We know D.C. Get our free newsletter to stay in the know.

As if they needed any more evidence that their Election Day votes meant nothing, D.C. voters woke up on Wednesday morning to find news of the District’s school board putsch right alongside the results of the school board elections. The banner story in the Washington Post’s Metro section—a scoop that would have landed above the front-page fold any other day—announced that the board has decided to fire D.C. Public Schools Superintendent Franklin Smith, strip the newly elected school board of its powers, and set up an unelected five-member panel to run the schools.

For weeks the control board has refused pleas from city officials to disclose their plans for the school system. And so the Election Day news leak looked like the sort of high-handed, arrogant behavior you might expect from an unaccountable, appointed board. The timing sparked outrage from school officials.

But no one could have been more outraged by the Nov. 6 Post headline than Washington Times reporter John Mercurio, who had the story ready to print on Election Day morning. After a bout of stonewalling and misleading statements by control board officials, however, Mercurio and Times editors decided to hold the story. And when control board staffers learned Election Day afternoon that Mercurio had gotten independent confirmation, they immediately leaked details to Post reporter David Vise, according to a source familiar with Tuesday’s events.

The control board would have preferred to keep its plans out of the media until at least the end of next week. But staffers also wanted to protect Vise, a favorite of control board Executive Director John Hill. Some reporters complain that Hill favors Vise so much that he won’t even return their phone calls.

The control board appreciates Vise, according to one source, because he always gets “the right slant” on the leaks from his sources.


Georgetown community activist Westy Byrd has come up with a new interpretation of the District’s motor-voter law.

In her shrill campaign to keep Georgetown University (GU) students out of local politics, Byrd pushed her very own amendment to the Voting Rights Act: She implored District officials to require a valid D.C. driver’s license as a condition for voting.

Sounds like a pretty sound strategy. After all, literacy tests—yesteryear’s tried-and-true strategy for voter deterrence—wouldn’t work too well on students at one of the country’s elite universities. But requiring the students to endure a full day of lines at the motor vehicle bureau, Byrd apparently reasoned, would accomplish the same end. If they still wanted to vote in the District after that ordeal, then Byrd would force them to file local income-tax returns and pay whatever other D.C. taxes and fees she could find.

Byrd, a member of the Georgetown Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) and a leader of the campaign that pulled the plug on GU’s proposed campus power plant, ran unopposed in Tuesday’s election. But two GU students, Rebecca Sinderbrand and James Fogarty, were running for seats held by Byrd’s allies on the ANC.

In Georgetown, heated ANC battles overshadowed all other contests, including council and school board elections.

A campus voter-registration drive added more than 1,000 Georgetown students to D.C. voter rolls, according to campus voter-registration chairman Dan Leistikow. And most of those students, Leistikow said, live in the two ANC districts where Sinderbrand and Fogarty challenged incumbents.

Byrd chaired the committee that redrew Ward 2’s ANC boundaries following the 1990 census. Not surprisingly, the boundaries split the campus into six different ANC districts, which minimizes the threat of GU representation on the Georgetown ANC. But the campaigns by Sinderbrand and Fogarty threatened Byrd’s longstanding efforts to deny Georgetown students a voice in ANC politics, even though the university routinely comes up in ANC votes.

“The students are claiming that they don’t have to meet the requirements of being D.C. residents,” Byrd says. “And I’m claiming, on behalf of many residents, that in fact the students do have to meet residency requirements, and prove that they intend to stay in D.C.” At this rate, Byrd will soon join Founding Father Alexander Hamilton in requiring would-be voters to furnish proof that they own property in the District.

Residency arguments aside, Byrd wants to keep students off the ANC because they are unlikely allies for her neighborhood agenda. Students like pizza; Byrd fought to the death to keep Papa John’s from opening an outlet a couple of blocks from the university. And students may be inclined to side with the university in land-use squabbles; Byrd fought the power plant and also opposes a GU proposal to allow traffic to hang a left from Canal Road onto campus.

Byrd’s warnings about the menace of nomadic university students participating in local elections fell on unsympathetic ears down at the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.

Acting city elections director Alice Miller told Byrd that the law does not require D.C. voters to first obtain valid driver’s permits or meet any of Byrd’s other conditions. According to Miller, the law requires only that voters in the District register 30 days prior to an election and not be registered anywhere else.

In fact, Miller told Byrd that her husband was a registered D.C. voter but held a driver’s license issued in a neighboring state. Byrd quickly added Miller’s husband, Lenny, to the list of voters she wanted disqualified from Tuesday’s elections.

“Her statement to me was that he should not be voting,” Miller recalled this past Monday. “And I said to her, ‘No, he should not be driving.’”

After Miller’s tutorial in election law, Byrd cranked out letters of outrage to all the local bigwigs: Mayor-for-Life Marion S. Barry Jr., D.C. Corporation Counsel Charles Ruff, financial control board Chairman Andrew Brimmer, House D.C. subcommittee Chairman Tom Davis (R-Va.), and anyone else she could think of. She asked for nothing less than a “joint investigation” of the students’ voter registrations “to prevent voting by unqualified electors” and “to insure that all bona fide new residents have paid, and are paying, D.C. taxes and fees as required of all residents.’”

Instead of sidelining Georgetown students from local elections, Byrd claims her actions would pad the treasury by forcing students who vote here to pay their taxes here—a “financial boondoggle,” in Byrd’s words. LL doubts that the city’s coffers would have to make space for the sudden infusion of tax dollars from GU students, who spend their summers as lifeguards and unpaid interns on the Hill.

But the board of elections was not swayed by Byrd’s alarmist droppings. Instead of launching a residency-verification campaign, the board has decided to investigate whether Byrd’s actions amount to voter intimidation.

“It is erroneous to assert that as a precondition to voting, students must pay taxes or obtain a local driver’s license,” Board of Elections Chairman Benjamin Wilson stated in an Oct. 25 letter to Byrd.

“It has long been established by the Courts that students have the right to register to vote in the jurisdiction where they attend school as long as they are not registered in any other state,” Wilson’s letter continued.

However, Wilson agreed with Byrd that an investigation may be in order—an investigation of Byrd, that is. Byrd’s campaign, Wilson wrote, “may be suggestive of voter intimidation that is actionable.” The board plans to schedule a hearing soon “to determine whether this most recent action and other alleged activities have the effect of intimidating legally registered voters,” said the letter.

Despite that warning, Byrd and her allies were in Precinct 6, at Carlos Rosario School at 35th and T Streets NW, on Election Day challenging the right of Georgetown students to cast their ballots, and creating long lines at the polls.

By late afternoon, voters had to stand in line nearly 90 minutes to cast their ballots. Some elderly voters gave up and went home, complaining that Tuesday marked the first time they had failed to vote in a presidential election.

“We had a choice: bottleneck this or let nonresidents vote,” Byrd told an exasperated Georgetown resident outside the polling precinct Tuesday evening. After finally casting her ballot, the woman stopped outside to complain about the long lines, which she attributed to “the harassment” of students.

In search of further proof of a GU conspiracy to take over ANC politics, Byrd pointed to the university vans, which ferried student voters from campus to the polls all day long.

In the end, Fogarty crushed incumbent Beverly Jost 401 to 162, and Sinderbrand trailed incumbent Patricia Scolaro by six votes, with write-ins and special ballots yet to be counted. Byrd vowed to challenge Fogarty’s victory in court.

Byrd ignited the voting controversy in September when she distributed fliers around campus warning students that if they registered to vote in D.C. they would be forced to meet “the residency requirements” of paying taxes and obtaining D.C. driver’s licenses. And if they became residents of the District, she added, they would run the risk of losing their scholarships from their home states.

“She has done everything that she can to stop students from voting,” Leistikow said this week.

But he said Byrd’s tactics have actually “fired up” students and may have increased turnout on Tuesday.

Historically, the District has gone out of its way to facilitate voter registration. The homeless, for instance, don’t have to list a mailing address—just a “fixed place” such as a street grate or corner—to register to vote. Courts have upheld the “fixed-place” provision.

Reagan assassin manqué John Hinckley may be the only D.C. resident denied the right to vote here. Hinckley, an involuntary resident of St. Elizabeths Hospital, was denied a voter-registration card after the elections board ruled he had been judged insane and was a resident here against his will.

If he had his wits about him, the board concluded, he would choose to reside and vote in his home state of Colorado rather than in D.C.

LL can’t argue with that logic.

Perhaps if Hinckley would apply for a D.C. driver’s license and file tax returns here, Byrd might take up his cause and get him registered to vote—as long as he promised to stay out of ANC politics.


School board candidates who recently met with the newly formed Educational Improvement Political Action Committee (EIPAC) were startled to find incumbent school board member Jay Silberman present and participating in their interrogations. Most of the challengers came away feeling they had no chance of getting the PAC’s endorsement because of their criticism of the current board and Superintendent Franklin Smith.

And they were right.

“I walked out of there saying, what a setup!” one challenger recalled.

Silberman is a die-hard supporter of Smith and his school reforms. But he claims the PAC, bankrolled by investment businessman and education activist George Ferris, was formed to protect and promote that agenda—not to save Smith’s job by electing new, more supportive board members.

But in some circles the PAC was being referred to as the “Franklin Smith Fan Club.”

Silberman actively supported at-large school board candidate Tonya Vidal Kinlow and Ward 3 contender Howard Grimmett. And—surprise, surprise—both secured EIPAC’s seal of approval. But Silberman sees no conflict in his participation in the PAC’s evaluation of rivals to Kinlow and Grimmett.

“What would be the nature of the conflict?” he demands. “I encouraged the PAC to organize in the first place. I think the people who have been involved in education, and who understand the issues more deeply and who would be in a position to make some evaluation and recommendations, should do so.”

Even Silberman’s supporters were appalled that he saw nothing wrong with participating in the endorsement meetings.

“It just makes me question how independent something like this really ends up being,” says Ward 3 Councilmember Kathy Patterson, who endorsed Grimmett’s opponent, Don Reeves. “If these are the good guys, I think we might be in trouble.”

Reeves thinks Silberman acted as a spy for the Grimmett campaign. “He was there taking notes, and I swear, the next time I saw Howard Grimmett, he was spewing out the same stuff I had said at the meeting,” Reeves said.

“Jay is one of those people who believes that rules of ethics apply to everyone but himself,” observes a city education leader. “He has a real blind spot when it comes to judging his own conduct.”

Three of the five candidates endorsed by the PAC, including Grimmett, lost in Tuesday’s elections, all but sinking Silberman’s rumored designs on the school board chairmanship.

The creation of a PAC to promote a school-reform agenda and recruit candidates had been talked about for years prior to this election. But judging from its initial performance, EIPAC may have to reform itself first, if it is to survive. CP

Got a tip for Loose Lips? Call (202) 332-2100, Ext. 302, 24 hours a day.