front page - search - community

EDITORIAL
Unseemly interference
(Published April 19, 2004)

There’s often a fine line between congressional oversight and thuggery when it comes to the District of Columbia, and at least two members of Congress have publicly crossed that line.

Recent unseemly threats made by U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va., (reported in The Washington Post) and Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. (aired on a live WAMU radio broadcast) qualify as behavior unbecoming a member of Congress.

On his April 2 show, WAMU’s "D.C. Politics Hour" host Kojo Nnamdi questioned Landrieu, the ranking member of the Senate D.C. appropriations subcommittee, about her "threat" of congressional intervention in the District’s local debate over school governance.

In response, Landrieu only slightly softened her language: "Congress would be inclined – Congress may be interested in stepping in if we don’t see some bold and decisive action."

Earlier on the show, Landrieu had said that "clear accountability is very important and, hopefully, the District can get there. If they don’t, Congress, you know, may step in."

Four days later, Davis spokesman David Marin was quoted in the Post’s Metro briefs column calling for major changes in the District’s school governance: "We know the system’s broken, so baby steps won’t get the job done." Davis chairs the House Government Reform Committee, with oversight of the District.

To her credit, the District’s non-voting delegate to Congress has "expressed her concern" to both Davis and Landrieu about the comments, according to a spokeswoman for D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

While the U.S. Constitution gives Congress ultimate jurisdiction over the nation’s capital, it is wholly improper and an affront to America’s basic democratic principles for that authority to be exercised by interfering in purely local matters that do not directly affect the functioning of the federal government.

Resolving disputes between a mayor and a city council is a job for local voters, not Congress.

"Clear accountability," in the case of the District’s public schools, should rest with D.C. voters, not with the federal legislature. It should be in the best interest of Congress to see that D.C. law, in all respects, clearly permits D.C. voters to hold their elected representatives accountable at the ballot box for failing to properly govern.

Congressional action may be swifter – though it hardly seems swift when most federal concerns are at issue – but the Constitution doesn’t require Congress to referee.

If Congress really cared about the proper use of D.C. tax dollars, its members would not continually expect the District’s elected leaders and their aides to spend government time pledging their fealty to congressional committees. That time – and money – would be much better spent on running the D.C. government in the public’s interest.

Threatening the District’s elected leaders with congressional intervention interferes with local elected leaders’ responsibility to serve their constituents. It also makes it difficult for D.C. voters to hold anyone accountable when elected leaders’ actions are coerced by Congress.

Especially in this election year, members of Congress should watch where they step.

Copyright 2004, The Common Denominator