Last night, the Fairfax County Democratic Committee had its meeting to endorse School Board candidates At-Large. There are 3 At-Large seats in the county up for grabs, and only one incumbent- Ilryong Moon- was seeking re-election.
Before I get into the insanity of the meeting, one quick editorial point. A few years ago Arlington had a huge school board fight for the Democratic endorsement and had a caucus to decide who would be endorsed. In a county with a population of 200,000, almost 5,000 voters showed up to pick the endorsement. In Fairfax- which has a population of over 1,000,000 people less than 300 at the FCDC meeting made this decision. If they had 2.5% of their population participate like Arlington had, that would be 25,000 people voting- so literally this meeting had about 1/100th of the public participation because the committee kept it to themselves. PATHETIC.
Back to the meeting. FCDC created bizarre rules that required candidates to receive 51% of the vote to be nominated, and counted anyone who voted for less than 3 candidates as a "no endorsement vote". This lead to Moon winning on the first ballot, but no other candidates. Then on the 2nd ballot, no candidate got 51% and by the rules no endorsements were to be made.
Then the meeting got really weird.
With about half the committee already gone (having been told there would be no more than two ballots) a motion was made to endorse the top two other vote getters. These two candidates were Charisse Espy Glassman and Ted Velkoff- both of whom I endorsed. But to endorse them in that manner, with most of the committee already gone was a debacle. Current school board members Sandy Evans and Tina Hone stood up to speak against the endorsements and the committee splintered into various factions.
Voters already sent a message by defeating the Democratic candidate in Providence district 18 months ago. That's one of the strongest "D" areas in Fairfax County. Now Fairfax has a splintered committee issue an endorsement against the rules they had passed after many people had gone home. Do they really think the activists who were dissed are going to work for the Democratic ticket this fall?
Can anyone say GOP takeover of the School Board?
But going back to the point I made at the beginning- none of this would be an issue with an open process that included the public. FCDC has no one to blame but itself if they have managed the hand control of the School Board to the Republicans for the first time since the board began elections in 1995.
Between the mess that the LCDC has become and now this debacle, it sure looks like NOVA Dems are going to have a truly horrendous time this November.
Posted by: Loudoun Insider | May 25, 2011 at 09:39 AM
Yes, it was a zoo. I'm one of the people who left early after hearing there wouldn't be a third vote. (I'm on bedrest for my pregnancy and shouldn't have been there at all, but well, a woman's got to do what a woman's go to do. Plus, I had a child waiting at home, who will be taking the (stupid) SOLs in this morning, and by 10:00 at night, and real life school issues at some point have to trump theoretical school issues! So there were practical issues as to why I couldn't stay. So much for reaching out to parent activitists.....)
I've had e-mails about it all morning. And it was a zoo for all the wrong reasons -- because there was no clear way to handle a situation that should have been easy to predict. With six candidates, it was not unreasonable to think that the balloting would go into three, even four rounds. Arcane rules and pragmatic attempts to get around them lead where such a combination often leads -- to people feeling that the process had broken down. Those feelings leave people feeling cynical and angry, and that isn't good in any political party.
But that said, while the short term is dramatic, I'm not sure how much of an impact this will have on the long term. I doubt that many of us who went in there got all three of our candidates (for the record, my top candidate of the six was Greg Brandon who did not get the endorsement), but that doesn't mean that even given the screw-ball comedy of the meeting, that means I have deep issues supporting the candidates who were endorsed. I'm frustrated this morning, absolutely, but not with the candidates themselves.
What's sort of funny is that about half way through the meeting, while we were engaged in some seemingly endless Q&A that I don't think helped anyone at all and took up way too much time, I turned to my husband and quipped, "This is one of those types of meetings that you're just so glad to have over that even if you came in fighting for one candidate over another, you go home thinking, "Thank goodness we made it through that."" But that was supposed to be a joke! :)
Posted by: GretchenLaskas | May 25, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Oh, but I agree completely with Ben's point that this facade of "nonpartisan" school board elections is silly. If we had primaries for this the way we do everything else, it would be much more democratic (small d) in every way.
Posted by: GretchenLaskas | May 25, 2011 at 10:35 AM
Last night was a complete sham. With only 14 votes separating the 1st place and 3rd place on the second ballot, we should have just dropped the 4th place finisher and gone top 2 win in July. It would've been the right and democratic thing to do. Ironic that the party that says they represent the people used blatant insider tactics to get their chosen candidates the endorsement.
Posted by: Also Not | May 25, 2011 at 12:07 PM
Will we ever know the vote counts for both votes?
Posted by: Kevin | May 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Gretchen, best wishes on your pregnancy.
It is an indication of just how frivolous too many in FCDC takes this process that a person with no history in the party and no experience got more votes than two people with extensive knowledge and understanding of education issues.
That's a joke.
There will be lasting damage this year and next for FCDC after last night's railroad job.
If FCDC doesn't stop treating school board as a farm team for other offices, there could well be a third party endorsement process in 2015.
Posted by: Martin Lomasney | May 25, 2011 at 01:08 PM
The unexpected problem was that there were six candidates - in 2007 we barely had three - and while one was head and shoulders above the rest and one was not up to par, the other four were pretty much equal. It was a real tight band on the second vote - 136, 125 or so, 122 or so, and 117. While the rules were stupid, they were made before candidates even started the process and I don't think anyone anticipated the closeness of the candidates. I think the assumption was more that there would be 3 or 4 serious candidates and a few jokers thrown in the mix. Thus, the 50% threshold made sure that one of the jokers didn't make it just because they were the only ones who ran. A bad assumption in hindsight.
Posted by: NotJohnSMosby | May 25, 2011 at 01:18 PM
Martin, I somewhat agree with you. The young guy, Ryan, was a very good speaker and I think way too many people voted on quick emotion other than logic. He was the last guy in, right at the filing deadline, and no one really knew him. I think he won a lot of people over at the meeting who, coming in, were undecided on one or two of the slots. The other five candidates had been in it for months and had been hitting all of the FCDC and magisterial meetings, fundraisers, get togethers, etc all year. Ryan showed up at the last minute and didn't participate in any of that. So he made a big splash last night, everyone was instantly impressed, and a lot of members threw logic out the window and voted for him.
Posted by: NotJohnSMosby | May 25, 2011 at 01:24 PM
First off, decisions are made by those who show up. If only 300 people show up to an FCDC meeting, its not Rex Simmons fault, it's those that didnt think this was a good enough use of their time.
Second, unlike ACDC, FCDC is meant to be an umbrella organization for the various district democratic committes. It would probably do you well to show up to one of those before you judge the FFX democratic party structure. Considering how big fairfax is in terms of geography and population, an umbrella organization is the only way to make it work.
Third, I find it hillarious your putting ACDC up on a pedestal for transparency and rank and file participation. The times I've been to ACDC meetings (back when i foolishly considered it worth my time), they were lucky to get 50 people to show up. Considering that arlington is 70% democratic, thats just a little bit pathetic. The meetings themselves are little more than a rubber stamp for the steering committee meetings the week before. Most of the steering committee members (except the AYD officers) are elected by a small group of voting members appointed by... the steering committee. But I'm sure they go out of their way to make sure everyone's voice is heard during the selection process, I mean thats how we got Barbara Favola and Chris Zimmerman.
Posted by: Mr Bubbles | May 25, 2011 at 03:22 PM
"Second, unlike ACDC, FCDC is meant to be an umbrella organization for the various district democratic committes. It would probably do you well to show up to one of those before you judge the FFX democratic party structure. "
Mr Bubbles- was that directed at me?
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 25, 2011 at 03:30 PM
Both you and Martin.
The third one was all you, buddy :)
Posted by: Mr Bubbles | May 25, 2011 at 03:39 PM
Yes, it was weird, and distressing. It does not seem fair to change the rules in the middle of the process. But I freely admit that I was also disappointed in the results.
NotJohnSMosby, I agree with you about Ryan, but would add that there were people there last night who voted for someone because they got a personal phone call asking for their vote, or because the candidate was from their district,etc--not sure if those are better reasons than voting based on a stump speech and a brief Q&A. Furthermore, there were people who came in leaning towards voting for one or two candidates and then deciding against them after the speech and Q&A. So--people go with their gut, I guess.
It does seem that the choice for our school board candidate should not be made by so few people--some of whom just want to get home.
BTW, Gretchen--congrats and good luck!
Posted by: LAS | May 25, 2011 at 03:40 PM
Mr Bubbles-
I was on the FCDC Steering Committee for 7 years, Vice Chair of the committee for 4, Secretary of the Committee for 3, and a member of the committee for 11 years.
Get your facts straight before you tell me to learn about the committee!
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 25, 2011 at 04:56 PM
judging by this post, you could of fooled me. What were the attendance numbers when you were on the committee? What were the rules regarding school board endorsements? Were you elected by a caucus or by a select few voting members? Perhaps you would enlighten us to your accomplishments while you were a member.
Posted by: Mr Bubbles | May 25, 2011 at 05:23 PM
LAS, the rules, unfortunately, were bad, and it made no sense to me to stick with bad rules and only endorse one candidate - which hands two at-large seats right to the Republicans - than to save the night. Don't put the process before the point, which is to get three strong Dems on the ballot for three at-large seats. The original plan did not guarantee that result, so changes were made.
I would rather look a little silly and have three winning candidates on the ballot than stick by the rules and only put one on the ballot. Those were the choices around 10:30 last night, and I think FCDC did the right thing. They picked the 2nd and 3rd highest vote getters from both rounds of balloting, so it's not like they endorsed the #6 candidate or something. At the end of the night, the three strongest candidates were picked.
Ben, opening up a supposedly non-partisan endorsement process to non-committee members would be almost impossible to handle. The real solution for the "non-partisan" elections like school board and the town councils is to just make them all official partisan elections and let all the voters decide in primaries or caucuses.
Posted by: NotJohnSMosby | May 25, 2011 at 06:14 PM
NJSM- why would it be impossible? It's been done in other counties without problems.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 25, 2011 at 06:15 PM
How many other counties have 1.1 million people? If it's non-partisan, do you allow Republicans to come and vote at the firehouse? How would you do a county-wide firehouse anyways?
This was an endorsement exercise by FCDC. It was not a candidate selection. Any of the non-endorsed candidates can run if they want, they just won't have the FCDC endorsement.
Posted by: NotJohnSMosby | May 25, 2011 at 07:09 PM
FCDC has run multiple countywide firehouse primaries in the past. Typically the way it is done is having 1 polling place per district and voters can only participate at their district's station.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 25, 2011 at 08:39 PM
And Providence has no candidate to endorse for the School Board! Wierd seeing they were given the award as the best District in FCDC at the JJ Dinner. We all want Providence to win but you need a candidate.
Posted by: notsophialoren | May 25, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Ben, again, it's an endorsement by FCDC. It's not an election by a majority of Democratic voters in Fairfax. During regular firehouses, anyone can vote, and the results are binding. That's not the case in an endorsement.
And again, you are comparing something in Arlington with something in Fairfax, when Fairfax is much larger and with 5.5 times the population. And not fairly homogeneously Democratic.
Posted by: NotJohnSMosby | May 25, 2011 at 09:00 PM
Just because Arlington does it, is not an excuse for Fairfax not to do it. Certainly works better than the clusterfuck of last night at FCDC.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 25, 2011 at 09:02 PM
So Ben, how was this selection process different and more efficient when you were FCDC vice-chair, secretary, and member of the steering committee? Did you have some way of making sure people had their voices heard if they couldnt make it to an FCDC meeting at 7pm on a tuesday night? did you make people who showed up to firehouse primaries show their ID's before they were allowed to vote? Did you require people who lived in centerville drive all the way to southern springfield to cast their votes or people in Dranesville drive all the way to tysons?
Posted by: Mr Bubbles | May 25, 2011 at 09:08 PM
Mr Bubbles, I was involved in 2 of these (99 and 03). In 1999 we had two incumbents running and only one challenger, so there was no contest. In 2003 there were no incumbents running, but only 3 candidates filed. But the discussion on the committee at that time was leaning towards a firehouse caucus in each district if we did have a contest.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 25, 2011 at 09:22 PM
So Ben, FCDC has never been in the position, except maybe 1995, that there were more than 3 candidates for 3 slots? 1995 was the first year of elected school boards, correct, or was that the last appointed year?
It was new ground this year, and the adopted rules turned out to be horrible. Live and learn, the mistake won't be made again. I still don't know how you have a primary - firehouse or the regular kind - for an endorsement in a non-partisan race. Who pays for it? How many nights would it run? How much would it cost the candidates to run a countywide voter outreach program? How many voting locations would you have?
Arlington is geographically very small. There are magisterial districts in Fairfax that are much larger than all of Arlington County.
Posted by: NotJohnSMosby | May 26, 2011 at 12:08 AM
Mr Bubbles, don't bash ACDC for no good reason. Actually the ACDC has been drawing 200 or so most meetings I've been at this year
Posted by: truthteller | May 26, 2011 at 12:09 AM
so what youre telling me is that you failed to field candidates in each of the districts? i see a pot/kettle moment flashing before my eyes.
Posted by: Mr Bubbles | May 26, 2011 at 01:17 AM
truthteller, i very hard time believing that. I never saw that many there during 2008 but somehow its balloned to 200 in an off year 2011 cycle? Are you sure you're not counting candidates and their staff?
Posted by: Mr Bubbles | May 26, 2011 at 01:20 AM
I've got a bunch I need to respond to here, not sure if you guys are not understanding the processes or if you are being intentionally dense.
Mr Bubbles, there are 3 At-Large spots. There were 3 candidates. How does that turn into "failing to field candidates"?
NJSM- "firehouse primaries" is just a nickname for a caucus that is not assembled. The party would have to pay for any locations that cost money. However, when these have been run before there are locations that can be reserved without cost (such as the county govt building in each district).
NJSM- Agreed that the geographic size of Fairfax makes caucuses a challenge. However, the idea is increasing participation. I'm not sure if you realize this, but the party has the option of direct nomination for most offices (by calling a convention with rules that dictate the Delegates will be county committee members). Why isn't this ever done? Because it's absurd! The public should be included in these decisions for all offices. That's why we have primaries and caucuses for Senators, Delegates and Supervisors when the party could directly nominate. And while we can't have a primary for school board since it isn't a "nomination" but an "endorsement" there is nothing stopping the party from calling a caucus where the public could weigh in and agreeing to take the caucus as a binding result.
The only thing FCDC should be voting on is who gets on the ballot for a caucus and that should only happen in an extraordinary situation where a LaRouche type is trying to run. Otherwise, let the public decide and the strongest candidates will be the ones who can get the most supporters to the polls.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 26, 2011 at 02:05 AM
NJSM- sorry I missed your other point. You are correct, 1995 was the first election, and that was the last time there was a contest for the endorsement At-Large.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 26, 2011 at 02:07 AM
12 members are on the school board last time i checked. i take it you had the 9 district races covered?
Posted by: Mr Bubbles | May 26, 2011 at 02:16 AM
The districts are in charge of that. I think 8 of 9 fielded candidates each time. Secondly, you are getting off on a tangent. I wasn't responsible for the school board- just relaying your inaccuracy from earlier in saying I knew nothing about the FCDC or its processes.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 26, 2011 at 02:29 AM
When the rules were chosen by the Steering Committee in January, there were 9 announced candidates. None of whom were "clowns."
This outcome was forecast at the time but that forecast was ignored.
There was nothing impromptu about the rules switch @ 10:30. It had obviously been worked out between Simmons and Haley in advanced as Simmons ignored others who sought the floor and first recognized Haley who read a motion that was not written in the moments before he was recognized.
If the preceding conjure is accurate, Simmons and Haley did FCDC a disservice by not disclosing their intentions at the beginning of the evening.
Haley's endorsement of one of the candidates who benefited from the rules switch did further damage to FCDC's credibility and the At Large candidates who benefitted therefrom.
As Tallyrand said to Napoleon, "It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake." A forseen and avoidable mistake.
Posted by: martinlomasney | May 26, 2011 at 02:29 AM
NJM
Since Simmons didn't announce the numbers after the first round how was the FCDC membership to know your representation of rankings after the first round are accurate?
Posted by: martinlomasney | May 26, 2011 at 02:57 AM
Mr. Bubbles
You're just dead wrong on the relationship of the 9 FFX DDCs to FCDC.
The DPVA Plan, aka the State Party constitution, makes clear that the organic entity is the general membership of the County committee as a whole.
The 9 DDCs are mere administrative subcommittees with no greater dignity than any committee of FCDC according to the DPVA plan.
Some DDC chairs like to pretend that they are independent of FCDC but that is a product of misinformation, delusion, confusion or ego; or a combination of some or all 4.
Posted by: martinlomasney | May 26, 2011 at 03:14 AM
Ben, if FCDC was actually chosing candidates to put on the ballot from the Democratic Party, then yeah, a primary or a caucus would absolutely be done. But that isn't the case here, it's just an endorsement. I think it's a stupid way to elect the school board, but the rules say it's non-partisan, so all the parties can do is endorse. Theoretically, the same thing as a labor union or the Chamber of Commerce or a newspaper. Since FCDC has no say whatsoever who files with the Board of Elections to run for the at-large or district seats, although de facto without a party endorsement it would be very tough to win. Still, it isn't like FCDC nominated the three the other night and filed paperwork as such. All six candidates could still file to run for at-large; hell, a hundred people could.
You're confusing an endorsement with a nomination. While the end result could be pretty similar, they are legally and technically very different and are handled differently by the parties. That's why there's a primary for the Braddock BoS nomination, where there will be one Dem on the ballot running as a Dem, but not for school board, where there's no party affiliation on the ballot.
Posted by: NotJohnSMosby | May 26, 2011 at 11:27 AM
Martin, you are correct, but due to the very wide membership numbers and overall performance differences between the magisterial districts, each has it's own culture. Drainesville has the most money, Hunter Mill has the most activists, Lee routinely does things differently than the other magisterials when it comes to GOTV. There are plenty of FCDC members who attend magisterial meetings but have never been to a general FCDC meeting.
It's actually easier to think of FCDC being set up like a state committee. You have the various administrative and steering committees that are countywide, then the magisterials are set up similar to independent county committees. Each has it's own fundraising and treasury, each controls it's own spending.
Posted by: NotJohnSMosby | May 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Actually NJSM, FCDC has had caucuses before for endorsements and not nominations. Ask Chuck Caputo who won one of those in 1991.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | May 26, 2011 at 11:35 AM
I think the great irony here is that FCDC really did not take the school board election this year as a "farm team" approach for future elections. We created an education committee, for instance, and many of the candidate endorsed have been focusing on the schools for many years. This may be one of those few years where the school board races actually are what bring voters out to the polls in Fairfax County, rather than the Supervisor/Delegate/State Senate races.
I also think this is why we had such good candidates overall -- yes, there were (and are) factions within FCDC for particular candidates for very specific reasons , but that's to be expected in a group as large and diverse as FCDC is. (And believe me, each district is pretty distinct in character, tone and practice.) So instead of a couple of good candidates and some losers, we had a lot of people who really took this race seriously and went out and recruited, developed and worked with candidates on a level that I think is highly unusual for school board races.
Which is why the process didn't quite work -- it was for an endorsement process/election that doesn't exist this year.
Posted by: GretchenLaskas | May 26, 2011 at 03:08 PM
sorry, MJM, but thinking about FCDC as you suggests is the very thing that creates confusion, conflict, anger, recriminations and balkinization.
FCDC is the General Membership meeting.
The rest, as the sages, say is commentary.
Posted by: Martin Lomasney | May 26, 2011 at 05:22 PM
What would you propose then? Fairfax is not homogeneous so the magisterials aren't either. Some areas are richer, some are older, some are more conservative, some are very white, some are very racially mixed. It's also a very large committee over over 600 people. Fairfax has more population than 8 states, so the committee is set up to support a large number of members from every type of demographic. One size will not fit all in Fairfax Democratic politics.
Posted by: NotJohnSMosby | May 26, 2011 at 06:36 PM
"confusion, conflict, anger, recriminations and balkanization"
Well it IS Democratic politics!! :)
Posted by: GretchenLaskas | May 26, 2011 at 08:34 PM
MJM
but FCDC doesn't represent a varied demographic. The Falls Church cafeteria was packed with white haired, blue haired and white skins who haven't had a kid in school in decades; get cranky if made to sit in a plastic cafeteria chair more than an hour; and like to get to bed (or the bar) before 10 pm.
Few African-americans, fewer Hispanics, fewer Asians, fewer young people of any ethnic group and almost no members with kids in FCPS.
A small number of these senior citizens believe FCDC is their personal plaything and resent the hell out of any interlopers trying to oppose the entitled's pre-arranged choice for School Board or any other office.
The balkanization only enables this sense of entitlement and practice of exclusion.
That's a recipe for a death spiral.
Posted by: martinlomasney | May 26, 2011 at 11:38 PM
Ben,
I didnt say you knew nothing, just not enough. I've observed through the years that just because someone has done something for a while doesnt make them good at it. FCDC still has to ratify and endorsements made by the district committees. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to expect FCDC to help with candidate recruitment, especially when the local committee is weak. I'm not getting off tangent, you labeled FCDC as pathetic on this issue so its very reasonable to compare what happened here to your time as an FCDC officer. Finally, you've rightfully criticized Brian Moran for not fielding candidates for every elected office. I'm just holding you to this same standard.
Martin
Each district committee has its own set of officers, fundraising, precinct operations, websites, etc. While there might by DPVA bylaws on paper about committee dignity, there is the real world to contend with. In reality, FCDCs ability to control the district committees are limited. As is the ability of FCDC to decide who runs these committees, especially when senior members of FCDC would like to see a change in leadership (say lee district for a hypothetical example).
Posted by: Mr Bubbles | May 27, 2011 at 01:14 AM
Martin,
Listen to NJSM on this. Ive been to many DDC meetings where there has been a lot of diversity. While I dont disagree with you saying that FCDC general meetings are run by a few people with a sense of entitlement, its pretty much the same at ACDC or ADC. As long as the committees hold their meetings at 7pm on a weekday in Falls Church, the situation isnt going to get any better. The people in the communities you named are the ones most likely to be working 2 or 3 jobs to support their families and have limited access to transportation. ACDC has a similiar problem despite the fact that it holds its meetings near a metrostop and is microscopic in size in comparison. Furthermore, you need to drop the idea that each geographic region in FFX is homogenous. NJSM is right, a one size fits all approach wont work throughout FFX. Im trying not to beat a dead mule here but thats why they have DDCs.
Posted by: Mr Bubbles | May 27, 2011 at 01:37 AM
I am the candidate who received the fewest votes. I will probably decide to run without the party's endorsement.
I have been warned that I'll be attacked, my reputation tarnished, my integrity destroyed.
Don't you all have anything better to do?
Why does FCDC even care? I won't win; the at-large candidate without endorsement four years ago got about 1% of the vote.
I just happen to care a lot about schools, and I think you made lousy choices on Tuesday. So why not just let me alone to do my thing? Better still, why not just leave the choice of school board to the public including parents, where it belongs.
Posted by: Maria Allen | May 27, 2011 at 05:18 AM
I speak with real confidence that some of the "blue hairs" on the Braddock committee are our most liberal members. I was recruited by one, whom I really admire. After all, she was holding the party together before I was born, and survived the Reagan years while I was first cutting my political teeth. I would love for some young Dem 30 years from now to think that way of me.
Posted by: GretchenLaskas | May 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM
I get that there are some very, very partisan people. I'm not of them. Okay, I vote Republican slightly more than half the time, but I also happen to think Tina Hone is great.
The reason the guy in Providence (I forget his name- Jamison? Jennison? - I can't remember his exact name now)didn't win last time appears to me to be because he assumed the people would just vote for Gerry Connolly's annointed one. He had little to say of substance to parents. Patty Reed did the door knocking and the talking to parents, and she had the chops and the eagerness to do that job. That comes across.
School board really ought to be non-partisan, even though I know that really isn't going to be the way it is. From what I see the ones who care about doing the job right will band together, regardless of their individual politics. And they will stand up for openness in the process and for listening to parents. I see that coming from the likes of Tina Hone and Patty Reed. I want more people like them.
Posted by: Mostly Independent Voter | May 27, 2011 at 11:19 AM