These votes came after months of discussion, both official and unofficial, on the elections issue, and City residents and Council members were given three different opportunities to have their voices heard at the meeting due to the presence of three related but different resolutions regarding the election date.

Most of the citizens speaking at the meeting came out against repealing City Council’s decision last winter to move the elections to November. Dan Maller, a former member of City Council, issued a stark warning against “government by referendum.” Other residents spoke of the fiscal aspect of the decision, which would reportedly save the City thousands of dollars per election, while others pointed out that only a small “political elite” would benefit from the switch back to May. Is this really representative of how the people of Falls Church feel about May elections vs. November ones? Maybe, maybe not. That’s what we’ll find out in November 2011.

The City Council members also engaged in a lively debate themselves. Robin Gardner spoke as the main voice of opposition to the referendum, repeating the usual arguments about fiscal responsibility, voter enfranchisement, and the Department of Justice. She continued to worry about how the DoJ would view reverting to May elections just months after it approved the move to November. “Not that May is illegal,” Gardner noted, “but by moving from a November higher turnout to a May lower turnout we demonstrate that we like lower voting at the poll.”

She asked whether City Council was voting to spite the previous Council, wondering “is it [my] personality?” and noting that the “central issue needs to be policy . . . why is November a bad time to vote? Why is May better?”

We’ve heard those points before (admittedly, asking whether a decision on election dates is a referendum on her own personality is a novel approach). But Gardner was right when she noted that we have to do a better job about voter outreach. That’s true no matter what month elections are held in.

David Snyder responded to Maller and others who warned about “government by referendum” by noting “we’re not talking here about an average action by City Council … the wisdom of the people ought to be brought to bear on this.”  “Government by referendum” would be a fair warning if we were voting to hold a referendum on every action the City Council ever took. But there’s absolutely no reason individual matters of great importance such as when elections are held shouldn’t be submitted to a vote of the people.

Summing up the majority position on the Council, Snyder said it would be “illogical and inappropriate to support an election also in November along with the referendum.” I agree. The fact that the referendum is non-binding remains troubling, but it seems everyone gets what they want, even if not everyone on City Council voted for the referendum. Robin Garnder and those on the pro-November side get a City vote on the issue in, of all months, November! Nader Baroukh and the pro-May side get the issue put to a vote of the people, which is what they’ve been asking for practically since the election date switch was first proposed.

You’d think no one loses. But apparently Mike Gardner and Nick Benton don’t see it that way over at the News-Press. They’ve already come out swinging against the referendum decision in opinion columns posted earlier today on the FCNP website. Benton and Gardner are afraid that the people won’t vote their way in the referendum next November. I say to that: who’s the elitist now?

Dave Snyder brought up the referendum idea officially for the first time since the May elections at the September 20th City Council Work Session.

Monday’s City Council Work Session saw major progress made in the fight to hold a referendum on whether to go through with the previous Council’s unilateral changing of the City election date to November. The Falls Church News-Press reports that the Council members decided to “place a resolution on next week’s formal agenda calling for a referendum on the date of the election.”

Robin Gardner, the only member present at the meeting to have originally voted in favor of the ordinance moving the election date (Lawrence Webb was absent), strongly opposed the referendum decision, noting that the decision could disenfranchise minority voters and cause problems with the Department of Justice, which had to approve the previous change to November under the Voting Rights Act.

She rightly spoke of the fact that elections information in languages such as Spanish and Vietnamese is not widely distributed (if at all) in Falls Church in May. Ms. Gardner makes a good point. We have an obligation as a community to make sure that all of our residents are aware of the dates of local elections and that they can research the issues and positions involved if they choose to do so.

I have two questions. First, why is Ms. Gardner fighting the referendum proposal by assuming that it will lead to a reversal of the election date change? Second, will our city’s lack of non-English voter information change substantially simply by moving the election date to November? I don’t think so, particularly considering these elections would be held on odd-numbered years, where only half of the time would there be any non-local election being held simultaneously. If we want to enfranchise minorities, how about we do it by making an effort to publish more voter information in other languages and conduct more voter outreach to our City’s minority communities? I can assure you that will do much more for Falls Church’s supposedly-disenfranchised minority communities than moving elections to November ever could.

But this article is not about minority outreach. It is about the referendum which the residents of Falls Church City will almost undoubtedly be faced with by the end of next Monday’s City Council meeting. According to Ms. Gardner, two referendums are being brought up at next week’s meeting. One would place the referendum in November of 2011, over a year from now, while the other would mandate that it be held by next April. Vice Mayor Dave Snyder and Mayor Nader Baroukh will almost undoubtedly vote for the April option. Robin Gardner will likely go for November, while Ira Kaylin, Johannah Barry, and Ron Peppe have stated that they prefer a November referendum, according to the Falls Church Times. So the decision will most likely be for a November referendum.

Whichever resolution is chosen, democracy is democracy, and no other state or federal elections will be going on that November, so it normally wouldn’t matter much. But according to proponents of November elections, they will be held starting in 2011 with or without the charter being changed to reflect the change to November. And holding an election in November and then, possibly, switching back to May just two years later is what’s going to cause confusion, not continuing to hold them in May.

Either way, this is a positive step for democracy in Falls Church. The citizens of Falls Church should be the ones deciding when they elect their City Council and School Board members, not the City Council.

Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School, which apparently is not being torn down.

Many politically-minded Falls Church residents who opened up the Falls Church Times Monday were shocked to hear that, apparently, the City was considering selling the land George Mason High School and Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School currently sit on and demolishing the two buildings. Perhaps most surprising was the idea that the City would demolish the Middle School, a building that opened just five years ago that we have not yet finished paying for.

Now, we’ve learned that’s not the case. What originally may have seemed to be well-informed facts that George Southern was giving his opinion on are now known to be conjecture. Speaking on Tuesday evening at the meeting of the Falls Church City Council, School Board Chairwoman Joan Wodiska denied that the City was considering razing MEH, saying the Times article contained a “number of inaccuracies.”

What these inaccuracies were beyond the suggestion that the City is seriously considering tearing down MEH was unclear, however. So with the folks who tend to comment on things like this seemingly coming down on opposing sides of either “George was wrong to present the article as fact” or “George was right to say what he felt in an opinion column,” I think it’s important that we begin to separate the fact of this story from the fiction.

Fact: The City Council and School Board are seriously considering purchasing the housing development off of Hillwood Avenue known as Hillwood Square.

Fact: The City is seriously considering tearing down at least one city school (Ms. Wodiska mentioned Thomas Jefferson Elementary) and moving it to this new location.

Fact: Any sale of the school property near West Falls Church to developers could be immensely profitable for the City, with said profits likely going to pay off the construction of the new school.

Fiction: George got his information from any “leaker” within the City Council or the School Board. (If this were the case, George would be lying when he denies this and his source’s statements about tearing down MEH would be incongruent with Ms. Wodiska’s denial thereof.)

Since that’s been settled, let’s look at what this development means for the City. The Council has met in a closed session to discuss negotiations to purchase Hillwood Square twice in two weeks. That’s not debatable, and it means that the City is in at least the planning stages of making such an offering. And that’s a good thing.

I don’t pretend to know a thing about land valuation, but it seems the City is in a position to make much more than they will spend on the Hillwood Square property by selling the current West Falls Church property. We’ll need a new high school soon thanks to rising enrollment and building issues, and selling the current GMHS property would bring more money to the Fairfax County tax rolls and likely encourage further economic activity inside Falls Church City itself.

It’s a win-win situation for all of us to move GMHS and MEH to the Hillwood Square property. Not so much to move Thomas Jefferson, the school Ms. Wodiska mentioned in her statements on the closed session. What’s the point of that? The TJ location has room for building expansion or for a larger, newer structure. But what it doesn’t have is the resale potential of the West Falls Church GMHS campus.

But there is one thing which keeps coming up in my mind: we can’t afford to just overlook MEH as too new to sell. We’ll need a new high school soon, and once we tell a developer looking to develop the West Falls Church property that they’ve got to build whatever they’re building around a school that will sit nicely in the middle of their property, we’ve lost a pretty large sum of money (if anyone will even want to take us up on the offer). So is not looking at tearing down MEH in these discussions, per Ms. Wodiska’s statement, a matter of practicality? Or will it just look too bad to tear down a 5 year old school, no matter the benefits?

Since July, City Council has terminated GEORGE, killed the Wilden, and slashed $2 million in affordable housing funds.

Earlier this week, the Falls Church City Council voted 3-2 to eliminate $2 million in affordable housing funds from the 2011 Capital Improvements Fund. Regardless of whether you think this is a good idea (with the demise of the Wilden project, was the money actually going to be used for anything in 2011?), the vote raises some interesting questions about the Council and the path on which they are taking our City.

First, why was this vote was taken when only five members of the Council were present and voting? Affordable housing is one of Falls Church’s most controversial local issues. The moving of the $2 million out of the Capital Improvements Fund was, to my knowledge, not a particularly pressing issue, or at least not so pressing that the issue could not be brought up in two weeks’ time as suggested by Don Brobst of the Falls Church Housing Commission and Councilwoman Robin Gardner. At that time, hopefully all seven Council members would have been present and the FCHC would have had a full opportunity to weigh in on the issue. Is that too much to ask in a City that should value the democratic process and citizen input?

Some have spoken of the removal of the affordable housing funds as a declaration of where the new Council “majority” stands. But three out of seven members is not a majority of the Council. Should every vote have to wait until all Council members are present to be taken? Obviously that is impractical. But on issues as important and divisive as affordable housing when there is no urgent need to have a decision immediately, the will of the majority should be respected.

The second question I have is this: the Council’s main “successes” since its new members were sworn in in July have consisted of terminating the GEORGE program, bringing an end to the Wilden, and now this. But does City Council actually have a plan for the future of Falls Church? What proactive steps are the Council taking to invest in or community’s future success?

I ate at Mad Fox Brewery for the first time this evening (yeah, I know, I’m late to the party). The food, a bacon burger, was wonderful. And the place was full of patrons enjoying what our Little City has to offer. Mad Fox’s success is a testament to the limitless possibilities we have here in Falls Church. But those possibilities can come about only when we actively pursue them. Just saying “no” to everything isn’t going to bring new development to Falls Church. Cutting mixed-use projects isn’t going to magically attract all-commercial development. We have to have a plan. We have to take the initiative.

Find something else to do with the lots the Wilden/McKeever project was supposed to be built on. Make our City more attractive for businesses to relocate to and invest in and for people from across the region to come to and spend money in (predatory towing, anyone?). For the last three months, our City Council has been reactive. To a certain degree, that’s a good thing. But we need to be proactive too. That’s where our success will come from.

Yesterday, kids all across Falls Church woke up early, climbed onto school buses, started up their cars, or hopped onto their bicycles and started down the path of a new journey that will last them until next June – a new year of school. Some were just starting their first year in the Falls Church City school system. For others, it was their last first day ever at a City school. For the vast majority of students, though, it was somewhere in between.

I am a member of that last group of students. A year from now, I’ll be starting my final year at George Mason High School. The cycle will continue. A new batch of kindergarteners will walk gingerly through the doors of Mount Daniel, many of whom will graduate from George Mason 13 years later.

As a City that prides itself on our schools and our commitment to our children, we have to make sure that, in 2023, those graduating from our school system will be walking away with an even better education than my classmates at GM will next year and in the upcoming years. Teachers and all the other faculty at all our schools here in Falls Church are dedicated. They make a commitment to our students. And they do a really, really good job of it. We have to continue to make the same commitment to them and to our kids, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

It makes sense from every perspective. My family, like many others, moved here in large part thanks to the quality of the school system. Our schools are what keep property values here in the City above those in neighboring jurisdictions. Schools are what our City was founded on and they remain a central part of what makes Falls Church Falls Church.

We’re going through some tough economic times right now. Falls Church may have to trim spending even more next year thanks in part to the latest decision in the “Water Wars” saga. But we have to keep investing in our schools. They are what keep us going. They are what separate us from Arlington or Fairfax. Budget cuts are tough, but we’ll have to make them in the future, both far and near. When we do, however, cutting the school budget should be a plan of last resort, not our first option.

The first part of that debate is a hard one to answer. Despite my efforts and the efforts of other concerned residents of the Little City, the Falls Church City Republican Committee chairman has not yet responded openly and on the record about the allegations. Johannah Barry and Ira Kaylin sent denials to this blog, to the Falls Church Times, and to the News-Press, while anonymous comments on the News-Press website credited the FCCRC for involvement in this and past elections on a deeper level than even the News-Press itself alleged.

Do we, as a community, currently know what involvement the Republican Party had in our supposedly-nonpartisan elections this May? The unfortunate answer is that we don’t, and I’m beginning to doubt that we ever will.

But can we do something about it for the future? Absolutely. Phil Duncan, in comments on the FCNP and FCT, has called for a Code of Conduct for the Republican and Democratic parties to agree to in regards to nonpartisan City elections that “discourages (or at least constrains and discloses) involvement by national parties, outside paid consultants, and external special-interest groups on both the right and the left.”

Great idea, Phil. Let’s get the leaders of the Falls Church Democrats and the Falls Church Republicans to both make an open and on-the-record commitment to keeping our City elections nonpartisan. No endorsement, no party funding, and no party resources should be given to candidates running for City Council and the School Board.

Will this approach work? With cooperation from the community and from both sides of the political spectrum, it should. Only time can tell. My suggestions are keep it simple and clear. Now, Phil has asked me to provide a forum for City residents to discuss this idea and offer their own suggestions on it. So please, if you have something to say, ask, or contribute, feel free to post a comment.

We don't need any of this in Falls Church

If there’s one thing this endorsement debacle shows us, it’s that partisan politics and local City elections do not and should not mix. City elections are nonpartisan for a reason, and political parties getting involved only causes controversy, fighting, and hard feelings.

Even though there’s no proof of the News-Press’s allegations against Johannah Barry and Ira Kaylin, the potential for even a mention of political parties endorsing or otherwise getting involved in local elections to cause a firestorm of controversy is clear.

Thanks to a City Council decision made back in 2009, though, it seems that from now on, partisan involvement in City Council elections is going to be the rule from now on rather than the exception. I am referring, of course, to the pushing back of City elections from May to November starting in 2011. Intended or not, all this change will do is encourage the Democratic and Republican parties to get involved, at least unofficially, in elections that, from now on, will coincide with partisan state and/or federal elections.

The problem cited as reasoning for making this switch to November is the “dismal” voter turnout in May elections as compared to the 80%+ voting rate that we regularly see here in the City of Falls Church in national November elections. But there’s got to be a reason for the low turnout, and it would seem that reason is that most City voters don’t care enough about City elections to take the time to research the candidates, choose who to vote for, and then go out and vote.

We can’t force those who are willingly uninformed about City Council elections to magically start caring. More likely, all November elections will do is drive voters to the polls who know and care about Virginia or federal elections but who will simply vote for whomever they know best or whomever seems to have the backing of their political party in City Council elections. That’s not a good thing.

We don’t need uninformed choices being made here in the City of Falls Church, nor do we need political parties participating in what is supposed to be a non-partisan election. To keep parties out of it and make sure that the decisions are made by voters who know and care about the issues at stake in local elections, the City Council should take a second look at the decision to move elections to November.

If you feel the same way as me, I strongly encourage you to write or call our City Council members and suggest that they reconsider this issue. That’s what I’ll be doing.

All I can say is this: Thank you Mr. Southern and thank you readers. I hope that my posts are keeping you all interested and entertained, and that you’ll keep returning to read what I have to say in the future. As a blogger, that’s all I can ask.

On another subject, a poster calling himself “Chairman” posted a comment on the Falls Church News-Press website denying that the Falls Church City Republican Committee has ever endorsed any candidate for City Council.

There’s no verification on whether this poster is actually the Chairman of the FCCRC, but I’ve received no response from my email to him as of the time of writing this post. I have however been replied to by the Chairman of the 8th District GOP who said his committee did not endorse anyone but also did not confirm or deny that the Falls Church City branch had.

George Southern, the eminent City political commentator, had some nice words for me, saying my posts on this blog were following a tradition of letters written by Ben Franklin and Mark Twain in their youths.

I can’t say I’m worthy of the comparison. I try to do my best in my posts to comment on the local news of the day from a common-sense position, although I know that some will and do disagree with me on that assertion. In the case of the endorsement allegations, that is exactly what I was trying to do.

To be clear, I don’t dislike the News-Press. I may disagree with some of the editorials and commentary in it, but overall I think that it’s a great community resource that we are far better off with than we would be without. I cannot tolerate, however, “reporting” that makes very serious claims, doesn’t bother to validate them, and includes a volley of commentary attacking elected City officials on the basis of those unverified claims.

Some here in the City seem to be making this into a Benton/Gardners vs. Barry/Kaylin kind of thing. It may very well be that those two groups of public figures here in the City have opposing interests. Maybe not. But I’m not picking sides.

Johannah Barry

When I saw the allegations in this week’s News-Press that Johannah Barry and Ira Kaylin’s campaign for City Council had been endorsed and supported by the Falls Church Republican Committee, I was intrigued. So, like any good journalist, I decided to investigate.

I went straight to one of the people who would know best, City Councilwoman Johannah Barry, and asked her for her take on the allegations.

“Our electoral success was due to delivering a clear and concise message which resonated with City voters,” she responded, denying that she or Ira Kaylin had ever “asked for, claimed, nor received, an endorsement from any party.”

“To the credit of Falls Church City residents,” Barry noted, “very few voters cared about national political affiliation.”

Barry is right. Indeed, that should be very much to the credit of those living and voting in the City of Falls Church. Despite voting heavily Democratic – according to the New York Times nearly 70% of City of Falls Church voters voted for Barack Obama in 2008 – our nonpartisan City elections allow a diverse group of views to be represented on the local level without the taint of partisanship.

“This inclusive and non-partisan approach is certainly a hallmark of Falls Church and its governance,” added Barry.

According to her, she and Kaylin were elected because of the enthusiasm with which voters met their platform, which “included not only fiscal responsibility, but good governance, solid schools, and economic development.”

To me, at least, this sounds reasonable. Unlike Nick Benton and Mike Gardner may want to think, there were no shadowy GOP operatives getting out the vote for Johannah and Ira.

Gardner, at least, has long been a proponent of getting the Democratic Party involved in endorsing in City elections, however. And now he’s railing against this without the Republican Committee, Johannah Barry, or Ira Kaylin having been first asked to confirm or deny the endorsement?

Let’s leave partisanship out of City elections, no matter which side it’s coming from. Benton and Gardner have seen fit to use this as an excuse to demand the Democratic Party’s involvement in Falls Church elections. Thankfully, I’m sure the people of Falls Church will see through their charade.