By Colbert I. King
Saturday, September 6, 2008
The scene was depressingly familiar: the D.C. government called on the carpet by a judge frustrated with the city's failure to meet the terms of a consent decree.
The courtroom drama I witnessed this week underscored a sad reality: The one true safeguard between the city's most vulnerable residents and acts of governmental injustice is the black-robed figure in the courthouse.
This time, events unfolded Wednesday in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman.
Sitting in the dock were a who's who of Mayor Adrian Fenty's administration: Acting Attorney General Peter Nickles, D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee and State Schools Superintendent Deborah Gist.
The impetus for the hearing was a report filed by court-appointed monitors Amy Totenberg and Clarence J. Sundram that detailed the city's failure to implement special-education reforms to which Fenty's government agreed last year.
The 70-page report and supporting attachments documented how, when and why city officials failed to meet their legal obligations to D.C. children with special needs.
The city's top lawyer and education leaders had to listen as the judge scolded them for not keeping their word to implement hundreds of settlements and hearing-officer decisions involving children who require special education services.
"A consent decree," Friedman lectured, "is not something you agree to for the fun of it."
Over and over, Friedman threw Fenty's campaign watchword, "accountability," in their faces. At one point, Friedman charged that Fenty's special education program lacked "someone to be held accountable."
Rhee, who is used to being the one who does the upbraiding, clearly wasn't having a good time. Her stoic posture at the defendant's table was betrayed by impatient foot-tapping.
It fell to Nickles to do a mea culpa for the city.
"I'm not happy with our performance," he told Friedman. Nickles pledged that the administration would "hold ourselves responsible," adding that the city would "take the court's comments to heart."
Peter Nickles can be forgiven if he's cringing inside. Before joining Fenty's team, Nickles was a fearless fighter for the city's most marginalized residents, scoring legal victories not thought possible at the time. Many of Washington's most important social and institutional reforms are the result of his legal work.
Now Nickles is putting his credibility on the line, defending city officials who ought to be held in contempt for treating consent agreements as if they were annoying late-payment notices.
Friedman, in a gesture I consider too soft-hearted, gave notice that he would issue a court order containing questions that Rhee and Gist must answer at a future hearing.
Then he let them go.
Somebody should have left in handcuffs.
Unfortunately, missing court deadlines is not a Fenty administration peculiarity. For decades, the D.C. government's standard operating procedure has been to ignore consent decrees.
By the way, I couldn't help noticing that one of the city's lawyers -- a man I've known for years -- fell asleep during the hearing.
No loss to him.
But what of those residents with the least to lose?
I'm referring to children in foster care, young victims of neglect and abuse, the physically disabled, the mentally ill, people with mental retardation, juveniles in detention and inmates in jail.
All of them have been forced to turn to the courts because of D.C. government failures. All have been victimized by a D.C. government that breaks promises it has signed even before the ink is dry.
Sadly, unless one of those residents dies in a headline-making event, they are almost invisible to the rest of the city.
That harsh assessment was reinforced by my experience moderating Democratic candidate debates this summer in Wards 2, 4, 7 and 8. (I would have gladly moderated Republican, Statehood or other candidate debates, if asked.)
Each forum was well attended by residents armed with written questions for the candidates.
In every ward, however, there were relatively few questions or concerns expressed about the city's marginalized population.
This helps explain why a succession of city leaders has felt safe offering half-hearted help -- but loads of lip service -- to the District's poor and disadvantaged.
What city leaders are doing is wrong. We should expect more from them. But first we must demand more of ourselves.
In the final analysis, whether the District government does right by the least among us depends upon those of us who are doing better.
It falls to us to demand that the city do right by children who need special education services; young victims of abuse and neglect; juveniles in need of supervision; and people too physically and emotionally ill to care for themselves.
Accountability.
That word applies to city leaders.
It also applies to us.
Despite their best efforts, plaintiffs' lawyers, and judges such as Paul Friedman, can't do the job alone.
Read more from Colbert King at washingtonpost.com's new opinion blog, PostPartisan.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.