The Richmond School Board holds a meeting at George Mason Elementary School, where building conditions prompted a petition asking school officials to take action. The board is expected to hear a presentation Oct. 16 about the ballot referendum. (Photo by Stephen Clatterbuck)
Virtually every politician in Richmond says they want to fix the city's decrepit school buildings, neglected by years of deferred maintenance. But start asking around about a ballot proposition that would require Mayor Levar Stoney to develop a plan to actually do it, and things get complicated.
Stoney calls the "school modernization referendum" flawed and says he'll seek changes to it in the state legislature if it passes. City Council members briefly contemplated mounting a legal challenge to keep it off the ballot. Education advocates profess confusion and question the motives of the measure's architect and chief supporter: Paul Goldman, a law partner and adviser to former mayoral candidate Joe Morrissey.
The referendum is an initiative of the Richmond Crusade for Voters, an organization founded in 1956 to support school integration and increase the influence of black residents in the political process. Leaders of the organization see the state of Richmond Public Schools facilities as a direct inheritance of white flight, massive resistance and the other instances of systematic discrimination against black students and their families. The Crusade gathered over 15,000 signatures to get the referendum on the ballot this year. (You can see the full text on this sample ballot.)
The 350-word proposition begins by invoking civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and quoting the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision. Farther down, voters will find this proposal: “Not later than six months after this section becomes law, the Mayor shall formally present to the City Council a fully-funded plan to modernize the city’s K-12 educational infrastructure consistent with national standards or inform City Council such a plan is not feasible.”
It goes on to require that the plan not rely on new or increased taxes and that City Council will have 90 days to take any action it deems appropriate on the plan.
To its backers, the proposed charter change simply codifies who is in charge of fixing the school buildings and how long he or she has to present a plan to do so. It makes clear who is responsible for a process that currently involves two local elected bodies as well as the mayor and his administration.
“[The] School Board can come up with list of facilities, but they don’t have the ability to raise the money. City Council appropriates the money, but they’ve often said, ‘We want to have some say in the facilities,’ ” says Goldman, who was a key figure in creating Richmond’s strong-mayor form of government and worked closely with former Mayor Doug Wilder, also a former Virginia governor. “There’s only one person who can say, ‘Look, I’m on top of this.’ ”
Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney (file photo)
That person, Stoney, does not support the referendum. Via his spokesman, he agrees that modernization of schools is a priority, but says, “The administration believes the referendum is flawed as currently constituted and would advocate for changes in the legislature if it were to pass. It is our position that all options should be on the table when it comes to our schools.”
Stoney touts his Education Compact as the framework and vehicle for funding a comprehensive facilities plan, though with his first year in office winding down, that effort has so far only yielded an agreement to establish a “compact team” and a “children’s cabinet,” and hold quarterly meetings with the full City Council, School Board, mayor and administrators.
Opposition to the referendum centers on its methods and limitations. Cindy Menz-Erb, who is running to keep her 3rd District School Board seat, suggested it would circumvent the board’s power and authority at a September forum with her opponents, who support the proposition.
And at City Council on Monday, another proposed charter change failed by one vote, with council members expressing concern about the Virginia General Assembly’s authority over the charter process.
Should Richmond voters pass the referendum, the General Assembly is under no obligation to change the charter in the 2018 session, or to keep the language the same.
“It’s such an unpredictable process,” says Garet Prior, founder of the school advocacy organization Richmond Forward.
A longtime advocate for the schools, Prior says he’s unsure how he’ll vote on the referendum, but he worries about putting the issue in the legislature’s lap. He shares the Crusade’s frustration with the state of school facilities and wants to see a plan as soon as possible.
“But I’d also like it to be through the existing channels and processes — the people and positions of School Board, City Council and mayor who are going to be here long term,” he says. “I could easily see this being a tool that, if passed, really becomes its own distraction versus getting the results we need.”
Prior also worries that the tight timeline prescribed by the referendum would limit the amount of community engagement. “It’s getting the answers we need versus building a more inclusive process that could come to a long-term solution,” he says.
Goldman says casting aspersions at the charter change process is a political “scare tactic.”
“The General Assembly could do whatever they want now,” Goldman says. “They’re not doing it. Why? Because they’re going to listen to the people who represent Richmond and other places.”
Some Stoney supporters simply see the referendum as heavy-handed — “a hammer approach,” as Prior called it.
Another objection cited by opponents of the referendum is the language ruling out a tax increase. A Richmond Times-Dispatch/Christopher Newport University poll last week suggested that a majority of Richmond residents would support a tax increase for new and renovated city schools.
Goldman says that’s up to the mayor, but he wants him to have to explain any need for a tax increase. Cost estimates for a district-wide school modernization plan run between $500 million and $600 million.
“But raising taxes should be a last resort,” Goldman says. “There’s an amazing amount of duplication [in the city budget], people that don’t need to be there, so many perks and sweetheart contracts and stuff.”
The referendum has found some bipartisan support. Republican House of Delegates member Manoli Loupassi sent a letter of support to City Council, where he once served, asking them to focus on school modernization. His campaign materials support it, too.
Loupassi’s Democratic opponent, Dawn Adams, released a statement supporting the idea behind the referendum, though not the referendum itself. “I want to vote for Richmond’s school modernization plan, but no leader should cast their vote before they understand what they are voting for, and voters shouldn’t be expected to do so either,” she wrote.
Del. Betsy Carr, a longtime Democratic representative of the 69th District, said at a September forum that she needed to “see the language,” and hasn’t taken a position since. Her opponents — Green Party candidate Montigue Magruder and Libertarian Jake Crocker — support the referendum.
In that sense, the referendum has become a sort of Rorschach test for political loyalties and associations. Stoney supporters say they are confused by the referendum, wanting to give the mayor a chance to do this his own way. Goldman, too, is “befuddled.”
“For me, I’m giving everyone a gift, or the Crusade [is], to get everyone a mandate,” Goldman says. “I don’t quite understand who would turn down a bipartisan mandate. Most politicians would love what I’m doing."
