front page - editorial archives  - search - community

Native Intelligence
	Recall creating an engaged mayor (Published February 9, 2004) By DIANA WINTHROP

Last month, when recall proponents had their official kickoff press conference, an irritated Anthony Williams’ first reaction was to say he would "crush" them. The mayor went further to characterize the recall opponents as the usual complainers who have never liked him or what he has tried to do as mayor.

An angry A. Scott Bolden, chairman of the local Democratic Party organization, quickly came to the mayor’s defense, saying "recall actively distracts, disrupts and undercuts the overall democratic process." As expected, Bolden further complained that the recall campaign would take away from the local party’s effort to help regain Democratic control of the White House and Congress in November.

Two weeks later, during the mayor’s annual State of the District Address, Williams’ public observations softened. He characterized recall supporters as residents who care passionately about the District.

What could have possibly altered the mayor’s perception of residents who want to fire him? A survey of political insiders found that the mayor received an earful from his advisers, who gave the mayor some bad news.

The hardy group of recall advocates may be "the usual complainers," but dissatisfaction and – more importantly – disappointment was rampant throughout what has been characterized as the mayor’s original base of supporters. The disappointment, Williams was told, could become signatures on a recall petition. His advisers further observed that while voters might in the end reject recalling him, petitioners could certainly damage his legacy by obtaining sufficient valid signatures to force the initiative to be placed before the voters by the end of the year.

History is in the mayor’s favor, though he should not take it for granted.

The Center for Voting and Democracy says people will often sign a petition that calls for a recall election but will, ultimately, vote against it.

When Dianne Feinstein – now a member of the U.S. Senate – was mayor of San Francisco in the early 1980s, there were painful and deep divisions in the city and lots of anger after the city’s previous mayor and a councilman were assassinated. Advocates of recalling Feinstein obtained many more signatures than were needed and people just assumed she would be recalled. On election night, Feinstein crushed the recall effort. Almost 80 percent of the voters in San Francisco rejected removing her from office. It wasn’t because they were happy with Feinstein; it was that her performance didn’t reach the level that voters thought should result in her removal from office.

On Feb. 2, the Ward 3 Democrats voted overwhelmingly to reject the effort to recall Mayor Williams. To the politically challenged Williams, the Ward 3 vote may seem like an "A" on his report card and a rejection of the recall organization’s complaints. However, Ward 3 Democrats Chairman Brian Lederer says the mayor should view this recall effort as a sign that he must do better.

Williams should listen to Lederer, who is no novice to politics. Lederer is a sophisticated, 30-year veteran of Democratic Party politics at the local and national levels. And while he is chairman of the Ward 3 Democratic organization, he is not a member of the mayor’s cheering squad. Lederer says Ward 3 residents may be more understanding of the difficulty Williams has in running the District, but he says "that isn’t to say a number of people aren’t concerned with Williams’ job performance over the past five years."

Lederer issues a warning to the mayor not to assume that D.C. voters’ opposition to recall campaigns is a guarantee that he will survive this recall effort. Anything could change in six months and, if Williams doesn’t try harder, there could be sufficient signatures filed on July 28 to force a vote in the fall.

When the recall effort became official in late January, there was an enormous amount of political buzz that recall advocates had the support of some important former Williams’ supporters. These individuals, they assumed, would give credibility to the campaign Williams had called "the usual complainers."

One key local figure whose name has been repeatidly mentioned is Peter B. Edelman, who – along with his wife, Marian Wright Edelman – is considered a national expert on issues such as poverty, children and youth. Edelman is a professor of law at Georgetown University and heads a clinic that focuses on poverty policy. He took leave during President Clinton’s first term to serve as counselor to Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and then as HHS assistant secretary for planning and evaluation. In a highly public though principled action, Edelman quit over Clinton’s welfare reform program, which he considered one of the worst things President Clinton had done.

Apparently, recall organizers mistook Edelman’s unhappiness with the mayor as support for the recall effort. Edelman says the mayor has not been responsive to those with the greatest needs in the District. Williams has not been, Edelman says sadly, a wonderful mayor. He says Williams’ job performance has been extremely disappointing, but not bad enough to warrant recall at this time. Edelman says he did not come to this decision easily.

That is not to say that Edelman or others who oppose recall efforts now may not change their minds during the next 180 days, while the recall camp seeks the necessary signatures to place the question on the ballot.

Whether recall advocates succeed or fail, they can take comfort in knowing their effort has already resulted in a much more engaged Mayor Williams. The mayor is now out and about in all wards, listening to residents whether he likes what he hears or not – which isn’t a bad thing for all of us.

***

Diana Winthrop is a native Washingtonian. Contact her at diana@thecommondenominator.com.

Copyright 2004, The Common Denominator