Last week we told you about the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics’ decision to approve D.C. resident Mary Spencer’s petition to try to place Mayor Fenty’s school takeover plan, which amends the District’s Home Rule Charter to give the mayor direct control of the school system, on a special election ballot in August. Now an article in today’s Washington Times quotes Spencer accusing the mayor’s office of delaying filing their expected appeal, which would give the referendum’s advocates less time to gather the signatures they’d need to put the takeover plan to a popular vote.

Spencer’s attorney, Matthew Watson, said playing politics on this issue would be wrong.

Mr. Watson said the “ethical” thing for the mayor to do would be to file his challenge immediately.

“If they are decent people and care about their electorate, it will come early,” he said. “If they are people who want to play bureaucratic delay games, it will come later.”

Of course, this is some exquisite posturing on the part of Spencer, who already knows that Mayor Fenty will go to great lengths to protect his keystone policy initiative. The same article makes it clear that team Fenty intends to delay filing the appeal at least somewhat, either to ensure they make the strongest argument possible, to increase the chance that Spencer and her supporters have less time to file the 20,000 valid signatures they’ll need, or to accomplish some combination of the two. By calling Fenty a bad person if he fights the referendum, Spencer and her attorney are playing the only card they have left until an appeal is filed and the court makes its decision — while simultaneously reinforcing the idea that Fenty isn’t playing by the rules when it comes to D.C. schools.

Do you think Spencer’s right when she says that procedural politicking is anti-democratic? Or is Fenty justified in pressing every advantage he has?

Photo by grundlepuck