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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The Battle of Shockoe

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richmond Public Schools Budget: You Figure It Out

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

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

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

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

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

State Law:

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

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

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

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

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

*                      *                      *.

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

Section 22.1-93 provides:

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

Section 22.1-94 states:

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

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

In sum, these provisions require:

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

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

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

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

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

City Charter:

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

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

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

Trustees shall take office July 1 following their election.

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

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

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

Section 6.03 states:

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

Section 6.05 provides:

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

Section 6.09 provides:

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

 Section 6.11 states:

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

And, section 6.14 provides:

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

In sum, these provisions of the city charter provide:

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

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

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

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

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

Side by side:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

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.

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.

An Open Letter to Doug and Jackie and Paul and Bill and . . .

I hear a lot of talk about the mayoral election this fall. The announced candidates Paul Goldman and Jackie Jackson tell us how bad things are and try to convince us they each are the one we should trust to fix them. The unannounced candidates Bill Pantele and Bruce Tyler also tell us how bad things are going under our beloved Doug Wilder, and I assume that as soon as they become candidates they will try to convince us that each is the only one that can fix things. The other unannounced candidate, Mayor Wilder, is hoping that he will run for reelection against at least four or five opponents who will split up the anti-Doug vote so that winning four more years will be a snap.

These candidates talk about regionalism and economic growth and master plans and efficiency in government and all those other standard issues that they think the citizens of Richmond are interested in. However, none of them will talk about the key issue that threatens the future of our city. Nobody wants to discuss bad news, especially when they can’t think of a solution. So, for all you once and future candidates. . .

Dear Candidate:

The City of Richmond, Commonwealth of Virginia, is suffering from a serious, perhaps fatal, illness. The symptoms of the disease are apparent from looking at the demographics of our neighborhoods. We have tons of elders who have raised their children in Richmond, have paid off their mortgages, have lived in the same houses for thirty or more years and will continue to live in those houses until they are too feeble to take care of themselves. We also have lots of young couples living in their first homes and enjoying the amenities of our fair city who are either childless or have children younger than school age. Our city also has a large group of people who live at or just above the poverty level and are struggling to feed and clothe their children and pay the rent. What Richmond does not have is a significant middle class. Our former middle class now lives in Chesterfield or Henrico or Hanover or places beyond.

The Richmond “middle class hemorrhaging disease” starts affecting couples when their oldest child turns four years old. They realize that they must start thinking about their child’s education. Being convinced that their precious young ones cannot get a quality education in their neighborhood public school, these middle class 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 number of school-age kids I see running around my neighborhood, I’m convinced that option 4 is the most popular one. Our middle class is bleeding to the suburbs. The only parents who enroll their children in most of Richmond’s public schools are those who cannot afford the other options.

The numbers are clear. In the school year 1999-2000, twenty seven thousand children were enrolled in Richmond Public Schools. Every year since then enrollment has gone down. For the current school year, enrollment is about twenty two thousand five hundred students and that number is expected to go down next year. We’re talking about a reduction of over sixteen percent in only eight years. I am sure that there has not been a huge drop in the birth rate of city residents. I can only conclude that families with children are leaving Richmond if they can.

You also need to look at some other numbers. For the most recent years for which Richmond Public Schools’ website gives statistics, eighty eight per cent of the children enrolled are classified as “black” and seven percent are classified as “white.” (I apologize for talking about race. I know that in Richmond “polite” people don’t talk about such things.) Moreover, of our school population more than seventy percent are receiving subsidized lunches at school. If this were the 1960s, I might be tempted to describe Richmond Public Schools as racially and economically segregated. However, this is the twenty first century, so we don’t use such nasty words as segregation.

So, candidate, if you are elected, what do you intend to do to stop the bleeding? I know that under the laws of the Commonwealth it is the School Board, not the mayor, that is responsible for running the public schools. So, you might tell me that the quality and perceived quality of our schools is not an issue you need to be concerned with. However, we are not electing you merely to be chief executive officer of our city government. We are electing you to be our top community leader. And as leader of our community you cannot ignore the plight of our children. You cannot ignore the steady exodus of our middle class. You need to work with the Superintendent of Schools and the School Board and the City Council and civic, religious and business leaders to make Richmond Public Schools a world-class school system.

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?

Our current mayor and many members of our City Council believe that the best way to improve our schools is to restrict the amount of money that the city pays for schools. They apparently think that if the School Board and the school administration have to live on reduced rations the result will be a slimmer, more efficient school system. I don’t see them concerned with the quality of the education we provide our children. They fail to see that money that goes to our public schools is not money spent but an investment in our children’s future. Our children cannot afford a continuance of this “starve them to help them” attitude.

So, Madam or Mister Candidate, if we elect you as our next mayor, what will you do to keep and win back some of our exiled middle class? What will you do to guarantee that all the children in Richmond receive a world-class education? Tell me how you intend to turn Richmond Public Schools into a great school system. Without great schools, Richmond can never be a great city.

Maven

Doug’s Replacement

For those of you weren’t reading yesterday, I must inform you that I have fired Doug Wilder as our city’s mayor. Of course, in our republican form of government, my decision to terminate Doug has to be confirmed by the voters of Richmond in an election in November. And, although Doug has not declared himself a candidate for reelection, this maven is sure that he won’t take my personnel action lying down. So, we citizens of Richmond must act to ensure that he actually vacates City Hall next January.

First, and most important, we must agree on Doug’s replacement. I am convinced that unless a single candidate emerges that we citizens can agree on, Doug’s contract will end up being extended. Already, blogger (and Doug’s former “Sancho Panza”) Paul Goldman has declared his candidacy. I am sure that other citizens will soon offer themselves as the “change” candidate to replace Doug. Unfortunately, a field of candidates as big as Doug faced in 2004 will guarantee his reelection. Those who truly care about the future of this city must be willing to suppress their own ambition and step aside for the one candidate that can actually be elected. But who is that candidate?

I am going to break a Richmond taboo and talk about race. Since I have been in Richmond, I have been repeatedly told that there is no racial “issue” in Richmond. Lots of people have told me that what I perceive as a racial divide in the city is really a split on economic lines. Being forever in the category of Richmond newcomer because I spent more than thirty five years of my life in Fairfax County, I am willing to defer to the views of those who are Richmond natives. However, I still must talk about race because Doug Wilder is a politician of race.

In his 1985 campaign to become the Commonwealth’s Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Wilder frequently used race to deflect criticism leveled against him. No matter what issue his opponent raised against him, Mr. Wilder’s standard response was that he was being singled out for criticism only because he was black. By the end of the campaign he had convinced many voters that if they voted for his opponent they would be perceived as racists.

In speaking before the Richmond Crusade for Voters in December, Mr. Wilder demonstrated that he is still able and willing to use race as an issue to unify and inspire his core supporters. At that meeting, Doug criticized the City Council, a majority of whose members are white, of “turning back the clock” by only having one black man with a vote on a council committee. (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-12-19-0188.html)

This city does not need a political campaign in which race becomes a divisive issue. Yet, I fear that if the candidate against him this fall is white, Doug Wilder will make race a major issue. We have too many critical issues facing Richmond to allow ourselves to get bogged down in such a campaign. Therefore, I reluctantly conclude that the candidate to oppose Doug in the fall should be an African American. I say “reluctantly” because we as a community must relegate race to merely a historic issue. We must become a city in which Dr. King’s dream of a color-blind society becomes reality. I would love to see a campaign for mayor in which a candidate’s skin color is not even mentioned. But, I don’t think this is that year.

So, what do we need in the way of a successor to Doug? Most important, we need a uniter. Most of the damage that Doug Wilder has done in this city is a result of his “divide and conquer” style of politics. So Doug’s replacement must be someone with an ability to bring people together. S/he must be a person who sees fixing Richmond as requiring the cooperation of all the citizens of our fair city. S/he must have the word “compromise” in his/her vocabulary.

We need a person who has proven that s/he is a leader either in the public or private sector. A person’s success in managing a public or private entity would be evidence of such ability. The next mayor must be able to choose the right people to manage the city’s various agencies and must be able to step aside and let that person do his/her job. Doug’s replacement must be able to conduct the city orchestra but should not try to be a virtuoso on every instrument.

The next mayor must have a vision of where this city should be going. S/he must be able to distinguish between what our community needs and what would be nice if we had unlimited resources. Doug’s successor must understand that our number one need is a great school system and that resources applied to Richmond Public Schools are not expenditures but investments in our future. S/he needs to know that the perceived “inadequacy” of Richmond Public Schools is the number one cause of the city’s continuous hemorrhaging of its middle class to the suburbs.

We need a mayor that is not only honest, but can instill a sense of accountability in all city employees. Public servants must be taught that their job is essential to the public good. They need to realize that the money they spend (including their salaries) belongs to the taxpayers and they must be committed to using it properly.

Our mayor must be committed to the rule of law. S/he must not be a person who ignores the law when s/he finds it inconvenient or standing in the way of something s/he wants to do. Publicly displaying the attitude that s/he is above the law is likely to produce contempt for the law among our citizens.

So now, you’re probably asking, “Maven, who is the person that satisfies all your criteria?”

Well, dear reader, here is where I need a little help. I have only been in Richmond for a short time. I only know what I read in the TD and I just don’t know the names of all the players in our fair city. I am asking that you and other readers come forward with the names of people you think would make a good mayor. I urge you to think both within and outside the box. I have come up with a few names. I don’t know if any of them are available or even would want to be mayor of Richmond. But the time is drawing short and we must choose Doug’s successor before it is too late.

My short and long list (in no particular order):

Former Commonwealth’s Attorney David Hicks
Sheriff C.T. Woody
Police Chief Rodney Monroe
City Council Vice President Delores McQuinn
City Council Member Ellen Robertson
School Board Chair George Braxton
PTA President Tichi Pinckney-Epps
Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Herring

Preparing Doug’s Pink Slip

In 2004, when we the citizens of this fair city hired Doug Wilder to be our mayor we made a mistake. Of course we read his resume thoroughly, we interviewed him many times, and we checked his references. We honestly believed that he was the person to steer our city in the right direction. After more than three years on the job, however, it has become clear that Doug Wilder simply is not the mayor we thought he would be.

When we hired Doug, we thought we were filling the mayoral vacancy with a man who would lead our fair city by working in cooperation with the other parts of our government. Unfortunately, the past three years have demonstrated that Doug just can’t get along with others. Doug’s insistence that things in the city must be done his way has involved him in endless disputes with the City Council and its members, the School Board and its members, the Superintendent of Schools, the City Assessor and the City Auditor. Some of these disputes were merely inconveniences; others have resulted in this city being the subject of national ridicule and scorn.

Doug has had the same difficulty getting along with people and organizations outside the city government. He has antagonized leaders in surrounding jurisdictions by his attitude. He has forced his will on the Richmond Performing Arts Foundation. His insistence that things be done his way led to the Atlanta Braves moving their AAA baseball team out of Richmond.

Partly because of his attitude, Doug has not provided the city with the leadership we thought he would. By engaging in extended turf battles with the City Council and School Board, some of which have resulted in law suits, he has caused the leadership in the city to be pulling in different directions. Instead of seeking agreement with members of the City Council and School Board, and with officials who are not in his chain of command at City Hall, he has insisted that they must submit to his will. Naturally they have resented his patronizing attitude and have resisted doing as he demanded. The result has often been stalemate rather than progress for the city.

Aside from his lack of leadership and uncooperative attitude, Doug has failed to carry out his pledge to eliminate corruption and mismanagement in city government. Audits by the City Auditor reveal that large amounts of public money are still being wasted and stolen. Further last week’s report in the Richmond Times-Dispatch shows that Richmond spends more per resident on administrative overhead each year then do all but a few other jurisdictions in Virginia. Not surprisingly, our residents bear the tenth highest burden in taxes and fees in the entire Commonwealth, considerably higher than that paid by residents in all the surrounding jurisdictions. (See my post “Why do we pay more in Richmond?”-- http://jamesrivermaven.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-we-pay-more-in-richmond.html )

When confronted with this information, City CFO Harry Black, who speaks for Doug on matters of money stated, “A lot of this stuff we inherited.” This would be an adequate defense if this were 2005 or 2006. However, after more than three years on the job, it is no longer acceptable to blame things on your predecessors.

Doug himself hints that it may take more than the time remaining in his current contract to finish his financial cleanup. As he stated at his Tuesday press conference,

“I want to tighten up on people and on processes. That takes time. A lot of it has to do with directors. A lot of it has to do with people in charge.”

The mayor didn’t explain why he has not done any of this tightening in the three years since he started his job. He also did not explain why he has been unable to find the right “people in charge” to fix the city’s finances between 2005 and 2008. He seemed to hint, however, that he may need to have his contract extended to get the job done.

Although Doug is lacking in the areas of leadership and ability to work with others, and he has failed to clean up city finances as he promised, we must recognize his accomplishments. The crime rate has gone down since Doug started the job. Doug’s role in reducing the crime rate was to choose an exemplary police chief (Rodney Monroe), give him public support, make sure the police department was adequately funded, and then step aside and let Chief Monroe do his job. It is unfortunate that Doug did not learn from this experience and apply this approach in other city operations.

For the reasons explained above, the City of Richmond cannot afford to retain Doug Wilder as its mayor. Four more years of Doug’s lack of leadership and inability to work with others could be disastrous for the city and its residents. There are far too many critical issues facing the city in the upcoming year. Based on his performance until now, it is clear Doug is not up to handling them. We need to replace Doug with a person who can get the job done.