

And, finally, to those of you in the real estate business: Wouldn’t it be nice if you could start listing houses in Southampton and Stratford Hills and Westover Hills and Forest Hills and other fourth district communities as being within walking distance of great neighborhood schools? Wouldn’t it be nice to start showing these homes to young couples and tell them that the neighborhood is family-friendly because of the neighborhood school? Get involved, you can make it happen.

Broadening the Debate

My younger son, who is sojourning in Richmond this summer while he tries to make some career decisions, e-mailed me and said he thought my post yesterday was too negative. He thinks I might have insulted my fellow Richmonders by suggesting we are still thinking in 20th Century terms. Well, I don’t think we in River City are so easily offended. But just in case: Reader, I am deeply sorry if you think I was suggesting that we in Richmond are not as smart or sophisticated as our neighbors to the north.

The point I was trying to make is that in our thinking about Richmond Public Schools we are trapped in 20th Century terms. I think the questions raised at the Richmond Crusade for Voters forum Tuesday night indicate that. I also think that the issues that we candidates are concentrating on are the same issues that candidates have been raising for years. We have an obligation to educate ourselves and then educate the voters.

My friend Michael, the political guru I mentioned yesterday, tells me that voters cannot handle more than three issues at a time and that I have to get my message across in thirty seconds or I’ll lose their interest. I got the same kind of e-mail advice two months ago from Paul Goldman, everybody’s second choice to be our next mayor. Now, Paul and my friend Michael have been involved in politics for a long time so I guess they know of what they speak.

But they are talking about getting elected. I am talking about the children of Richmond. We cannot talk about their futures in thirty second sound bites. We need to take a long hard look at the education we are providing them. These are our babies and we are responsible for preparing them for the rest of their lives.

This doesn’t mean that I am not going to continue acting like a politician between now and November 4. I will concentrate on my three issues—making our neighborhood schools work for all children, being accountable for the taxpayers’ money, and involving the whole Richmond community as stakeholders in RPS. I will talk to each of my neighbors for only thirty seconds each. I will put up signs and maybe give out bumper stickers. I will inundate the voters of the fourth district with all kinds of campaign stuff.

However, the election is going to be over on November 4 and, whether or not the voters of the fourth district choose me to represent them on the school board, I still have to worry about the quality of education we are giving our children. We owe them a bright future and they are not going to get it unless, right now, we the citizen’s of Richmond make a commitment to do it right.

My older son is right. Our children need to be prepared to compete on a global scale. We need to give them the critical thinking skills they need to succeed. My friend Michael is right. Most of the content of what we teach our children today will be just a historic curiosity in fifteen or twenty years. So we have to teach our children how to think, how to gather information, how to make decisions, how to understand that everything is related, how to communicate (even though I cannot even imagine the technology they will use for communication) and how to relate to a world of different people from different cultures.

But, dear reader, let’s face two simple facts: 1- the federal “no-child-left-behind” law, although it will be amended, is still going to be controlling what and how we teach our children; and 2- Virginia SOLs are not going away.

The “no-child” law is one of the most disastrous of the disasters that George Bush has bestowed upon our country in the more than seven years he has been president. I am convinced it was planned by people who are opposed to public education. With its constantly escalating requirements it seems deliberately designed to make public school systems fail. We can only hope that the Congress modifies it significantly before extending it.

I have very mixed feelings about SOLs. I realize that our school systems must be held accountable for educating our children and that we need a way of measuring their success. However, the importance that SOL scores have assumed makes it more and more likely that our teachers are being pressured to teach “to the test.” And, unfortunately, I think the SOLs force us to teach our kids the wrong things.

Because they are multiple-choice tests, the SOLs require our children to learn facts. They are “what” and “where” and “when” tests; they are not “how” and “why” tests. We should be teaching our children skills, not facts, but the SOLs push us in another direction.

I spent a good time of this past year tutoring fifth graders at Carver Elementary School. Because Carver was not an accredited school in the past, there was a tremendous push to have the children pass their SOLs. Teachers were encouraged to spend most of their classroom time teaching subjects that would be tested and spending little time on things that would not be tested. The only thing that counted at Carver was SOL scores.

In previous years I tutored fourth graders at Westover Hills for the Virginia history SOL. It was all about what happened, when did it happen, and where did it happen. These fourth graders were just filled up with facts. If they ever appear on Jeopardy and the subject is Virginia history, they should do well.

Unfortunately, history is not just a series of facts. History is a continuous process of development, in which everything is connected. If we teach our kids that tobacco was the basis of Virginia’s early economy, they may remember that for a test. But, we never teach them “why” tobacco became so important. We never impress upon them that things happen because of choices that people make. They need to know not only that Virginia is where slavery began in this country, but that slavery was introduced as a deliberate economic decision. They need to know that had another choice been made the terrible institution of slavery could have been avoided. They need to know that decisions made at the time of our nation’s founding led eventually to the Civil War ninety years later. They need to know that the decision to rely on canals for transportation in the 18th Century led to Virginia not being a railroad center and to the decline of Virginia’s economy in later years.

We need to teach our children the skills they will need to function fifteen or twenty years from now. They don’t need to know facts. If we teach them how, they will be able to find the facts they need to know electronically or, if they still exist, in books. At the rate knowledge is expanding we can never teach our children all the “facts” they need to know. We need to teach them to think.

That is why I am so committed to bringing the International Baccalaureate primary years program to RPS. Except in the diploma program during the last two years of high school, IB is not an honors program. It is a method of teaching. It is based on teaching children critical thinking skills and showing them how everything in the world is interconnected. Sure, they will learn the facts they need to pass the SOLs, but they will learn them in a way that will enable them to use them in a meaningful way.

Last summer, the maveness took me along to tour Chicago while she attended an IB convention. During the course of several days I met many IB teachers. They were all dedicated, enthusiastic and had high morale. I can’t imagine that any of them were not anxious to go to school every day, even in May.

At one dinner I sat with part of the faculty of an elementary school in Albany, Georgia. The school’s demographics were similar to schools in Richmond: African American 84%, White 7%, Hispanic 8%. Sixty six percent of its students were receiving subsidized meals. I learned from these teachers that this school, which has the rather impressive name of International Studies Elementary Magnet School (ISEMS), had been a failing school. Its students scored very low on Georgia’s version of the SOLs. After becoming an IB primary years school, the performance by ISEMS students improved considerably (Remember that IB is not an honors program; every student in ISEMS is an IB student). ISEMS is now rated an 8 out of 10 by GreatSchools.net. (By comparison, the only elementary schools in Richmond rated 8 or better by GreatSchools.net are Fairfield Court and Munford at 10, JEB Stuart at 9, and Broad Rock, George Mason and Fox at 8).

Will IB work at Richmond elementary schools? I think so. But we will never know unless we try. Are there other approaches to teaching and learning that we might try in Richmond? Treasured reader, what do you think?

Welcome to Richmond . . .

I was at my first candidate forum last night. (It would make no sense to call it a debate because there was very little debating going on). It was a very strange format, since all the candidates on the ballot (write-ins were not invited) from all nine city districts were sitting side by side. We were given two minutes each for an opening and closing statement and two minutes (later shortened to one minute) to answer specific questions. It went 20 opening statements, 20 answers to three questions and then 20 closing statements. I don’t know how anybody in the audience kept track of all that rhetoric and even figured out who is running against whom.

I know your curiosity must be at a fever pitch, so I will tell you the three questions we were asked. First was “have you ever worked for Richmond Public Schools and spent time in the classroom, and are you in this board race for personal gain?” Second was “what is the most important problem facing Richmond Public Schools?” Third was the question that is my personal least favorite “Do you favor charter schools?” All of us candidates, on each question, were consistently pro-change, pro-child and pro-accountability. It was all very pleasant; the only candidates raising their voices seemed to be the ones running against incumbents.

Now, let’s step back a few days. I had asked a bunch of my friends and family to help me polish up my campaign message. My son, Josh, who lives and works in the DC area and edits publications in the international bio tech industry, advised me,

This is a key point – those kids will be competing for jobs against peers from Richmond, Virginia, the East Coast, the U.S., China, India, etc. That’s the 21st Century. So they better step it up. (On an aside, once you win, you should really try to foster communication, among kids/teachers with kids/teachers in other countries to work on joint research projects remotely via the Internet. Those connections could be more valuable than anything else the school could provide).

Hey, my Numero Uno son, what does this have to do with “are you in it for personal gain,” “what’s the biggest problem,” and “do you love charter schools”? Josh, you are talking about an issue that isn’t even a remote blip on the radar down in River City.

A friend, who is a Democratic pol up in Fairfax County and recently managed a successful campaign for county-wide office, came back with this advice,

Here's my thought: I have a grandchild. I'm concerned about her future. Education makes a difference. Our children will learn about science and math in elementary school. By the time they graduate from high school, the science they learned before will be outdated. New discoveries will replace old ideas. The pace of change is at lightning speed. Our schools must teach our children how to learn and inspire their curiosity and imagination. That's what will enable them to survive in the world just around the corner. Do our public schools do that now? Not on your life. I care about my granddaughter. You care about your grandchildren and your children. Getting by won't prepare our kids for the 21st century. I will fight to make our public schools relevant and effective for 21st century learning. They aren't now. Our kids deserve better. I'll work tirelessly for the kids, not for me.

Michael, you like Josh are raising a very significant issue. But you are missing the point—this is Richmond, USA. Here we are concerned with whether our schools are accredited. Here we are concerned about whether parents have enough school choices for their kids. Here we are concerned about high school graduation rates. Here we are concerned about whether our school administration is handling our tax dollars properly. We haven’t even begun to think about whether the SOL-based education that we give our children will prepare them for the 21st Century issues they will face as adults.

If I ran a campaign based on the issues you suggest, I fear that people around here would look at me dazed and confused. It would take me weeks just to figure out a way to explain it to them. Here we are down in Richmond, barely 125 miles from you guys, and we simply don’t have the same school issues. Our issues are all issues that other places have dealt with long ago.

But, it’s like the old joke:
A plane lands at Richmond International (we have an AirCanada flight now, so we truly are international). As the plane is taxiing to the terminal, the flight attendant announces—
“Welcome to Richmond. Be sure to set your watches back twenty five years.”

Does Anybody See What I See?

My political advisers tell me I write too much. Now, I ask all of you who have been reading me for years, have you even known this maven to use excess verbiage?

In any event, they tell me I can’t use any of my beautiful prose in my campaign literature. But, I created it. I can’t simply relegate it to the recycle bin. So I will entrust it to you my loyal readers.


My Vision for Richmond Public Schools

I see Richmond Public Schools providing a first-class education to all the children of our city regardless of ethnicity or economic situation.

I see the parents of Richmond choosing their neighborhood school as the first choice for their child’s education

I see all the people of Richmond joining together to make sure our children are adequately prepared for the Twenty-First Century.


Now, you may say I’m a dreamer and that this vision of Richmond Public Schools can never come to pass. But, as a great national leader once said, “If you will it, it is no dream!”

Maven Out of Race

In a move that shook Virginia politics to its very core, the James River Maven, AKA Bert Berlin, has withdrawn his name from consideration as the Virginia running mate for presumptive Democratic nominee Barak Obama. In a secret letter, the maven informed Obama that “under no circumstances” would he accept the Donkey Party’s VP nomination.

The maven’s withdrawal makes it increasingly difficult for Senator Obama to implement his Virginia strategy. Prior to the maven, former governor Mark Warner and Senator Jim Webb had withdrawn from the VP race. Sources for Governor Tim Kaine have indicated that he expects and intends to complete his term, making it unlikely that he would accept the Virginia nomination either. This leaves the field of qualified Virginians willing to serve as Obama’s running mate virtually empty.

On the bright side, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain is still looking for a Virginia running mate. Local speculation indicates that Representative Eric Cantor is high on McCain’s “Virginia Veep” list. Elephant Party regulars, concerned with Cantor’s lack of name recognition, are working behind the scenes to convince former governor and senator George Allen to consider accepting the nomination. If Allen cannot be swayed, Virginia Republicans may pressure former governor Jim Gilmore to accept the nomination. Gilmore, who is already his party’s nominee in this year’s race for the United States Senate, apparently is up to the task. At a recent party Gilmore was overheard saying, “I’m no more qualified to be Vice President than I am to be senator. Why not run for both?”

Or course, it just might be that neither presumptive nominee will be able to implement his Virginia Vice President strategy. That would leave Virginians to face the terrible truth that the Commonwealth is no longer the breeding ground for vice presidents. Rather than being the key battleground state in this fall’s election, Virginia, with its thirteen electoral votes, might be relegated in importance to the middle tier of states, ahead of Massachusetts and behind Georgia. Oh what a blow to the Old Dominion ego!

Boy, Was I Wrong

Thanks to Dan for catching me in a significant mistake. In my previous post I suggested that school board members make $1000 per week. That should have been per month. Hell, if Richmond actually paid its school board reps $50,000 per year, I would be ranting and raving about money misspent. I suspect there would also be lots more candidates.

Fear and Loathing, 2008

(With great appreciation to the late Hunter S. Thompson and his book “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72.”)

Reader, the conversion from blogger to politician is not easy. There are some important things to learn. Just this week I learned the important lesson that if you don’t want your posterior kicked real hard you’ve got to keep it covered.

This all started a few weeks back. It was that weekend in early June when the thermometer hit triple digits. The maveness and I were gathering signatures for my petitions at the farmers market at Forest Hill Park. At ten o’clock it was already over 90 degrees, the sun was beating down unbearably and this maven made the careless mistake of leaving home without it (a bottle of water, that is). I was hot; I was dizzy; I was grumpy (even grumpier than usual). A woman asked me for my opinion on charter schools.

Well, beloved reader, you know that I endorsed the Patrick Henry charter school on these very pages. What you might not know is that on that dastardly hot Saturday in the park, I knew that the Richmond school board had already approved the charter application of the Patrick Henry Initiative. I figured that the charter school issue was a fait accompli and I really wanted to talk about the 1200 or so elementary school students in the Fourth District of Richmond who would not benefit from the Patrick Henry School. So, I gave the woman a rather weak politician-like answer.

The next thing I know, a friend emailed me to say I had to address a posting on our local news blog, Hills and Heights. I went and read the thing. The woman in the park, who I now learned was named Common Sense Mom, challenged me to explain my views on charter schools and explain why I would oppose charter schools in general yet support the Patrick Henry charter. Now, if I had been acting as a politician rather than as the lawyer I was trained to be, I would have ducked this thing with some glib language and all would have been well. But no! I fired off a multi-paragraph treatise on charter schools and public schools in Richmond. (If you are interested, you can see my foolish prose on Hills and Heights as comment number 23). Well, Common Sense Mom and her friends Jennifer C. and S. Martin started kicking hard at my unprotected bottom. It has taken me almost a week to put out that fire.

So, I am learning.

Communicating as a politician is very difficult. As you know, trusted reader, I usually write a subject to death. If it takes me four typed pages to express myself, so be it. You can’t do that as a politician. You’ve got to condense everything down to about thirty seconds of writing. Believe me, for this maven to say anything in thirty seconds is darn near impossible. But the experts say that you can’t keep a voter’s attention for more than thirty seconds so you have to get your message across short and sweet. So, there’ll be no more analyzing issues for the maven. From now on it’s shoot from the hip.

If you haven’t been keeping track there are now five people running for the fourth district seat on the school board. It had been six, but two weren’t able to submit 125 valid signatures and their names were not put on the ballot. Yesterday, another candidate emerged. I assume that because his name is not on the ballot he will have to stage a write-in campaign.

Reader, this is insanity! Why would anyone invest their time, effort and money to get elected to a position that pays about one thousand dollars per week? I figure that if I am elected and spend about twenty five hours per week doing the job, I will be working at an hourly rate less than any job I’ve had since I was a junior in college.

But, nobody ever accused this maven of acting intelligently. Throughout this campaign, I’ve got to continually remind myself that I am doing this for the children.

I expect that I’ll be writing more soon to test out some new ideas. Reader, thank you for being tolerant of my spending so little of my time communicating with you.

Has Anyone Seen The Maven?

Okay, let’s get this straight. Despite the rumors circulating in the neighborhood, this maven has not been abducted by an alien spaceship. I am not hurdling through space toward a distant galaxy where (depending on which version you believe) 1- I will be tortured and vivisected and eaten for dinner or 2-I will be crowned king and will reign in bliss for eternity served by 24 beautiful alien virgins. For one thing, the aliens in question, the Krrz32ms (or something like that), are vegetarians and therefore wouldn’t eat me. For another, since they reproduce by exploding into hundreds of slime balls rather than sexually, they really don’t have any virgins.

Reader, don’t look at me like I’m lying. Right now I am looking at a mirror and I see my reflection very clearly. Doesn’t that prove that I am here and not hurdling through space? (Of course, I have been having these really weird dreams for more than a week. And, those Krrz32ms are really devious. They just might have burned my reflection in the mirror so I would think that I am here rather than in deep space.) No, it just can’t be! Borrowing words from Sam Clemens, the reports of my abduction have been greatly exaggerated.

Well, Maven, if you weren’t abducted, where have you been?

Dear reader, it’s my secret identity. Ever since he has become a candidate for the Richmond school board, I can’t get any sleep, let alone have time to think or write. It’s always about the campaign—filling out forms, writing and rewriting position papers, gathering signatures, talking to strangers (which my mother warned me never to do), twisting arms, begging for money. Hey, he even hijacked this blog to solicit political contributions! With all he has been doing, I haven’t had time or energy to ponder the events of the day. It’s not surprising that I haven’t written anything meaningful in more than a week.

Maven, we have been waiting for your views on the latest fight between the mayor and the city council over the annual budget.

hmmmmmm

Maven, are you yawning?

Trusted reader, I find another fight between Doug and the council to be rather boring. Haven’t we been through this time and again? Does it all really matter? I think I represent most of the people within the sound of my voice when I say that I wish both the mayor and the council would simply go away. Why can’t it be January so we won’t have to deal with these endless temper tantrums and power struggles? I hope that the voters of Richmond will finally show some smarts and elect people in November who are interested in governing rather than playing king of the hill.

So, Maven, what do you want to write about?

First let me eat some lunch.

A Brazen, Bold-Faced Attempt to Part You From Your Money!

Having analyzed the issue for a while, I have concluded that this maven needs to spend at least twenty thousand dollars to get elected to the Richmond school board. I was told that it costs about five thousand just to send a mailing to every household in the fourth district. If I do that twice, that alone comes to ten thousand. Then, I am told I will need professional-looking glossy two-color literature, lawn signs, bumper stickers, stationery, etcetera and etcetera. (Palm cards ~$500 per thousand; lawn signs ~$500 per hundred; bumper stickers ~$200 per hundred; lapel stickers ~$200 per thousand).

The big problem is that I don’t have twenty thousand dollars. In this day and age, they don’t pay mavens very much. So, I need to raise money. I thought of a car-wash, but since gas is so expensive nobody drives any more. I would sell cookies, but then hundreds of vengeful sprites in green or brown uniforms would picket my house. A yard sale would hardly produce enough. I even thought of calling Hillary for a loan, but I understand she is all loaned out.

With this dilemma, I consulted my guru—“The 21 Most Important Rules for Winning a Campaign” by Steve Grubs. (I don’t know if Mr. Grubs is really a guru, but the book was free.) Rule number 1 is “Send out your family and friends letter.” This is a letter that every candidate should send out to his nearest and dearest begging for their support. The theory is that if people who know you won’t support you then you may have to rethink your decision to run for office. The unwritten subtitle to rule number 1 is “How to antagonize your relatives and end life-long friendships.” But, I will have to take the risk.

Then I thought of you guys out in cyberspace. They say that Senator Obama has raised millions of dollars—one hundred at a time—from his online family. I don’t need millions, but it might just work. So I will modify Mr. Grubs’ rule by sending out this friends and family e-letter.

Beloved reader, I need your help to finance this campaign. If you’ve been reading the maven for even a short while, you know where I stand on the issues (and millions of other things that are totally irrelevant). As I explained recently, I am clearly the best qualified person to represent the children of the fourth district of Richmond on the school board. And, as you know, I am running partly in response to your outpouring of cyber-requests that I do so.

I ask that you donate $100 or more, if you can afford it, or $50 or even $25. Please make out your check to:

Bert Berlin 4 School Board

and send it to

5401 Dorchester Road
Richmond, VA 23225

The election laws of the Commonwealth require that my campaign committee keep records showing the full name, complete mailing address, occupation, and name and location of employer for every contribution received. This information will not be reported if your cumulative contribution is $100 or less for the entire campaign.

Cyber-friends, my mother thanks you, my father thanks you, (or at least they would if they were still living), my Maveness thanks you and, most of all, I thank you.

Approved by Bert Berlin 4 School Board

School Issues: The Children (Part A)

One of the girls I tutor, Squaisha, is making real progress in school (in part, I hope, because I’m her friend). Then, about two weeks ago, just a month before the SOLs, she was not in school. Her teacher told me that she was out because she hadn’t received her vaccinations. By the time she was properly vaccinated, Squaisha missed about eight days of school. SOLs are next week and I am worried about how well she will do. This is the same Squaisha who lives with her grandmother because both her parents “passed.” (I never had the nerve to ask the teacher how Squaisha lost both her parents.) Of course, if Squaisha does not pass her SOLs this year, she will become part of a statistic that shows that Richmond Public Schools does not do as good a job educating its students as do the suburban school systems. It makes this maven angry to think about it.

Let’s look at the statistics from the Richmond Public Schools website. In the school year 2005-06, the most recent year for which statistics are posted, 77% of the elementary school children and 75% of the middle school children in Richmond Public Schools receive federally subsidized meals. (Eligibility for the federal meal subsidy is generally considered an indication that a child comes from a low-income family). The percentage of students receiving subsidized meals in high school dropped to 47%, I assume because many high school students do not eat at school at all.

So, what’s the significance of so many of our children receiving subsidized meals? Last August, in an article in Style Weekly, Don Cowles of Initiatives of Change was quoted as saying that school systems with more than 50% of their students receiving subsidized meals “simply do not succeed.” Well, Richmond Public Schools has a percentage of children receiving subsidized meals considerably higher than 50% and as a system it certainly is succeeding. See Richmond Public Schools are Pretty Damn Good.

Yet, children like Squaisha are struggling. Why? In the April 2008 issue of Educational Leadership, published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Richard Rothstein says,

If you send two groups of students to equally high-quality schools, the group with greater socioeconomic disadvantage will necessarily have lower average achievement than the more fortunate group.
Why is this so? Because low-income children often have no health insurance and therefore no routine preventive medical and dental care, leading to more school absences as a result of illness. Children in low-income families are more prone to asthma, resulting in more sleeplessness, irritability, and lack of exercise. They experience lower birth weight as well as more lead poisoning and iron-deficiency anemia, each of which leads to diminished cognitive ability and more behavior problems. Their families frequently fall behind in rent and move, so children switch schools more often, losing continuity of instruction.
Poor children are, in general, not read to aloud as often or exposed to complex language and large vocabularies. Their parents have low-wage jobs and are more frequently laid off, causing family stress and more arbitrary discipline. The neighborhoods through which these children walk to school and in which they play have more crime and drugs and fewer adult role models with professional careers. Such children are more often in single-parent families and so get less adult attention. They have fewer cross-country trips, visits to museums and zoos, music or dance lessons, and organized sports leagues to develop their ambition, cultural awareness, and self-confidence.
(To access Mr. Rothstein’s article, go to the ASCD website.)

As Dr. James Cruppi stated in his report to the greater Richmond business community last November,

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the Richmond public schools are getting large numbers of children who are not ready for school, who grow up in single parent homes that don’t (or find it difficult to) reinforce education, require nutritional support, and live in a community environment that makes it very difficult to study and learn. . . . Were these problems in the counties, the schools would also have problems.

The fact is that children like Squaisha come to school carrying terrible baggage. That she is doing well (at least until the fiasco of her missing inoculations) testifies to her remarkable determination to succeed. As I pointed out last fall,

It is clearly not [the] fault [of our students] that they come to the race with a ball and chain around their ankles. I see these children every week and almost all of them are eager to learn and they are making remarkable progress despite the difficulties of their lives. They have dedicated, hard-working teachers. Their schools are run by competent, demanding principals.

Considering that so many of our children live in poverty, it is not so surprising that they do not score as well on SOLs as students with more affluent parents living in the suburbs.* Further, since parents with children approaching school age compare the SOL scores of city and suburban schools they conclude that the city schools are simply not as good.

If is very important to realize, however, that SOLs measure the progress of students, not schools. No school takes SOL exams. Only students do. If students in city schools do not perform as well as students in suburban schools, it does not necessarily mean that the city schools are not as good. As pointed out by Mr. Rothstein, above, if you send two groups of children to schools of equal quality, “the group with greater socioeconomic disadvantage will necessarily have lower average achievement” than will the group without such disadvantage.

I would love to do an experiment. I would love to exchange the student populations of a school in the city and a school in the suburbs. (We wouldn’t tell the parents about the experiment so that their behavior towards their children would not change.) Every day for an entire school year I would bus the suburban kids to the city school and the city kids to the suburban school. The school buildings, administrators and teachers would stay with the original school. I bet that at the end of that year, the suburban kids, now in the city school, would be outperforming the city kids, now in the suburban school. I would make that bet because I am convinced that the disadvantages with which many of our low-income students start school stay with them throughout their educations. Likewise, the advantages that more affluent students carry with them into kindergarten stay with them throughout their educations. Of course, we can never do that experiment and so we will never know whether I would win my bet.

Many of the children who attend Richmond Public Schools have problems that the schools are simply not equipped to deal with. To expect our schools to fix these children’s lives is unreasonable. The entire Richmond community must dedicate itself to improving the lives of our low-income children before they are enrolled in school, thus enabling them to begin their formal education with learning skills equal to their more affluent classmates. This will require us to address some of the issues raised by Dr. Cruppi in his report. Remember, Dr. Cruppi titled the section of his report dealing with RPS “Give Richmond Public Schools a ‘Product’ They Can Work With.”

Does this let RPS off the hook? Definitely not. As I stated when I announced my candidacy for the school board, we must demand excellence from our all students, teachers and administrators. We must not allow the disadvantage that some students have when they enroll in RPS to become an excuse. We need to set high expectations for all our children and then help them to meet these expectations. We may need to consider such options as city funded pre-kindergarten for all children, adding time to our school day for additional learning, offering “signing bonuses” to attract high quality teachers to the schools where our low-income students are concentrated.

All of these options will be costly. However, our children have only one life. Can we deprive them of the quality education that they need because it is too expensive? All of us in the Richmond community must commit ourselves to making sure that all of our children will succeed.

*I realise that many children from low-income backgrounds enter school with all the learning skills they need and achieve at a level equal to more affluent children. The comments in the Cruppi report and the observations by Mr. Rothstein apply to low-income children in general.

School Issues: The Players*

The dispute over whether the Richmond School Board should approve the establishment of a public charter school in the old Patrick Henry building has revealed the schism that exists among the players in the Richmond Public School Game. According to today’s TD, Richmond set to vote on charter school, the proposal is supported by

A very vocal, active group that includes, but isn't limited to, parents of school-age children.”Patrick Henry Charter School Now" signs are prevalent in the areas surrounding the school, but they also can be spotted throughout the city.

It is opposed by

the state's chapter of the NAACP … joining forces with representatives from the Richmond Council of PTAs and the Richmond Education Association.

So, what is it about the Patrick Henry Initiative (PHI) that has Richmond residents so vehemently divided?

I won’t waste your time describing the charter school proposal. It is adequately described in the TD article today and strongly advocated for in yesterday’s op-ed by PHI head Richard Day. (I have given up trying to find an online copy of that piece). Further, I expressed my views on the initiative last month. Patrick Henry Charter School? What is crucial is that the PHI has made a whole lot of people in Richmond fighting mad (or, perhaps, revealed that they are already mad). On this issue, some people have “drawn their line in the sand” and consider it the “mother of all battles.” Why?

Of the many distinct communities in the city, the two most relevant to this school dispute are the students currently enrolled in our schools (and their parents and advocates) and the pre-school-age children of middle class parents who are not yet enrolled in any school. The children currently in our schools are overwhelmingly African American and about 70% of them receive federally-subsidized lunches in RPS (a clear indication that their parents or guardians have economic difficulties). The not-yet-enrolled children are mostly, but not exclusively, white and their parents are doing well enough economically to have other options than RPS for their education (private schools, home-schooling, moving out of the city).

A basic rule of the Richmond School Game is that a significant portion of the parents in our city do not have confidence that RPS can give their children the excellent education they need to succeed in life. The difference between the two groups is that most of the parents or guardians of the children currently enrolled in our schools have no viable option other than RPS, while the middle-class parents whose children are approaching school age are not “stuck” with RPS.

So, what do the parents, guardians and supporters of our current school population want? They want all of our city schools to provide a first-class education to their students. They want a school system that is racially, ethnically and economically integrated. (They perceive RPS now as racially and economically segregated.) They fear that any initiative or RPS policy that permits parents to choose which schools in the city their children attend will further segregate our schools and will decrease the quality of the education received in the remainder of the schools. They oppose the RPS “open enrollment” policy because they believe it concentrates middle-class, mostly white, children in only three or four of our elementary schools, while leaving the remainder of the schools predominantly black and poor. They think the inevitable result will be that the children not in the favored schools will receive an inferior education. Similarly, they oppose charter schools because they believe they will further segregate the children in our city to the detriment of those students for whom the charter school is not a viable option.

And, the middle-class parents of children approaching their fifth birthday, what do they want? (I will not talk of the parents who have already decided to opt out of RPS when their kids reach school age. We can do nothing to change their minds.) They want as much school choice as possible. For whatever reasons (I have written about this before) they have no confidence in their neighborhood school to provide their children with a quality education. They love Richmond and want to remain in the city. They favor the “open enrollment” policy because it allows them to place their children in Munford or Fox or Fisher or Holton elementary schools, which they see as the only schools that provide a top quality education. They also favor the charter school proposal because they believe it will give them another option for their children. (Of course there is no evidence that the Patrick Henry School, if approved, will actually give students a better education than the neighborhood school. But these parents will support anything they think will give them another option for their children).

People on both sides of the PHI issue are getting frustrated. With frustration comes anger. With anger comes some really inflammatory statements by people on both sides. These statements just raise the anger levels. I see people who I have great respect for saying things that they will probably regret when this whole Patrick Henry thing is over.

Each of us needs to take a couple of deep breaths and let our anger go. We need to realize that all the children in Richmond are in the same boat. We also need to realize that the Richmond School Game is not a zero-sum game. It is not true that if my child gains that your child necessarily loses. We can play this as a win-win game in which all the children in Richmond prosper. We must understand that the people on the other side are not evil. Parents and guardians on both teams in the game only want what is best for their children. We must stop demonizing each other. The futures of all our children are too precious for us to be engaged in a fratricidal war that will harm all of them.

So, everybody “COOL IT!” Let’s deal with these issues in an adult and reasonable manner. The pie is big enough for all our children to get their slice.

* Click here to see the first posting in this series.

Why I am Running for the School Board

Is the Press the Enemy?

In his book “Hardball” (wouldn’t that make a great name for a TV talk show?) CNN commentator Chris Matthews gives advice to politicians. He titles one chapter in the book “The Press is the Enemy.” In it he explains that politicians must be wary of the press because their objectives are not the same. The objectives of politicians are to get elected (or reelected) and to implement their policies. The objective of the press, however, is to publish a good story. The press is not concerned with whether politicians are elected or implement their policies unless, of course, it makes a good story. Therefore, the politician can never trust the press.

We in River City have seen recently how cautious public figures need to be in dealing with the press. Back in March, City Council member Ellen Robertson was reported in Style Weekly as accusing Richmond Chief Administrator Sheila Hill-Christian of being a criminal. The story caused Mayor Doug to strap on his six-guns and turned out to be embarrassing for Ms. Robertson, Ms Hill-Christian and the mayor. But it was a great story. Also, a few weeks later, Style Weekly highlighted a disagreement between school board member Kim Bridges and PTA council president Tichi Pinkney-Epps. It also made a great story, but both Ms. Bridges and Ms. Pinkney-Epps came out of the whole thing pretty bruised up.

Devoted reader, you may also remember that in January this maven accused the broadcast media of managing the news in such a way as to bolster the campaigns of Senators Clinton and Obama and downplay the campaigns of the other candidates. Choosing the President: It’s the Media, Dummy.

I was thinking about these things when I looked at today’s Times-Dispatch. As I expected the main article was about Mayor Wilder’s decision not to run for re-election. Wilder will not run for re-election. Right in the second paragraph was this statement,

Corporate lawyer Robert J. Grey Jr. is being mentioned as a likely candidate to run as heir to Wilder's vision of a strong mayor to lead city government.

I’m sorry! I have been watching the mayoral race from my observation post high above the mighty James River and I haven’t heard anything about Robert Grey. I’ve heard about Paul and Dwight and Jackie (who was in and out of the race without even splashing) and there are a few interesting other candidates. I also expect that City Council President Bill will be jumping in the pool soon. But Robert? Where did Robert come from? And what does “being mentioned as a likely candidate” mean? Can it be that our beloved metropolitan daily is the one doing the mentioning? Would the TD manage the news to encourage the candidacy of Mr. Grey?

And… Three weeks ago George Braxton announced that he was not running for reelection to the school board and on the very same day my secret identity announced he was running for the vacant seat. (I will not suggest that the timing was a coincidence). I sent an electronic copy of my announcement to all the local news outlets including the Richmond Free Press. The next issue of the Free Press reported Mr. Braxton’s announcement and said that no candidate had announced for Mr. Braxton’s seat. It also said that sources suggest that a former member of the school board would make a good replacement for George. Now, I cannot prove that the Free Press actually received my announcement before it reported that there was no announced candidate for the seat. But, just maybe, it was managing the news in suggesting its own candidate for the school board vacancy.

So, is the press the enemy, as Chris Matthews suggests? Trusted reader, I leave it to you to decide.

The Next Superintendent

Saturday, will be the second of four meetings the school board is holding to get citizen input on the search for our next Superintendent of Schools. So, I’ve been thinking about the kind of person we need to lead Richmond Public Schools. I think I know what I would like to see in a Super-superintendent. In the real world, however, we may have to settle for less.

As a prologue—

We have to think of Richmond Public Schools as a manufacturing business. At one end we take in young minds ready to learn; at the other end we produce young men and women who are prepared to deal with their life goals, whether in college, in the business world or in the military. In thinking of RPS as a business we need to look at the taxpayers of Richmond and the Commonwealth as the shareholders. These shareholders invest their tax dollars and realize their “profits” in the satisfaction that they have prepared a future generation to take up the baton. Like all businesses, the workers of RPS, from the superintendent to support staff in each school, are accountable to the shareholders for their performance. The business analogy must take into account the uniqueness of the “product” that RPS is producing. In addition to the taxpayer-shareholders our school system must also be accountable to the children, whose precious lives we have in our care.

Therefore, in no particular order—

Our next superintendent must be a leader. The superintendent needs the ability to get the myriad employees of RPS to follow her agenda. She has to be the motivator that gets everyone to work at their full potential. Leadership ability should be demonstrated by success in some leadership position either in academics, business or the military.

Our next superintendent must understand organizations. RPS is often accused of having too much bureaucracy. The superintendent needs to be able to analyze the RPS organization and eliminate those positions that are unnecessary in giving our children an excellent education.

Our next superintendent must be committed to accountability. The attitude of employees in any institution is set at the top. The superintendent must not only be honest himself, but also convey to everybody who works for RPS that their job is a public trust. He must make it clear that he will not tolerate any employee who uses taxpayer money improperly.

Our next superintendent must understand the Richmond problem. A significant number of parents in the City of Richmond have indicated their lack of confidence in RPS by leaving the city to find a better educational opportunity for their children elsewhere. The superintendent must be able to deal with this problem first by making RPS a superior school system and second by convincing parents that their children will thrive here.

Our next superintendent must understand our school population. Seventy percent of RPS students come from families with economic difficulties. The superintendent must understand the challenges that these children face in obtaining their education and must have a plan for how to help them reach their full potential.

Our next superintendent must have a vision for RPS. She must be able to articulate her vision of where she expects RPS to be going in the next two years, the next five years and the next ten years. She must be able to convince the taxpayers that their investment in RPS will pay off in class after class of productive young citizens. She must show us the route to greatness.

Our next superintendent must be a unifier. Making RPS into a world-class educational system requires the participation of teachers, parents, civic and faith groups and the business and academic communities. The superintendent must be able to unite these various stakeholders in a common purpose—the education of our children. He must also be able to work productively with the school board, the city council and our next mayor.

Mayor Wilder

Mayor Wilder has finally seen the pink slip I sent him1 and has announced that he will give up City Hall at the end of his term. On the Times-Dispatch website there were tons of emails from readers either condemning Mr. Wilder or praising him. This maven will not join the crowds.

I praise Mr. Wilder for his decision. I know it wasn’t easy for him. I also praise Mr. Wilder for his accomplishments while mayor. I wish him the best in his remaining months as our chief executive. I also wish him the best in his re-retirement.

Let’s get on with picking his successor.

Pick Me! Pick Me!

Well, treasured reader, I found out that I will have an opponent in my school board race. So it is time to explain why the voters of the fourth district should vote for me rather than “the other guy.”

1- I have life experience. I have raised three children, all of whom are products of public schools. I’m not sure that aging necessarily brings wisdom, but I’ve had lots of years to learn.

2- I am deeply committed to public education. It is the great equalizer. It is the one institution in our country that is designed to assure that all of our young people have an equal chance to see their life goals fulfilled.

3- I have two granddaughters who live in Richmond and who will be students in Richmond Public Schools. I thus have a personal stake in assuring that RPS becomes a world-class school system.

4- I have spent lots of time in Richmond’s schools. I have worked with principals and teachers and students and I understand the issues they deal with every day.

5- I spent most of my career working for the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO). The concept of accountability to the taxpayers has become part of my being. I will instill a sense of accountability in all RPS officers and employees.

6- I’m retired. This will enable me to devote most of my time to RPS. If you elect me, you will be getting a real bargain.

7- My faith has given me a strong commitment to social justice. I see providing a quality education to all our children as something worth fighting for.

8- I am a uniter. I will work to get all the stakeholders in RPS—teachers, parents, civic and faith groups, the business and academic communities—to understand tha