By Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; B04
The D.C. Council rejected a controversial bill yesterday that would have allowed voters to amend the D.C. Home Rule Act to require "free, high-quality" education for public school students.
The council's 7 to 6 vote to table the D.C. Education Rights Charter Amendment Act means that the measure will not appear on the November ballot and that it might not be reintroduced. The vote took supporters by surprise, especially because the council preliminarily approved the measure 12 to 1 last month.
The state of the District's public schools has become the biggest issue for residents in this year's council election. This year, the council approved giving $1 billion in sales tax revenue to renovate and repair the city's crumbling schools. There is a focus on raising academic standards and improving test scores as students flock to charter schools.
Council members who opposed the education measure did so largely because they could not agree on a definition of high-quality education and worried that promising students a level of education that the system is struggling to provide would open the city to lawsuits.
The vote came as the council considered a stack of other proposals, including 41 emergency bills, during the last meeting before the summer recess. The panel will not meet again until after the Sept. 12 primary election.
Iris Toyer, co-chairman of Parents United for the D.C. Public Schools, a group that had lobbied for the education bill, could hardly speak after the vote. "What just happened in there, I have no words. I can't tell you the level of disgust that I am feeling right now," she said.
Toyer directed her anger at council member Vincent B. Orange Sr. (D-Ward 5), who moved to table the legislation after colleagues rejected his amendment to require the school system to set standards for third-graders, eighth-graders and high school seniors. Orange said he did not believe the bill had gone far enough.
"He's going to pay," Toyer said of Orange.
Council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), the dissenter in last month's vote, said that approving the measure could invite lawsuits. She noted that the District has 2,143 lawyers per 100,000 residents. "Isn't that something? I can see the lawsuits now, and so will you," Schwartz said.
In an interview, Kwame R. Brown (D-At Large), who cast the deciding vote, said he began to wonder what the bill would achieve. "I looked at it and said, 'What's this going to do for kids?' I couldn't bring myself to say yes."
Orange, Schwartz and Brown voted with Sharon Ambrose (D-Ward 6), David A. Catania (I-At Large), Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) and Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) to table the bill.
On another matter, the council voted 7 to 6 to return a proposal for open government meetings to a council committee for review. The measure would have banned private meetings of government bodies when a quorum was present.
Evans tried unsuccessfully to table the bill, saying he was upset that a reporter had taped the council's discussion during yesterday's breakfast meeting "without our knowledge." He was referring to Amy Doolittle of the Washington Times, who ran her tape recorder while she was at the meeting.
In March, Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) opened the breakfast meetings to the media. They had been closed since they began about 15 years ago. The move occurred at the same time that Orange and Council member Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3) began drafting the bill.
Yesterday, council members talked at length about the bill, but the discussion came down to a one-on-one debate between Schwartz and Orange.
Schwartz said she had eight amendments. "This bill needs enormous amounts of work . . . We'll be here until tomorrow," she said, referring to the time it might take to debate her amendments.
"If you got eight amendments, bring 'em on. If it's all night, it's all right," Orange said as audience members erupted in applause.
But at the recommendation of council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the council sent the bill back to committee. Council member Vincent C. Gray (D-Ward 7), who is running against Patterson for chairman in their party's primary, cast the deciding vote.
A man in the audience walked out of the room, yelling: "Shame on you! Shame on you!"
In other business, the council voted 10 to 3 to give initial approval to Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey to receive an additional $16,000 annually toward his pension, which bumps him from $44,000 a year to $60,000.
Mendelson, who heads the council judiciary committee, said the council had a "moral obligation or good faith obligation" to grant Ramsey the increased pension package because of a promise made by the federally imposed Control Board in place when he was hired in 1998.
The city was supposed to give him a pension package that would be similar to one he would have received if he had not left his 30-year career with the Chicago police department, according to a committee report.
Catania said he did not understand why the council was renegotiating a written contract that did not include an increase in Ramsey's pension. Catania, Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4) and Patterson were the dissenters.