a debate are usually negotiated between the candidates.  How come LWV is changing their own tradition "at the request of one of the candidates"?

Shenanigans like this make it look like Linda has something to worry about from her challenger.  Why would an experienced incumbent need to hide from the public?

That looks like a standard no-use agreement to me.  I'm a little surprised that it would be attached to a Supervisors debate but its pretty standard fare for congressional/senate/governors races.  It prevents the candidates or supporters from using campaign gaffes (like the Craney Island thing) in campaign ads or attacks. 

As far as limiting involvement in the debate, it looks to me like they're only limiting who can RUN the debate.  Anyone can attend, only LWVFA members who live in the district can't help organize, I would assume to limit the possibility of someone with a vested interest in the outcome of the race somehow influencing the debate. 

In other words, this is NOT a "standard no-use agreement."  Instead, "in this case, at the request of one of the candidates, only LWVFA members who do not live in the Providence Magisterial District will be involved in running this event..."  Why?

these quotes out of order, it appears to me that the only thing that has been altered is who may help put together the debate based on residency. 

Considering the rising importance of blogs in politics in the Commonwealth -- especially in D politics -- the exculsion of blogs seems rather astounding.

If they had stated that they want journalists -- including bloggers -- to register as "press". Okay. Got it.  But the exculsion of bloggers with the explicit "don't dare link to unauthorized reporting' seems a bit much and counterproductive.  Why does the LWV of Providence District hate blogs?

Linda recently did a phone survey of Democrats to explore her popularity in Providence.  I have a feeling based on people I heard from that it didn't come out so good.

I hope that bloggers will at least attend the debate, take extensive notes and write it up.

I know Linda and some of her staff.  I'm friends (hopefully still am) with her campaign manager.

I cannot sit by silently and watch what has been done to this County continue on while some folks try to promote their election year conversions to environmentalist politicians.

CHARLIE HALL FOR PROVIDENCE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR !

You know that district a lot better than I do.  Thanks.

She was his handpicked successor and she lacks any charisma at all.  If she didn't have a D next to her name and Gerry at the top in '03 she might have actually lost to Hyland. 

update their website.  I dropped by to see what they had to say about this debate and it's not on the site at all. 

This is my first effort to respond to the question about what is going on in Fairfax, why there is a primary, and why Democrats are opposing small d democracy.

I do not understand where Linda Smyth is coming from.  She's been in office for something like 8 years, first as an appointee to the Planning Commission and since 2003 as elected Supervisor from Providence District.  She has not been pro-active in addressing community concerns about over development and the cluster of related issues: traffic, land use, erratic zoning enforcemnet from one supervisor's district to the next, environmental consequences of these policies and affordable housing.

Just for example, distribution of affordable housing around the county would reduce the burden on folks with less money and make it easier for them to get to work.  I'll write more about the policy issues later.

The controversy about restricting who can report on the debate seems typical of local Fairfax politicians.  I've been hearing for years that the Board of Supervisors has made public access to the planning process more difficult.  They don't seem to want us involved.  Now, it seems that there is an effort to restrict our access to our own democracy.  This stuff about how officials for the debate have to come from outside of Providence, neither campaign can link to reporting about the debate, etc is like a recurring nightmare.  This is how the developers shove their over-sized anti-environmental projects down our throats.

Linda Smyth does a great job representing Providence District. 

Linda held and attended many local civic meetings regarding the development of the metro stations in Providence.  Everone interested in the planning for these developments had ample opportunity to learn about the plans and voice their concerns.  The apartments and condos at the metro stations will be cheaper than most homes in the district.

Not everyone is happy with the plans and some of those are behind Linda's challenger. I am happy with Linda's votes approving concentrated new housing and new retail at the metro stations which I view as good planning.

I have found that Linda is responsive when she is asked to help in Providence. Linda has helped my local high school (W.T. Woodson) with its renovation planning and in making arrangements for the school's after graduation party at a Fairfax recreation center. She has hosted tax relief workshops for seniors, environmental workshops for home owners, and promoted better storm drainage retention ponds.

I am a supporter, volunteer and contributor for Linda. She has done a good job and gets my vote for the next election.

New condos around places like metro stations or Tysons Corner are going for $500,00 and up now days. That's a lot of money for a little over 1,000 square feet of living space. And it is definitely not affordable housing.

First, let me say that I ardently believe that there should be video and audio recordings of the event.  Any restrictions on democratic process are contrary to the founding of our nation.

But, Mr. Diamond's comments on this obviously drummed up controversy are unhinged from reality.  Nothing in the language quoted from LWVFA prevents any person (bloggers included) from taking notes during the debate and posting them later.  That's what most bloggers do anyway.

Still, I can't say that this is surprising.  This "spontaneous" thread host all the usual suspects.  I thought all these names seemed familiar, so I googled a bit and found Washington Post sites where the same names - Deborah Reyher, Becky Cate and Charlie Hall - appear together (e.g., here).  What interested me was how this RK comment thread mirrors those other postings.  Charlie's foot soldiers make their comments, he makes his and the other two cheer him on (or alternate and repeat).  My hat is off to you three - nice PR offensive.

...so if people aren't happy here, it must be a conspiracy?  Is that your attitude about anyone who isn't pleased with the Fairfax County establishment, or is it just on the issue of trying to minimize the public's ability to see an important debate?  Why can't bloggers videotape the debate and put it up on YouTube?  What possible rationale could there be?

there is no conspiracy.  Deborah Reyher and Becky Cate are integral members of the Hall campaign.  So, it is fair to point that out that they are not merely interested citizens.  My sources tell me that Lee Diamond is closely involved, too.

It is one thing to have interested citizens respond to blog posts, it is another to have one's campaign staff bombard a blog thread.  I thought the point of blogs was to get past the spin directly from candidates and elected officials.

And on the point that matters to our democracy, I agree that bloggers and whoever else should be able to record the event.  It should all be as easily accessed as possible.  There's no sunlight between Lowell and me on that point.

about bloggers having full access to covering this debate. Now, what do we need to do to make this happen?  Thanks.

I always post in my own name, as a very "interested citizen" -- so I find it a bit funny to be challenged for owning my own comments rather than posting under a pseudonym.

Citizens can do their own research about Charlie, about Linda, and about me or other "interested citizens" (if they care), but the point is that it is the "interested citizens" who are the voters, and they are entitled to all the facts, and to a fair debate.

The bit about only linking to sites using "authorized material".  What if a "blogger" takes a photo?  What if someone wants to post a pdf of the invitation?  Etc ... And, the campaign wants to link but is forbidden? 

Sounds like the results here is to suppress free speech and public exposure to this debate, whether that was the intent or not. 

As past chair of Providence District Council, PDC co-sponsored 4 candidate forums with the League of Women Voters FA, including the 2003 Smyth-Hyland challenge. This includes, as well, forums for VA Delegate Districts 35 & 37 and VA Senate Districts 32 and 34. At no time previous has the League excluded the co-sponsor from participating in the event, nor has language appeared in the League's rules to exclude any media, nor have campaigns acted to deter public distribution of information. There is absolutely no public benefit served by prohibiting distribution of candidate positions. I find it particularly unpalatable that a co-sponsor's respresentative(s) may not monitor the questions that are addressed to the candidates to insure impartiality, which is the stated goal of the League.

Of course, if that co-sponsor has a habit of publishing what seems to be exclusively letters to the editor singularly supporting one candidate over the other, then it really questions the ethics of that institution.  So, why is it that the Connection seems to publish pro-Hall letters only?

Would someone please explain what is going on here?

I'd be glad to explain.  There is a long history of citizen frustration with a Fairfax Board of Supervisors that does not want to listen to citizen concerns about high density growth that overmatches roads, schools, parks and the environment.  When disparate citizen groups starting coming together two years ago to identify issues of cross-county concern and join their voices together, The Washington Post took notice in a front-page article and blog, asking if the Board was "vulnerable" on development issues: here

Emboldened, citizens continued to participate in droves in hearings for many over-dense proposals at Wedderburn, Hunter Mill Road, MetroWest, and also to the extent possible in planning for Tysons Corner.  You can find an archive of news articles relating to these endeavors here

This level of citizen participation has not been welcomed by the BOS.  Just a week or so ago, Chairman Connolly greeted news of Charlie Hall's candidacy for Linda Smyth's seat with the statement: "It's easy to show up after three years of undermining your officials and come up with an agenda," said Connolly, referring to Hall." See here

I responded, noting all Charlie Hall's invaluable contributions to the Providence District, which now have been officially dismissed as "undermining".  See here

So, perhaps with that history it is not so surprising that incumbent Linda Smyth now wishes to have the debate at the far end of Providence District, away from the communities most crushed by over-development, and to limit any participation or coverage that would further encourage citizens to pay attention to this race and to vote on July 12th.  Take a look at Charlie for a different choice.

As one of the two candidates participating in this debate, I want to answer why I accepted some restrictions I didn't like.

As I discussed with the League last week, there are problems with the debate conditions. It's located at one extreme end of Providence District, making it needlessly  inaccessible to many voters; the audio/video rules could discriminate against bloggers; and one hour is very short for the only public debate Linda Smyth will undergo in four years.

But I also want to express some understanding and appreciation for the League. If it weren't for their efforts and persistence, I don't think there would be any debate at all.

Almost from the moment they agreed to host the debate, the League came under enormous criticism and pressure to alter the ground rules--seemingly with a goal of making it harder for the public to participate. With very limited exceptions, such as a request for a more central location, those pressures did not come from my campaign.

Out of sheer frustration, the League made it clear, by the time they extended the formal invitation Tuesday, that they would not negotiate the proposed conditions. 

Fairfax has suffered in recent years from a lack of open and civil discussion of crucial issues, especially relating to traffic and overdevelopment. I suspect some of what occurred here is more of the same.

Even with the shortcomings I mentioned, I welcome a chance to engage Linda Smyth in an open debate, and I thank raisingkaine for taking notice of this campaign.

I'd love to hear from Linda as well on this!

I don't get it.  Mr. Hall talks about a lack of openness and civility.  But, it's a matter of public record:  Supervisor Smyth regularly holds public events where the residents of Providence interact with her and get answers.  She has held many seminars on land use, the environment, and transportation during her term.  Not just one to make residents come to her, she goes to HOA and civic association meetings all the time.  She's accessible all the time.

Does Mr. Hall believe that because a public event is called a workshop or seminar instead of town hall meeting that he can get traction with the people of Providence with a notion like Supervisor Smyth is inaccessible?  I don't think they can be so easily fooled.

So, I would be interested to know how often has Mr. Hall met with the Supervisor since she took office?  Does she provide Mr. Hall with the time to voice his views?  Has Supervisor Smyth been responsive to his concerns?  He may not like what he hears, but I would be interested in knowing how she has closed the door on Mr. Hall.

There is no question that Mr. Hall has a different perspective to offer Providence residents on land use - one that I personally disagree with.  But, it makes more sense to highlight those differences than spin a false line on a lack of open government.

and representing them are two very different things.  Just because Ms. Smyth attends citizen meetings, conferences, seminars, townhalls, or whatever you want to call them, doesn't mean that she stands up for what they're asking her to stand up for.

The closed door sessions (yes, those exist as well) are only one of the ways to ignore the people of Fairfax County.  There are plenty of seemingly inclusive ways to exclude the people.  Much more will be coming out on this in the near future.

Charlie, thanks for responding.  You certainly sound like a candidate that I would want to support. 

I like to think of the debate as an opportunity for an open community forum.  Unfortunately, there has been just too much secrecy and closed door sessions of which Linda Smyth has been a player. 

Since some hot spots are more in the center of the Providence district (ie., Tysons, Dunn Loring, Merrifield, and Vienna MetroWest) it is surprising that the selected site is in the very eastern section of the district.

Hopefully residents of Providence will make every effort to attend.  In addition, they should ask some tough questions about the directions that Smyth has taken and supported during the past four years. 

 

In addition to being Chairman of the Providence District Council, an umbrella group of Providence civic associations, Charlie was a co-founder of Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc., a non-partisan group helping to bring citizens together on development issues.

Charlie has since branched out to help spur the County to actually DEFINE "transit oriented development", a previously inchoate term nevertheless used to justify dense development at MetroWest, Dunn Loring and Tysons. See here and here.  Maybe this explains Ms. Smyth's desperation to move the debate away from the hot spot of development, as this is also the hot spot of citizen activism.

Why is a Democratic elected official working to restrict the citizens' access to information about candidates?

This lack of sunshine seems to be a trend, given the Board of Supervisors' record of closed-door secret sessions. This issue was recently publicized in the 4/26/07 Washington Post article  "Fairfax Closed Doors for Sessions on Metro Extension" Link which stated that the board's deliberations "have turned opaque".

The DC Examiner also weighed in on this in an April 26 article entitled "Criticism mounts against Fairfax board's closed meetings" Link.

I vote for Democrats in part because the party's platform is based on inclusiveness and open government.  I'm not seeing that here.

I live in the Providence District and I can tell you one thing for sure: I will NOT vote for Linda Smyth on June 12. Her condescending, I don't care what you have to say attitude is unbecoming and I've had enough of it after four years. She always thinks she's right, rarely admits an error and lives in a bubble surrounded by yes people. Sure, she holds meetings, but as someone else stated, does that mean listening? No. Providence is choked by traffic and development. Tyson's and Merrifield will continue to grow, which I'm not opposed to, but Smyth really would serve better on the planning commission, not the board of supervisors.

Real participation by citizens is crucial to government and I'll give Charlie Hall and others credit -- though I haven't always liked their tactics -- they are sincere about making government more open. It appears Linda Q. is not that interested. I've heard how she goes after people who are testfying at public hearings and demeans and belittles them as she sits back in her cushy chair like the Queen of Providence. I want real citizens representing me. I want to hear real debates on the issues, not just 60 minutes with weird ground rules that stifle participation. 60 minutes of debating for four years of service? Not enough, especially when there are many important issues to discuss. I hope RK and others bring this election to the forefront...it'll be one of the few local races that are worth watching...most other supervisor races are a done deal with the incumbents returning to office.

The state LWV did the debate with Webb/Allen in Richmond last fall.  George Allen broke his agreement with them and used a part from his recording of the event in an tv advertisment.  That was against the rules.  He didn't care.

My guess is LWV is trying to prevent that from happening again.

Not sure why they agreed to not include their co-sponsor in asking questions. 

In the 2003 Supervisor debate for Providence District that I attended, it was my opinion that there was a clear bias exhibited against Supervisor Smyth in the selection of questions asked to the Democratic candidates.  Not coincidentally, the question selection committee, ushers and other representatives of a sponsor for that debate included a number of persons who are now Charlie Hall supporters. 

I respectfully submit that it would be improper for either Charlie Hall or Linda Smyth supporters to be the ones to select the candidate questions or act as the ushers to selectively "pass along" questions. Therefore, the LWV position seems fair and appropriate.

Hey Kewl Katz:

In defense of all the good work that the League does in voter education maybe they lost their bearings because they got burned by the Allen Campaign last year
www.lwv-fairfax.org/10_17_06%20LWVVA%20press%20release.pdf.

It sounds like this election is an important one otherwise I would be hard pressed to figure out why it found its way here.  More than that, I am concerned about the circumstances under which the terms of agreement of the debate were made.  From all this discussion it seems that Mr. Hall and Ms. Smyth was not even part of the agreement.  Why did the Hall Campaign not object to the agreement?  Why did the Smyth Campaign not object to the agreement?  Well guess what?  Both will have two sides of the same story.  What is more important is that the LWV get all this feedback so that next time things will be more "traditional." 

Debates are good!  So, what is left to be done is to pile up and head over to the debate. 

By the way, James Lee Community Center is in my neighborhood and so I really resent comments that makes my community appear as an "outsider community" in Providence District, especially in light of the area being the hatching place of the first rural NAACP - YEAH!  Talk about democracy and debates ...

Ronita

can't be waived for this debate, so we can participate fully as the citizen-activists that we are.

I just noticed there are several challengers for the Supervisors seats.  Is this a result of the increasd salary or are the voters in Fairafx angry about something.
I cannot imagine we are angry since we are apparently getting a rail to Tysons for which we have also apparently agreed to cover any cost overruns.  Incidentally, those overruns are going to be large if the Big Dig is any indication.
In whose district is Tysons Corner anyway?

Sam

Tysons Corner is in Gerry Connolly's district.

Oops, it's actually in Linda Smyth's district. Or is it really Connolly's district?

That's the question that Providence voters must answer: Do they want their elected official to be a shill for Connolly, whose objective is to leave Fairfax in the dust and head for congress?

Or do they want someone who will actually be their champion on the Board?

If you want a shill, vote for Smyth.

If you want a champion, vote for Charlie Hall.

Tysons is in the Providence District. Note that the majority of the Tysons Task Force that is replanning this area is from all over Fairfax...those who won't feel it's impact and don't live in Providence or near Tysons.

Well, done, supervisors Smyth & Connolly...get someone else to do your dirty work and then say it's what the community wants! Time it's all said and done (after the elections, btw) - the replanning costs will be over $1.5M for consultants and I'll safely say, the extreme densities that will appear in the plan will be termed "smart growth", irrespective if it's proximity to a Metro Station.

It's a pay to play county we live in. Watch the campaign coffers grow...along with our taxes to cover the costs overruns for rail...which feeds the coffers...and the density...and the traffic...

during an election year?  I have been getting Linda's stuff for the last three years and they all seem to be the standard, boring stuff other than the Transportation flyer is glossy.  I just did not know we had a primary until she knocked on my door to ask for my vote.  I am going to wait till the end of the debate ...

According to TysonsTunnel.org (I have been to three of there public meetings) Tysons Corner is the 12 largest economic engine in the country and the 2nd largest, on the east coast, to lower Manhattan. 

At this point, if I were Kenton Ngo, I would say ALL of Fairfax and beyond will be affected.  And that any replanning of Tysons engine SHOULD involve representatives from all of Fairfax ... this is citizens participation. 

Damned if you appoint citizens and damned if you don't.

I care about this because my neighborhood is in a historical district so NONE of the houses can be touch.  Do you live in a house with a window air conditioner?  Lay off my Tysons Corner - my future home and I want underground rail too!  I care very much about TC because that is where I will be living for the next 50 years ... 

As for Connolly and Smyth ... Connolly lives in Mantua which is in Providence District and he was the former supervisor.  Connolly is Chairman - he is responsible for ALL of Fairfax.  There is NO illusion here.  Big deal.  Mentors are supposed to mentor their mentee. 

Leadership is not an accident and does not happen in a vacumn.  It is a product of diverse relationships, good, bad and sour ones.

They are no different from the rest of us who will do anything to make our communities a better place to live in. Its just that not all of our needs are aligned so inevitably the best public policy under any given circumstances will always leave someone wet and squashed.

RM

It is terrific that you are getting involved to protect your neighborhood and speak for your community.  One thing you should know, however, is that virtually ALL BOS votes on development are unanimous (over 90% as reported by The Connection last year) without any real debate.  When citizens protest, we are demeaned (in that case by Linda Smyth directly) and then an already-prepared speech recommending the development and addressing none of the citizen comments is read verbatim from the dais. 

This is "leadership" run amok when our BOS works as a unified "Connolly Machine." 

The great thing that Charlie Hall would bring to the Board is his willingness to stand up and ASK the hard questions and ENGAGE citizens in the debate and LISTEN to his constituents.  In so doing, he would be serving not just the citizens of Providence, but ALL the citizens of Fairfax. 

That is why this primary race is so critically important -- it is our first and perhaps only chance to inject some real democracy into our Board of Supervisors.