DN Editorial: Pols should stop underestimating the folks who elect them

YESTERDAY, City Council voted on a map that will carve up the city into new districts. The map not only attempts to fix the heavily gerrymandered 7th District, but also allows Council members to draw their salaries since the vote fulfills the legal requirements of the redistricting deadline.

But if those legal requirements had also mandated that Council members draw new maps after heavy public involvement, they would soon have to be applying for food stamps. Once again, the public was shut out, with public hearings scheduled as an afterthought.

No one suggests that the redistricting process is easy. In fact, the version that Council passed yesterday was not the map drawn up by the Council committee formed for the purpose, but a "rogue" map authored by Councilmen DiCicco and Kenney. And it's worth noting that neither was as good as one drawn by a member of the public as part of a redistricting contest using software designed by Azavea. (The constest was partially sponsored by this editorial board.)

Council represents the public. Council is elected by the public. So why does Council continually underestimate the public?

Jannie Blackwell unwittingly summed up this contempt when she explained, "I'm not for having a hearing before we know what we're doing because then we upset the public. You shouldn't think out loud to the public. You could get people angry."

Actually, the public is angrier when its leaders don't trust it enough to deliberate or discuss things in public.

Last week, at a public forum on zoning-code reform, three members of Council attended with Deputy Mayor Alan Greenberger. For a while, Greenberger and members of Council were on stage, negotiating on individual code issues. It was a frank and fascinating exchange that illustrated two sides struggling with a complex topic and trying to find common ground.

We were struck with how rare that is to witness, and how useful it would be for Council and other elected officials to do it more often. It not only shows that it doesn't have all the answers but that solutions aren't always the result of deals done in a back room away from the light of day.

We fear the final resolution of the zoning debate will continue behind closed doors, though another hearing is scheduled for Tuesday. Council should open the door, not only to this process, but to a new mind-set that gives the public more credit.

Speaking of backroom deals . . .

The release of Chief Integrity Officer Joan Markmam's report on the withdrawal of Mosaica as a charter-school provider for MLK High due to the heavy, and negative, influence of Dwight Evans, leaves no doubt that Robert Archie acted inappropriately as head of the SRC by letting Evans strong-arm the democratic process in favor of his preferred provider, Foundations. If Archie hadn't resigned earlier this week, this report is damning enough to have demanded his resignation. But it's Evans, acting like "The Godfather," who should be singled out for the harshest sanctions.

Let's start with a simple one: No elected official should have any board or partnership relationship with any school provider, including being a founding or board member of a charter school.