Peter’s Take: Arlington’s NSF Lesson
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) sent a memo to its employees last week telling them that NSF planned to move its headquarters from Arlington to Alexandria by the end of 2016.
Whether NSF HQ would stay in Arlington has been under active discussion for over four years. All of the important decision-makers have had more than enough time to carefully consider their interests and options. This move was not a hasty decision.
In that light, Arlington County Manager Barbara Donnellan made a poor decision publicly to question whether others had acted wisely. Ms. Donnellan issued a press statement that “we do not believe such a move would be in the best interests of the NSF, the federal government or the American taxpayer.”
In her initial anger in learning of the decision, Ms. Donnellan could be excused for harboring these sentiments, but she never should have issued a press statement to this effect. Arlington, as the losing bidder, has zero credibility to question whether other participants acted in their own self interests.
Also troubling was County Board member Jay Fisette’s statement that the federal government had pitted local jurisdictions against one another in a way he had not expected. His statement is troubling because it reflects a lack of understanding of the “new normal” competitive environment in which Arlington now finds itself.
Peter’s Take: We Need More Information on the Signature Theatre Bailout
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Last week, ARLnow reported that the Arlington County Board had voted unanimously to provide a $250,000 financial bailout to the Signature Theatre in Shirlington.
Let’s reserve final judgment on this until the grant agreement between the county and Signature is made public. However, the facts made public so far raise serious questions about whether the county has the right standards regarding when it will provide public subsidies for the arts.
It certainly does not generate confidence when the County Manager tries to justify the bailout by saying, “Signature is thriving.” Any private organization that is thriving neither needs nor is entitled to a public bailout.
If there is a justification for this bailout, it must include the assumption that Signature is NOT thriving, but that there is a reasonable basis to believe it can return to financial health in a reasonable period of time. Why didn’t the County Manager say that?
Other aspects of the story also raise questions. As ARLnow further reported: “Signature Theatre has sole access rights and branding capability in its current space within a county owned building. It is responsible for the full costs of operating that facility, including real estate and business tangible taxes. Other county supported arts groups performing in county subsidized spaces are not required to pay taxes.”
Assuming this report is accurate:
- What standards does the county apply in deciding which arts groups are granted the right to perform in county subsidized spaces — and for how long?
- What standards does the county apply in deciding which arts groups performing in county subsidized spaces are required to pay taxes?
- What standards does the county apply in deciding which arts groups performing in county subsidized spaces have sole branding capability?
As I have written previously, Arlington needs to develop a consistent framework for prioritizing and paying for its core services. There definitely is a place within such a framework for public support for the arts.
But, to generate sufficient public confidence, both the core services framework itself and the standards for providing public subsidies for the arts need to be carefully articulated and explained.
Arlington’s policy statement regarding public support for the arts is now 23 years old. A quarter-million-dollar Signature bailout, provided despite Arlington’s new financial realities suggests this is a good time for Arlington to click “refresh” on its public arts policy.
Peter Rousselot is a former member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Virginia GOP Ticket Will Turn Off Arlington GOP
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Last Saturday, the Republican Party of Virginia (RPVA) nominated a statewide ticket that will be a real turn-off for a large segment of Republicans in Arlington.
Ken Cuccinelli for Governor
As I have previously written, Ken Cuccinelli has an extreme anti-women agenda, including support for a “personhood” law that would end or cripple a series of personal rights that women in Arlington and the rest of Virginia have enjoyed for decades, such as:
- Birth control
- Fertility treatment
- Management of a miscarriage
- Access to safe and legal abortions
Cuccinelli holds many other extreme positions that are unappealing to large numbers of Arlington Republicans, including his attacks on academic freedom and his war on science. Rather than balancing Cuccinelli with two other more moderate candidates, the RPVA instead chose two candidates with even more extreme views.
E.W. Jackson for Lieutenant Governor
This is Mr. Jackson’s message for the gay and lesbian community: “Gays and lesbians have ‘perverted’ minds and are ‘very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally,’ … [they] seek societal approval because ‘they’ll never feel satisfied because in their heart of hearts’ they know ‘it is immoral, it is perverse, it is degenerate.’”
Mr. Jackson believes that gay marriage is like “spitting in the face of every bible-believing Christian in America.” Mr. Jackson thinks that Planned Parenthood has been “far more lethal to Black lives than the KKK ever was.”
RPVA is sponsoring Mr. Jackson as someone who deserves to be a heartbeat away from the Virginia governorship.
Peter’s Take: Democracy Wins in Democratic School Board Endorsement
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
The Arlington Democrats School Board endorsement election produced many winners. The clearest winner was the strong affirmation of the benefits of challenges to incumbents by other Democrats.
As I wrote in my May 2 column, we need to encourage more Democrats to challenge our incumbents for the Democratic endorsement or nomination.
As ARLnow reported, James Lander, the incumbent Arlington School Board member running for re-election, won the Democratic endorsement — but only by 47 votes. He received 51 percent of the votes cast. As with any incumbent seeking re-election, both Lander’s record, and the record of the public body on which he serves, were issues discussed during the campaign — publicly or privately.
Without this secret ballot vote, neither Lander nor the School Board would have had the benefit of this Democratic voter feedback. Based on this important new information, they now can choose to make changes in what they have been doing.
Barbara Kanninen, a first-time candidate, deserves credit for challenging Lander. She almost won the endorsement, receiving 49 percent of the votes cast. Obviously, Kanninen raised issues that resonated with a very large minority of Democratic caucus voters. Several Arlington incumbents previously have lost elections by a wider percentage margin than she did.
Like Lander and the School Board, Kanninen now has the benefit of the voters’ verdict, together with the opportunity to draw valuable lessons from it. She clearly can run again and win — if she decides that is what she wants to do. (Disclosure: I publicly endorsed Kannninen.)
The Arlington County Democratic Committee (ACDC) also deserves praise for the way in which ACDC organized, promoted, and conducted this endorsement caucus. Because of the provisions of Virginia law, political parties that want to endorse candidates for School Board do not have the option to endorse those candidates in primaries conducted by boards of elections at all regular polling places. (Contrary to frequent claims that “school board races are supposed to be non-partisan,” partisan endorsements are authorized in Virginia school board elections.)
Political parties do have the option of making such endorsements by a vote only of their managing committees. By choosing the endorsement caucus option instead, ACDC selected the option that offers the opportunity for the widest possible participation by Arlington Democrats. (Disclosure: I played a small role in administering a portion of the second day of the caucus.)
Increased numbers of challenges to incumbents by other Democrats will lead to more democracy and better public policy in Arlington.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Self Limits Not Term Limits
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
In a Morning Notes story this week, ARLnow linked to a letter to the editor of the Sun Gazette. The writer of the letter suggested enacting mandatory term limits for Arlington County Board members via a term limit ballot proposal.
Although the letter writer did not say so, his proposal would have to be authorized by a new Virginia law. Current Virginia law does not authorize such ballot proposals, although current law does authorize a petition process that could lead to the recall of an individual County Board member by Arlington’s voters.
The ARLnow story generated a huge outpouring of passionate commentary about the pros and cons of mandatory term limits. Many argued vehemently that term limits were the only way to change bad public policies. They attributed those bad policies to the dominance of Arlington’s local government by long-time Democratic incumbents.
Others argued just as passionately that in a democracy, it’s up to the voters to make these decisions. If the majority of Arlington’s voters keep electing Democratic incumbents, then the majority has spoken. For this group, that’s all there is to it.
Most people who participated in this ARLnow debate were convinced they were right, the other side was wrong, and they were not going to change their own opinions.
Regardless of the passion that mandatory term limit supporters are likely to retain, it just ain’t gonna happen. The Virginia legislature — composed entirely of incumbent elected officials — would have to change the law. Don’t invest your emotional energy counting on this possibility.
But, those who cavalierly dismiss complaints about Arlington’s public policy shortcomings, saying voters who want change can just vote out those long-time Democratic incumbents, are underestimating how hard that is to do.
So, what’s the solution?
The solution lies primarily in the hands of my party — the Arlington Democratic Party. There are two parts to it. The first is to make primary challenges more acceptable and more common. The second is to encourage more of our Democratic elected officials to limit voluntarily how long they remain in the same office.
We have a very talented and deep bench among Arlington’s Democrats. These men and women can hit major league pitching. They just need their turn at bat.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Star Scientific Burns Two Virginia Leaders
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Star Scientific, a Virginia company trying to rescue its sagging economic prospects, has damaged the hopes for higher office of Governor Bob McDonnell and Governor wannabe Ken Cuccinelli.
Both cases illustrate the toxic mix of Virginia’s notoriously weak conflict of interest laws with ambitious politicians who flew too close to the sun.
McDonnell: In 2011, the CEO of Star Scientific made a $15,000 gift to defray the costs of the wedding of McDonnell’s daughter Caitlin. The $15,000 was not disclosed as a contribution on the grounds that the money was a gift to McDonnell’s daughter — not to him.
While it is disputed whether McDonnell’s agreement to be responsible for the cost of the wedding did require disclosure of the $15,000 gift, there is no disagreement that Star Scientific is the subject of a federal securities investigation. Moreover, both McDonnell and his wife have found several occasions to promote a new Star Scientific dietary supplement.
Cuccinelli: Star Scientific filed a lawsuit challenging a tax assessment on property it owned. Cuccinelli was required to arrange for legal representation to defend the state against Star Scientific’s lawsuit, but that legal representation did not have to be provided by the Attorney General’s own office.
Cuccinelli did represent the state in Star Scientific’s lawsuit, but failed to disclose that he had a financial interest exceeding $10,000 in Star Scientific. In October 2010, Cuccinelli purchased a little more than $10,000 worth of Star Scientific stock. At the end of the year, the value of that stock dropped below $10,000, and therefore did not need to be disclosed. But, in September 2011 Cuccinelli acquired 3,600 additional shares in the company, lifting the value of his total stock holdings to nearly $19,000.
After enterprising reporters published the whole story, Cuccinelli agreed to appoint outside lawyers to represent the state of Virginia in Star Scientific’s lawsuit.
These events illustrate some inconvenient truths about:
- Virginia’s conflict of interest laws
- Bob McDonnell
- Ken Cuccinelli
As the average person instinctively recognizes, it is just ridiculous that Virginia law says there is no conflict of interest if a Virginia elected official has a $9,999 financial interest in a company which can benefit from public decisions, but there is a conflict of interest if the same public official has a $10,001 financial interest. It‘s also ridiculous that the law says that gifts to a public official’s immediate family members do not require disclosure.
Let’s assume that McDonnell and Cuccinelli both knew what the law required, but decided they had not violated the law.
Such decisions reflect ethical standards that are far too low, and reflect negatively on their aspirations for higher office.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Wrong Budget Priorities Stall Foreign Language Teaching
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Earlier this year, when Arlington Public Schools Superintendent Patrick Murphy unveiled his proposed schools budget, he coined a new phrase to describe school expenditures which he was NOT proposing. He called them “unfunded investments”. George Orwell would have tingled with admiration.
Among Dr. Murphy’s unfunded investments was any money to start foreign language instruction at any Arlington elementary school that is not already offering such instruction. Acknowledging the inequity of the current situation in which some elementary schools offer this instruction while others do not, Dr. Murphy polished his Orwellian credentials by calling these unfunded foreign language programs “lighthouses to places we need to be going”.
Let’s acknowledge right up front that in a schools budget currently exceeding $500,000,000, there are areas in which savings could be achieved and should be achieved. Let’s also accept Dr. Murphy’s estimate that it currently costs about $450,000 per school to add a foreign language program to each of the nine elementary schools that currently lack one. In Arlington’s current budget environment, the best that could be hoped for is that this instruction could be phased in over several years. There is no sign, however, that any such gradual phasing is actually going to occur.
Parents at Tuckahoe Elementary are mounting a last ditch petition drive to ask the County Board to provide such a program in their school. In their petition, the Tuckahoe parents state:
“Tuckahoe students are being denied the important educational opportunity of learning a second language at an early age. 13 out of 22 Arlington elementary schools have this opportunity, including nearby schools such as McKinley, Jamestown, Ashlawn, and Glebe.”
These Tuckahoe parents may not succeed this year, but by taking their case directly to the County Board they have found the right target. It is the misplaced spending priorities of the County Board, not those of the School Board, that are primarily responsible for the unfair and inequitable situation in which these Tuckahoe parents now find themselves.
As I wrote last week, excessive and extravagant spending by the County Board on projects like the Artisphere, the Aquatic Center, the Clarendon dog park, and the Columbia Pike streetcar are directly impacting the ability of Superintendent Patrick Murphy to honor promises to the schools’ community to expand elementary foreign language instruction.
The County Board has dropped a black curtain over the beacon that might otherwise shine from Dr. Murphy’s lighthouse.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Childcare Fiasco is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
As ARLnow.com reported last week after an enormous public outcry, the Arlington County Board has decided not to accept a proposal by the Arlington County Manager to save roughly $250,000 annually by cutting the additional staff Arlington needs to enforce stricter child care standards for Arlington childcare facilities.
What prompted the County Manager to make this proposal in the first place? What are the most important lessons to be learned from this experience?
The County Manager made this proposal because she was instructed last November to make recommendations for cuts in the County’s operating budget that added up to one half of the then estimated $50 million shortfall in the budget. She was looking for ways to cut about $25 million out of the operating budget. This proposed $250,000 cut represented only one percent of the savings she was trying to achieve, yet she proposed the cut anyway.
I believe the County Manager made this recommendation in good faith because it was her way of trying to cope with the lack of willingness by the County Board to reduce or eliminate the huge expenses associated with financing projects like the Artisphere, the Aquatic Center, and the Clarendon dog park. With those projects and others like them “off the table”, the Manager was forced to reach out for a relatively small projected saving in an area like this.
The many Arlington consumers of child care services revolted and shone a light on the risks of gutting Arlington’s child care guidelines. But, those risks were well known, or certainly should have been well known, beforehand.
This $250,000 skirmish over childcare guidelines is just a taste of much more dire cuts to Arlington’s social safety net that are in the offing in future battles over the FY 15, 16, and 17 budgets unless the County Board fundamentally alters its current trajectory of layering one overly-costly capital project after another onto a budget beset by revenue shortfalls due to the flat commercial real estate sector of Arlington’s economy.
Claims that some of these capital projects, like the Columbia Pike streetcar, don’t impact Arlington’s operating budget because they are funded by a “special surtax on commercial property that can only be used for transportation”, are just plain wrong. These supposedly special capital projects do indeed affect Arlington’s operating budget adversely. There is “no such thing as a free lunch.”
The same commercial property owners who pay this special transportation surtax also pay the regular real estate tax that funds the bulk of Arlington’s operating budget. If the Board continues to impose this special transportation surtax at the maximum rate, while also continuing to raise the regular real estate tax rate that directly funds the operating budget, these commercial property owners will pass these costs on to Arlington consumers of their products or services, or they will move to greener pastures in Tysons.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Republicans Step Up War on Virginia’s Women
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Virginia’s Republican Leaders are continuing their multi-year crusade to stifle the hard-won rights of Virginia’s women.
In my March 19 column, I highlighted the systematic efforts by this year’s Republican gubernatorial candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, to drive Virginia women’s rights back to the 1950’s.
But Cuccinelli is far from alone. The current Republican Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell—who is eyeing a race for President in 2016–doesn’t want to let Cuccinelli overshadow McDonnell’s own efforts to restrict women’s rights. Last week, McDonnell exercised his gubernatorial authority to modify legislation passed by the Virginia legislature earlier this year.
McDonnell added an amendment to Virginia health care reform legislation that interferes in women’s private medical decisions by prohibiting insurance companies from offering policies that cover safe and legal abortion as a part of Virginia’s health exchange. This is part of McDonnell’s effort to curry favor with the far right wing of his party. McDonnell does not want to be outflanked by Cuccinelli in Republican right wing circles just as jockeying among the 2016 Republican Presidential contenders begins to ramp up.
From 2011’s invasive ultrasound requirements (which made Virginia a laughingstock on late night comedy shows) to burdensome and medically unnecessary health clinic regulations, Virginia’s Republican politicians continue to generate outrage with their attacks on women’s health.
Important and private medical decisions should be made by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians. Caring for pregnant women means making sure they have all the options they need for all medical possibilities during pregnancy – whether carrying a pregnancy to term or making the decision with their doctor to end a pregnancy.
The federal constitutional right to an abortion is an integral part of basic health care for women, and must be part of comprehensive insurance plans in Virginia. McDonnell’s amendment sets yet another dangerous precedent of political interference into health care decisions by eliminating coverage for care to which he is ideologically opposed—but about which he lacks the medical training to evaluate.
McDonnell and Cuccinelli need to find other ways to cozy up to the far right wing of the Republican Party.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Lessons from the $1 Million Super Stop Fiasco
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column published on Tuesdays. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
The Arlington County Board needs to learn some lessons from the Rolling Stones:
Yeah, a storm is threatening
My very life today
If I don’t get some shelter
Lord, I’m gonna fade away
As ARLnow reported last week, the cost of the new “Super Stop” at the corner of Walter Reed Drive and Columbia Pike will be more than $1 million. This is a cost escalation of over 100 percent from the original estimate.
Shouldn’t we say, “superexpensive?”
With due credit to Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and the rest of the Rolling Stones (who know a lot more about rock and roll than the County Board knows about transportation infrastructure), here are three lessons to be learned from the Board’s Super Stop fiasco:
1. Since the County Board did such a poor job on just this one superstop, the County Board can’t possibly be ready to choose the managers and contractors for a project like the streetcar currently estimated to cost 250 times more than this one stop.
Trying to counter the tsunami of public criticism about the enormous cost overrun on this Super Stop, county officials have tried to deflect blame onto WMATA – the Super Stop’s project manager. They say WMATA won’t be chosen to play such a role again. This begs the question: how can we rely on the County Board to make the right choice of managers for much larger projects if they failed to recognize WMATA’s poor performance on this one? Are you ready for the $500 million streetcar?
2. Since the County Board failed to recognize the many design flaws in this one Super Stop, the County Board can’t possibly be ready to recognize the design flaws in much larger and more complex transportation infrastructure projects.
Disregarding the advice of the Rolling Stones, the County Board approved a design for this Super Stop that failed to provide one of the fundamental things that many bus stops in other parts of Arlington already provide: adequate shelter from rain and wind. How can we rely on the County Board to make good design decisions about much more complex transportation infrastructure projects that contain many elements they have never seen before?
3. The County Board displays no public understanding of the multiple ways in which the costs of large transportation infrastructure projects take funding away from core services.
Hiding behind erroneous claims that the costs of mammoth capital projects have no impact on proposed operating budget cuts, various spokespeople for the County are turning themselves into pretzels arguing that watering down child care standards or cutting back on community policing are completely unrelated to financing large transportation infrastructure projects. As anyone with a mortgage or a car loan knows, this defies common sense: the bigger your loan payments, the less you have left over for your other needs.
A fiscal storm is threatening Arlington’s life today. Gimme shelter!
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Cuccinelli and Virginia’s Women
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column published on Tuesdays. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli wants to be elected Virginia Governor this year. If he succeeds, the values on which he has built his political career ensure that he would exploit every opportunity to set Virginia’s women back 60 years to an era in which they were “stuck in the drudgery of domestic servitude.”
You think I’m exaggerating? Cuccinelli supports a “personhood amendment” to Virginia’s Constitution.
The practical effect of enacting a personhood law in Virginia would be to end or cripple a series of personal rights and private decisions that Virginia’s women have enjoyed for decades, such as:
- Birth control
- Fertility treatment
- Management of a miscarriage
- Access to safe and legal abortions
Cuccinelli is also the godfather of the effort to drive all abortion clinics in Virginia out of business. In 2011, the Virginia legislature passed a law that classified abortion clinics that perform more than 5 first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals rather than doctor’s offices. The intent of the law, candidly admitted by many of its sponsors, was to drive these clinics out of business entirely because of the expense of compliance.
This 2011 abortion clinic law was patterned after an earlier bill that Cuccinelli had sponsored when he was in the Virginia State Senate. In his current role as Attorney General, Cuccinelli has fought every step of the way to be sure that this abortion clinic law is harshly and mercilessly applied to wipe these clinics out.
Further cementing his role as a champion of setting women’s rights back decades, Cuccinelli recently welcomed a $1.5 million pledge to his campaign for Governor from the Susan B. Anthony List — “a national organization known for its extreme stance on women’s health care.”
A Virginia governed by Ken Cuccinelli would be a 21st century real-life version of Margaret Atwood’s classic 1985 science fiction novel, The Handmaid’s Tale. Cuccinelli’s views on the proper role of women in our society are central to his values and the way in which he would govern our state.
This is not science fiction — this is all too real. We can’t afford to take a risk like this.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Aquatic Center, Dog Park Costs are Extravagant
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column published on Tuesdays. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
In last week’s column, I explained why Arlington needs to develop a core services approach to deal with its budget. Several commenters offered helpful suggestions as to how Arlington ought to define a core services approach.
For example:
- “Another way to look at the role of government revolves around the phrase ‘Basic Human Needs.’ Things like the Artisphere, other arts and cultural projects, fancy swimming pools, and dog parks need to take a back seat to education, public safety, assistance to the needy.” -Willy
- “Focus on the core and spend in other [areas] only as funds permit. But equally as important, spend wisely on everything.” -John Fontain
- “It’s stuff that you would think is almost too self-evident to need mentioning. But when you see the cuts proposed, you have to wonder. Sure, there is some room for debate about what is core, and the published example from California is just one example.” -Flux
Of course, there are refinements, adjustments and other details that Arlington needs to address in order to adopt a core services approach to its budget.
For example:
- Core services such as police, fire, and schools should not be immune from cuts. As “John Fontain” says, Arlington should “spend wisely on everything”. But, programs and services in core areas such as these should be given greater protection from cuts than programs in more peripheral areas.
- Contrary to the views of another commenter last week, I certainly do not believe that Arlington should stop funding parks or libraries. These are critical functions of our local government and justify very substantial continuing investment.
Where Arlington has missed the mark is by spending, or proposing to spend, extravagant amounts of money in areas relating to, for example, public recreation. Don’t get me wrong. I believe it is important for Arlington to provide facilities like swimming pools and dog parks. But, I also believe it is extravagant to construct an $82 million Aquatics Center or a $1.7 million dog park.
In the end, Arlington needs to adopt a core services approach to budgeting because such an approach will provide a publicly articulated and understood set of values by which budget proposals can be measured.
A core services approach to budgeting should only be adopted by the County Board after an appropriate process of community engagement.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: Prioritize Core Services, Stop Funding Artisphere
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column published on Tuesdays. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
In last week’s column, I explained why a new normal has arrived for Arlington’s budget. I concluded that business as usual in setting budget priorities must change. In response, one commenter named “Courthouse Diva” said “[I] love the idea of defining core services — everything does not need to be core.”
Courthouse Diva nailed it.
Arlington needs to develop standards to define core services, and then use those standards to decide which services and programs are core services and those that are at the edge or outside of that core.
How does Arlington handle this now?
For the FY 14 budget now under review, the County Board essentially told the County Manager, “If you think there’s going to be a $50 million shortfall, design a budget that eliminates that shortfall by relying half on spending cuts and half on tax increases.” The manager was then left to recommend a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, using that very general guidance.
How would a core services approach be different?
Under a core services approach, programs and services at the center of the core would have much greater protection from any cuts. The farther out you move from the core, there would be less and less protection. The size of a cut as a percentage of the total expenditures in its category would be greater the farther out from the core.
Peter’s Take: The New Normal of Arlington’s Budget Choices
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column published on Tuesdays. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Even Arlington can’t have it all.
How Arlington decides what it can afford says a lot about the realism of our leaders. Are they making the hard choices, or just struggling to preserve the illusion that some choices are unnecessary?
I’ve been thinking about this since I received a political fundraising letter earlier this month saying the following:
“Our goal should be to balance the short-term budget adjustments with the long-term needs of our community. We should ensure that our schools remain among the very best, that we maintain a strong social safety net, and that we continue to provide affordable housing options. We must also continue to make needed capital investments in transportation and infrastructure that will improve the quality of life and protect the future vitality of the community.”
It’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t:
- balance short-term budget adjustments with long-term needs, or
- ensure that our schools remain among the very best, or
- maintain a strong social safety net, or
- continue to provide affordable housing options, or
- make needed capital investments in transportation and infrastructure
But, we need to move far, far beyond the framing of this particular fundraising letter and ask ourselves questions like these:
- What’s a short-term budget adjustment and what’s the new normal?
- In the new normal, what projects and services should be cancelled?
- What’s a needed capital investment and by what criteria should need be measured?
- What must be done to ensure that our schools remain among the very best?
- When the only way to ensure that our schools remain among the very best is to do without other county services or capital investments, will our leaders step up and say so?
We must define or redefine what our core services are because those are the services that ought to be guaranteed funding. Some of the other services and projects must be placed in a “so sorry, no can do” category. We must take these steps because the likely rate of growth in the value of Arlington’s commercial real estate tax base will be flat or very low for many years compared to the past. This is the new normal.
As the budget season unfolds, I will use this framework to define which specific Arlington services and projects (or categories of services and projects) should be retained, and which should be set aside to adjust to the new normal.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Peter’s Take: The Dangers of Stricter Virginia ID Laws
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column published on Tuesdays. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Remember those long lines many of you experienced in Arlington in last year’s presidential election? The easiest and cheapest solution to lines like those: no-excuse absentee voting for all voters — or even for some categories of voters like those 65 years and older. But, Republicans in the Virginia legislature have blocked every effort to pass such laws.
Instead, Virginia Republican legislators have been trying to make it much harder to vote. Last year, they tried to get a photo ID requirement enacted, but Governor McDonnell (perhaps trying to burnish his VP credentials) stopped that from happening. This year, the Republicans are right back at it.
On February 5, the Virginia House and Senate passed two bills which would make the strict voter ID law enacted just last year even stricter. These bills, introduced by Republican Senator Dick Black and Republican Representative Mark Cole, “would ban voters from presenting a utility bill, pay stub, government or Social Security card as proof of identity — all forms of ID allowed under the current law.”
There is no reason to change the 2012 law so soon after it was enacted. The proposed 2013 legislation would subject Virginia voters to three new voter ID requirements in three years. There is no justification for that many changes over that short of a period of time. The confusion this would create could lead many voters to show up at the polls in 2013 with only forms of ID that were valid last year, but not this year.
Another proposed photo ID bill introduced by Republican Senator Mark Obenshain “imposes burdensome new voter identification requirements, could cost Virginia millions of dollars to implement, and may ensnare Virginia in costly litigation.” At a House of Delegates subcommittee meeting last month, representatives “from the League of Women Voters to the NAACP — opposed the photo ID requirement as costly and unnecessary, saying it would disenfranchise minority, elderly and low-income Virginians.”
Disenfranchising these categories of voters is precisely the goal of photo ID laws — despite vehement denials from the Republicans sponsoring them. They claim it’s to prevent fraud. But documented cases of such fraud are minuscule while the number of voters likely to be disenfranchised is in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
The costs to democracy and our pocketbooks of these voter ID laws far outweigh the benefits — a point brushed aside by Republicans who otherwise boast about their commitment to sound fiscal policy.
Peter Rousselot is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
