An inquiry is any process that has the aim of augmenting knowledge, resolving doubt, or solving a problem. A theory of inquiry is an account of the various types of inquiry and a treatment of the ways that each type of inquiry achieves its aim.

Classical sources

Deduction

When three terms are so related to one another that the last is wholly contained in the middle and the middle is wholly contained in or excluded from the first, the extremes must admit of perfect syllogism. By 'middle term' I mean that which both is contained in another and contains another in itself, and which is the middle by its position also; and by 'extremes' (a) that which is contained in another, and (b) that in which another is contained. For if ''A'' is predicated of all ''B'', and ''B'' of all ''C'', ''A'' must necessarily be predicated of all ''C''. ... I call this kind of figure the First. (Aristotle, ''Prior Analytics'', 1.4)

Induction

Inductive reasoning consists in establishing a relation between one extreme term and the middle term by means of the other extreme; for example, if ''B'' is the middle term of ''A'' and ''C'', in proving by means of ''C'' that ''A'' applies to ''B''; for this is how we effect inductions. (Aristotle, ''Prior Analytics'', 2.23)

Abduction

The ''locus classicus'' for the study of abductive reasoning is found in Aristotle's ''Prior Analytics'', Book 2, Chapt. 25. It begins this way:

We have Reduction (απαγωγη, abduction): :# When it is obvious that the first term applies to the middle, but that the middle applies to the last term is not obvious, yet is nevertheless more probable or not less probable than the conclusion; :# Or if there are not many intermediate terms between the last and the middle; For in all such cases the effect is to bring us nearer to knowledge.

By way of explanation, Aristotle supplies two very instructive examples, one for each of the two varieties of abductive inference steps that he has just described in the abstract:

:# For example, let ''A'' stand for "that which can be taught", ''B'' for "knowledge", and ''C'' for "morality". Then that knowledge can be taught is evident; but whether virtue is knowledge is not clear. Then if ''BC'' is not less probable or is more probable than ''AC'', we have reduction; for we are nearer to knowledge for having introduced an additional term, whereas before we had no knowledge that ''AC'' is true. :# Or again we have reduction if there are not many intermediate terms between ''B'' and ''C''; for in this case too we are brought nearer to knowledge. For example, suppose that ''D'' is "to square", ''E'' "rectilinear figure", and ''F'' "circle". Assuming that between ''E'' and ''F'' there is only one intermediate term — that the circle becomes equal to a rectilinear figure by means of lunules — we should approximate to knowledge. (Aristotle, "Prior Analytics", 2.25, with minor alterations)

Aristotle's latter variety of abductive reasoning, though it will take some explaining in the sequel, is well worth our contemplation, since it hints already at streams of inquiry that course well beyond the syllogistic source from which they spring, and into regions that Peirce will explore more broadly and deeply.

Inquiry in the pragmatic paradigm

In the pragmatic philosophies of Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and others, inquiry is closely associated with the normative science of logic. In its inception, the pragmatic model or theory of inquiry was extracted by Peirce from its raw materials in classical logic, with a little bit of help from Kant, and refined in parallel with the early development of symbolic logic by Boole, De Morgan, and Peirce himself to address problems about the nature and conduct of scientific reasoning. Borrowing a brace of concepts from Aristotle, Peirce examined three fundamental modes of reasoning that play a role in inquiry, commonly known as abductive, deductive, and inductive inference.

In rough terms, ''abduction'' is what we use to generate a likely hypothesis or an initial diagnosis in response to a phenomenon of interest or a problem of concern, while ''deduction'' is used to clarify, to derive, and to explicate the relevant consequences of the selected hypothesis, and ''induction'' is used to test the sum of the predictions against the sum of the data. It needs to be observed that the classical and pragmatic treatments of the types of reasoning, dividing the generic territory of inference as they do into three special parts, arrive at a different characterization of the environs of reason than do those accounts that count only two.

These three processes typically operate in a cyclic fashion, systematically operating to reduce the uncertainties and the difficulties that initiated the inquiry in question, and in this way, to the extent that inquiry is successful, leading to an increase in knowledge or in skills.

In the pragmatic way of thinking everything has a purpose, and the purpose of each thing is the first thing we should try to note about it. The purpose of inquiry is to reduce doubt and lead to a state of belief, which a person in that state will usually call ''knowledge'' or ''certainty''. As they contribute to the end of inquiry, we should appreciate that the three kinds of inference describe a cycle that can be understood only as a whole, and none of the three makes complete sense in isolation from the others. For instance, the purpose of abduction is to generate guesses of a kind that deduction can explicate and that induction can evaluate. This places a mild but meaningful constraint on the production of hypotheses, since it is not just any wild guess at explanation that submits itself to reason and bows out when defeated in a match with reality. In a similar fashion, each of the other types of inference realizes its purpose only in accord with its proper role in the whole cycle of inquiry. No matter how much it may be necessary to study these processes in abstraction from each other, the integrity of inquiry places strong limitations on the effective modularity of its principal components.

Art and science of inquiry

For our present purposes, the first feature to note in distinguishing the three principal modes of reasoning from each other is whether each of them is exact or approximate in character. In this light, deduction is the only one of the three types of reasoning that can be made exact, in essence, always deriving true conclusions from true premises, while abduction and induction are unavoidably approximate in their modes of operation, involving elements of fallible judgment in practice and inescapable error in their application.

The reason for this is that deduction, in the ideal limit, can be rendered a purely internal process of the reasoning agent, while the other two modes of reasoning essentially demand a constant interaction with the outside world, a source of phenomena and problems that will no doubt continue to exceed the capacities of any finite resource, human or machine, to master. Situated in this larger reality, approximations can be judged appropriate only in relation to their context of use and can be judged fitting only with regard to a purpose in view.

A parallel distinction that is often made in this connection is to call deduction a ''demonstrative'' form of inference, while abduction and induction are classed as ''non-demonstrative'' forms of reasoning. Strictly speaking, the latter two modes of reasoning are not properly called inferences at all. They are more like controlled associations of words or ideas that just happen to be successful often enough to be preserved as useful heuristic strategies in the repertoire of the agent. But non-demonstrative ways of thinking are inherently subject to error, and must be constantly checked out and corrected as needed in practice.

In classical terminology, forms of judgment that require attention to the context and the purpose of the judgment are said to involve an element of "art", in a sense that is judged to distinguish them from "science", and in their renderings as expressive judgments to implicate arbiters in styles of rhetoric, as contrasted with logic.

In a figurative sense, this means that only deductive logic can be reduced to an exact theoretical science, while the practice of any empirical science will always remain to some degree an art.

Zeroth order inquiry

Many aspects of inquiry can be recognized and usefully studied in very basic logical settings, even simpler than the level of syllogism, for example, in the realm of reasoning that is variously known as ''Boolean algebra'', ''propositional calculus'', ''sentential calculus'', or ''zeroth-order logic''. By way of approaching the learning curve on the gentlest availing slope, we may well begin at the level of ''zeroth-order inquiry'', in effect, taking the syllogistic approach to inquiry only so far as the propositional or sentential aspects of the associated reasoning processes are concerned. One of the bonuses of doing this in the context of Peirce's logical work is that it provides us with doubly instructive exercises in the use of his logical graphs, taken at the level of his so-called "alpha graphs".

In the case of propositional calculus or sentential logic, deduction comes down to applications of the transitive law for conditional implications and the approximate forms of inference hang on the properties that derive from these. In describing the various types of inference I will employ a few old "terms of art" from classical logic that are still of use in treating these kinds of simple problems in reasoning.

: Deduction takes a Case, the minor premise $X\; \backslash Rightarrow\; Y$ : and combines it with a Rule, the major premise $Y\; \backslash Rightarrow\; Z$ : to arrive at a Fact, the demonstrative conclusion $X\; \backslash Rightarrow\; Z.$

: Induction takes a Case of the form $X\; \backslash Rightarrow\; Y$ : and matches it with a Fact of the form $X\; \backslash Rightarrow\; Z$ : to infer a Rule of the form $Y\; \backslash Rightarrow\; Z.$

: Abduction takes a Fact of the form $X\; \backslash Rightarrow\; Z$ : and matches it with a Rule of the form $Y\; \backslash Rightarrow\; Z$ : to infer a Case of the form $X\; \backslash Rightarrow\; Y.$

For ease of reference, Figure 1 and the Legend beneath it summarize the classical terminology for the three types of inference and the relationships among them.

o-------------------------------------------------o
|                                                 |
|                   Z                             |
|                   o                             |
|                   |\                            |
|                   | \                           |
|                   |  \                          |
|                   |   \                         |
|                   |    \                        |
|                   |     \   R U L E             |
|                   |      \                      |
|                   |       \                     |
|               F   |        \                    |
|                   |         \                   |
|               A   |          \                  |
|                   |           o Y               |
|               C   |          /                  |
|                   |         /                   |
|               T   |        /                    |
|                   |       /                     |
|                   |      /                      |
|                   |     /   C A S E             |
|                   |    /                        |
|                   |   /                         |
|                   |  /                          |
|                   | /                           |
|                   |/                            |
|                   o                             |
|                   X                             |
|                                                 |
| Deduction takes a Case of the form X → Y,       |
| matches it with a Rule of the form Y → Z,       |
| then adverts to a Fact of the form X → Z.       |
|                                                 |
| Induction takes a Case of the form X → Y,       |
| matches it with a Fact of the form X → Z,       |
| then adverts to a Rule of the form Y → Z.       |
|                                                 |
| Abduction takes a Fact of the form X → Z,       |
| matches it with a Rule of the form Y → Z,       |
| then adverts to a Case of the form X → Y.       |
|                                                 |
| Even more succinctly:                           |
|                                                 |
|           Abduction  Deduction  Induction       |
|                                                 |
| Premise:     Fact       Case       Case         |
| Premise:     Rule       Rule       Fact         |
| Outcome:     Case       Fact       Rule         |
|                                                 |
o-------------------------------------------------o
Figure 1.  Elementary Structure and Terminology

In its original usage a statement of Fact has to do with a deed done or a record made, that is, a type of event that is openly observable and not riddled with speculation as to its very occurrence. In contrast, a statement of Case may refer to a hidden or a hypothetical cause, that is, a type of event that is not immediately observable to all concerned. Obviously, the distinction is a rough one and the question of which mode applies can depend on the points of view that different observers adopt over time. Finally, a statement of a Rule is called that because it states a regularity or a regulation that governs a whole class of situations, and not because of its syntactic form. So far in this discussion, all three types of constraint are expressed in the form of conditional propositions, but this is not a fixed requirement. In practice, these modes of statement are distinguished by the roles that they play within an argument, not by their style of expression. When the time comes to branch out from the syllogistic framework, we will find that propositional constraints can be discovered and represented in arbitrary syntactic forms.

Example of inquiry

Examples of inquiry, that illustrate the full cycle of its abductive, deductive, and inductive phases, and yet are both concrete and simple enough to be suitable for a first (or zeroth) exposition, are somewhat rare in Peirce's writings, and so let us draw one from the work of fellow pragmatician John Dewey, analyzing it according to the model of zeroth-order inquiry that we developed above.

A man is walking on a warm day. The sky was clear the last time he observed it; but presently he notes, while occupied primarily with other things, that the air is cooler. It occurs to him that it is probably going to rain; looking up, he sees a dark cloud between him and the sun, and he then quickens his steps. What, if anything, in such a situation can be called thought? Neither the act of walking nor the noting of the cold is a thought. Walking is one direction of activity; looking and noting are other modes of activity. The likelihood that it will rain is, however, something ''suggested''. The pedestrian ''feels'' the cold; he ''thinks of'' clouds and a coming shower. (John Dewey, ''How We Think'', pp. 6-7).

Once over quickly

Let's first give Dewey's elegant example of inquiry in everyday life the quick once over, hitting just the high points of its analysis into Peirce's three kinds of reasoning.

Abductive phase

In Dewey's "Rainy Day" or "Sign of Rain" story, we find our peripatetic hero presented with a surprising Fact: :* Fact: C → A, In the Current situation the Air is cool.

Responding to an intellectual reflex of puzzlement about the situation, his resource of common knowledge about the world is impelled to seize on an approximate Rule: :* Rule: B → A, Just Before it rains, the Air is cool. This Rule can be recognized as having a potential relevance to the situation because it matches the surprising Fact, C → A, in its consequential feature A.

All of this suggests that the present Case may be one in which it is just about to rain: :* Case: C → B, The Current situation is just Before it rains.

The whole mental performance, however automatic and semi-conscious it may be, that leads up from a problematic Fact and a previously settled knowledge base of Rules to the plausible suggestion of a Case description, is what we are calling an abductive inference.

Deductive phase

The next phase of inquiry uses deductive inference to expand the implied consequences of the abductive hypothesis, with the aim of testing its truth. For this purpose, the inquirer needs to think of other things that would follow from the consequence of his precipitate explanation. Thus, he now reflects on the Case just assumed: :* Case: C → B, The Current situation is just Before it rains.

He looks up to scan the sky, perhaps in a random search for further information, but since the sky is a logical place to look for details of an imminent rainstorm, symbolized in our story by the letter B, we may safely suppose that our reasoner has already detached the consequence of the abduced Case, C → B, and has begun to expand on its further implications. So let us imagine that our up-looker has a more deliberate purpose in mind, and that his search for additional data is driven by the new-found, determinate Rule: :* Rule: B → D, Just Before it rains, Dark clouds appear.

Contemplating the assumed Case in combination with this new Rule leads him by an immediate deduction to predict an additional Fact: :* Fact: C → D, In the Current situation Dark clouds appear.

The reconstructed picture of reasoning assembled in this second phase of inquiry is true to the pattern of deductive inference.

Inductive phase

Whatever the case, our subject observes a Dark cloud, just as he would expect on the basis of the new hypothesis. The explanation of imminent rain removes the discrepancy between observations and expectations and thereby reduces the shock of surprise that made this process of inquiry necessary.

Looking more closely

Seeding hypotheses

Figure 4 gives a graphical illustration of Dewey's example of inquiry, isolating for the purposes of the present analysis the first two steps in the more extended proceedings that go to make up the whole inquiry.

o-----------------------------------------------------------o
|                                                           |
|     A                                               D     |
|      o                                             o      |
|       \ *                                       * /       |
|        \  *                                   *  /        |
|         \   *                               *   /         |
|          \    *                           *    /          |
|           \     *                       *     /           |
|            \   R u l e             R u l e   /            |
|             \       *               *       /             |
|              \        *           *        /              |
|               \         *       *         /               |
|                \          * B *          /                |
|              F a c t        o        F a c t              |
|                  \          *          /                  |
|                   \         *         /                   |
|                    \        *        /                    |
|                     \       *       /                     |
|                      \   C a s e   /                      |
|                       \     *     /                       |
|                        \    *    /                        |
|                         \   *   /                         |
|                          \  *  /                          |
|                           \ * /                           |
|                            \*/                            |
|                             o                             |
|                             C                             |
|                                                           |
| A  =  the Air is cool                                     |
| B  =  just Before it rains                                |
| C  =  the Current situation                               |
| D  =  a Dark cloud appears                                |
|                                                           |
| A is a major term                                         |
| B is a middle term                                        |
| C is a minor term                                         |
| D is a major term, associated with A                      |
|                                                           |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
Figure 4.  Dewey's 'Rainy Day' Inquiry

In this analysis of the first steps of Inquiry, we have a complex or a mixed form of inference that can be seen as taking place in two steps: :* The first step is an Abduction that abstracts a Case from the consideration of a Fact and a Rule. :: Fact: C → A, In the Current situation the Air is cool. :: Rule: B → A, Just Before it rains, the Air is cool. :: Case: C → B, The Current situation is just Before it rains.

:* The final step is a Deduction that admits this Case to another Rule and so arrives at a novel Fact. :: Case: C → B, The Current situation is just Before it rains. :: Rule: B → D, Just Before it rains, a Dark cloud will appear. :: Fact: C → D, In the Current situation, a Dark cloud will appear.

This is nowhere near a complete analysis of the Rainy Day inquiry, even insofar as it might be carried out within the constraints of the syllogistic framework, and it covers only the first two steps of the relevant inquiry process, but maybe it will do for a start.

One other thing needs to be noticed here, the formal duality between this expansion phase of inquiry and the argument from analogy. This can be seen most clearly in the propositional lattice diagrams shown in Figures 3 and 4, where analogy exhibits a rough "A" shape and the first two steps of inquiry exhibit a rough "V" shape, respectively. Since we find ourselves repeatedly referring to this expansion phase of inquiry as a unit, let's give it a name that suggests its duality with analogy—"catalogy" will do for the moment. This usage is apt enough if one thinks of a catalogue entry for an item as a text that lists its salient features. Notice that analogy has to do with the examples of a given quality, while catalogy has to do with the qualities of a given example. Peirce noted similar forms of duality in many of his early writings, leading to the consummate treatment in his 1867 paper "On a New List of Categories" (CP 1.545-559, W 2, 49-59).

Weeding hypotheses

In order to comprehend the bearing of inductive reasoning on the closing phases of inquiry there are a couple of observations that we need to make: :* First, we need to recognize that smaller inquiries are typically woven into larger inquiries, whether we view the whole pattern of inquiry as carried on by a single agent or by a complex community. :* Further, we need to consider the different ways in which the particular instances of inquiry can be related to ongoing inquiries at larger scales. Three modes of inductive interaction between the micro-inquiries and the macro-inquiries that are salient here can be described under the headings of the "Learning", the "Transfer", and the "Testing" of rules.

Analogy of experience

Throughout inquiry the reasoner makes use of rules that have to be transported across intervals of experience, from the masses of experience where they are learned to the moments of experience where they are applied. Inductive reasoning is involved in the learning and the transfer of these rules, both in accumulating a knowledge base and in carrying it through the times between acquisition and application. :* Learning. The principal way that induction contributes to an ongoing inquiry is through the learning of rules, that is, by creating each of the rules that goes into the knowledge base, or ever gets used along the way. :* Transfer. The continuing way that induction contributes to an ongoing inquiry is through the exploit of analogy, a two-step combination of induction and deduction that serves to transfer rules from one context to another. :* Testing. Finally, every inquiry that makes use of a knowledge base constitutes a "field test" of its accumulated contents. If the knowledge base fails to serve any live inquiry in a satisfactory manner, then there is a prima facie reason to reconsider and possibly to amend some of its rules.

Let's now consider how these principles of learning, transfer, and testing apply to John Dewey's "Sign of Rain" example.

Learning

Rules in a knowledge base, as far as their effective content goes, can be obtained by any mode of inference.

For example, a rule like: :* Rule: B → A, Just Before it rains, the Air is cool, is usually induced from a consideration of many past events, in a manner that can be rationally reconstructed as follows: :* Case: C → B, In Certain events, it is just Before it rains, :* Fact: C → A, In Certain events, the Air is cool, : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ :* Rule: B → A, Just Before it rains, the Air is cool.

However, the very same proposition could also be abduced as an explanation of a singular occurrence or deduced as a conclusion of a presumptive theory.

Transfer

What is it that gives a distinctively inductive character to the acquisition of a knowledge base? It is evidently the "analogy of experience" that underlies its useful application. Whenever we find ourselves prefacing an argument with the phrase "If past experience is any guide..." then we can be sure that this principle has come into play. We are invoking an analogy between past experience, considered as a totality, and present experience, considered as a point of application. What we mean in practice is this: "If past experience is a fair sample of possible experience, then the knowledge gained in it applies to present experience". This is the mechanism that allows a knowledge base to be carried across gulfs of experience that are indifferent to the effective contents of its rules.

Here are the details of how this notion of transfer works out in the case of the "Sign of Rain" example:

Let K(pres) be a portion of the reasoner's knowledge base that is logically equivalent to the conjunction of two rules, as follows: :* K(pres) = (B → A) and (B → D).

K(pres) is the present knowledge base, expressed in the form of a logical constraint on the present universe of discourse.

It is convenient to have the option of expressing all logical statements in terms of their logical models, that is, in terms of the primitive circumstances or the elements of experience over which they hold true. :* Let E(past) be the chosen set of experiences, or the circumstances that we have in mind when we refer to "past experience". :* Let E(poss) be the collective set of experiences, or the projective total of possible circumstances. :* Let E(pres) be the present experience, or the circumstances that are present to the reasoner at the current moment.

If we think of the knowledge base K(pres) as referring to the "regime of experience" over which it is valid, then all of these sets of models can be compared by the simple relations of set inclusion or logical implication.

Figure 5 schematizes this way of viewing the "analogy of experience".

o-----------------------------------------------------------o
|                                                           |
|                          K(pres)                          |
|                             o                             |
|                            /|\                            |
|                           / | \                           |
|                          /  |  \                          |
|                         /   |   \                         |
|                        /  Rule   \                        |
|                       /     |     \                       |
|                      /      |      \                      |
|                     /       |       \                     |
|                    /     E(poss)     \                    |
|              Fact /         o         \ Fact              |
|                  /        *   *        \                  |
|                 /       *       *       \                 |
|                /      *           *      \                |
|               /     *               *     \               |
|              /    *                   *    \              |
|             /   *  Case           Case  *   \             |
|            /  *                           *  \            |
|           / *                               * \           |
|          /*                                   *\          |
|         o<<<---------------<<<---------------<<



In these terms, the "analogy of experience" proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowledge base and then deducing a Fact, its applicability to a current experience, as in the following sequence:



Inductive Phase:
:* Given Case: E(past) → E(poss), Chosen events fairly sample Collective events.
:* Given Fact: E(past) → K(pres), Chosen events support the Knowledge regime.
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:* Induce Rule: E(poss) → K(pres), Collective events support the Knowledge regime.



Deductive Phase:
:* Given Case: E(pres) → E(poss), Current events fairly sample Collective events.
:* Given Rule: E(poss) → K(pres), Collective events support the Knowledge regime.
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:* Deduce Fact: E(pres) → K(pres), Current events support the Knowledge regime.



Testing
If the observer looks up and does not see dark clouds, or if he runs for shelter but it does not rain, then there is fresh occasion to question the utility or the validity of his knowledge base. But we must leave our foulweather friend for now and defer the logical analysis of this testing phase to another occasion.



Citations




Bibliography
 Angluin, Dana (1989), "Learning with Hints", pp. 167–181 in David Haussler and Leonard Pitt (eds.), ''Proceedings of the 1988 Workshop on Computational Learning Theory'', MIT, 3–5 August 1988, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1989.
 Aristotle, "Prior Analytics", Hugh Tredennick (trans.), pp. 181–531 in ''Aristotle, Volume 1'', Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
 Awbrey, Jon, and Awbrey, Susan (1995), "Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry", ''Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines'' 15, 40–52.  Eprint.
 Delaney, C.F. (1993), ''Science, Knowledge, and Mind:  A Study in the Philosophy of C.S. Peirce'', University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.
 Dewey, John (1910), ''How We Think'', D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA, 1910.  Reprinted, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1991.
 Dewey, John (1938), ''Logic: The Theory of Inquiry'', Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY, 1938.  Reprinted as pp. 1–527 in ''John Dewey, The Later Works, 1925–1953, Volume 12: 1938'', Jo Ann Boydston (ed.), Kathleen Poulos (text. ed.), Ernest Nagel (intro.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, 1986.
 Haack, Susan (1993), ''Evidence and Inquiry:  Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology'', Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
 Hanson, Norwood Russell (1958), ''Patterns of Discovery, An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
 Hendricks, Vincent F. (2005), ''Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression'', Automatic Press / VIP, New York, NY.  ISBN 87-991013-7-8
 Misak, Cheryl J. (1991), ''Truth and the End of Inquiry, A Peircean Account of Truth'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
 Peirce, C.S., (1931–1935, 1958), ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce'', vols. 1–6, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.), vols. 7–8, Arthur W. Burks (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.  Cited as CP volume.paragraph.
 Stalnaker, Robert C. (1984), ''Inquiry'', MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.



See also


 Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography
 C. West Churchman
 Curiosity
 Information entropy
 Information theory
 Logic of information
 Phronetic social science
 Pragmatic information
 Pragmatic theory of truth
 Pragmaticism
 Uncertainty








Category:Logic
Category:Philosophical logic
Category:Philosophy of science
Category:Evaluation methods
Category:Thought
Category:Critical thinking
 
Category:Wikipedia articles with ASCII art


de:Enquete
eo:Enketo
fr:Enquête
it:Inchiesta
he:תחקיר ארגוני
nl:Enquête
ja:探究
pl:Dochodzenie
ru:Логика науки
ckb:پرسینەوە
sv:Utredning

Image name	Alan Grayson high res.jpg
name	Alan Grayson
state	Florida
district	8th
term start	January 3, 2009
term end	January 3, 2011
preceded	Ric Keller
succeeded	Daniel Webster
party	Democratic Party
birth date	March 13, 1958
birth place	New York City, New York
alma mater	Harvard College (A.B.)Harvard Kennedy School (M.P.P.)Harvard Law School (J.D.)
profession	Attorney
residence	Orlando, Florida
spouse	Lolita Grayson
website	www.graysonforcongress.com
religion	Judaism

Alan Mark Grayson (born March 13, 1958) is the former U.S. Representative for , serving from 2009 until 2011. He is a member of the Democratic Party.

The district includes just over half of Orlando, including Downtown, Winter Park, significant portions of unincorporated Orange County, as well as Celebration, Walt Disney World and parts of Lake County, Marion County and Ocala. Grayson was defeated for re-election in 2010 by Republican Daniel Webster.

Early life and education

Grayson was born in the Bronx, New York. He graduated from Bronx High School of Science in 1975 and worked his way through Harvard College as a janitor and nightwatchman, graduating with an A.B. ''summa cum laude'' in economics in 1978. He was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa and was in the top 1% of his class. He returned to Harvard for graduate studies. In 1983, he earned a J.D. ''magna cum laude'' from Harvard Law School and Masters of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Additionally, he completed the course work and passed the general exams for a Ph.D. in government.

Grayson wrote his masters thesis on gerontology and in 1986, he helped found the non-profit Alliance for Aging Research (AAR) in Washington, D.C., and served as an officer of the organization for more than twenty years.

Law career

Grayson was employed as a law clerk at the Colorado Supreme Court in 1983, and at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from 1984 to 1985, where he worked with judges Abner Mikva, Robert Bork, and two judges who later joined the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. He was an associate at the Washington D.C. firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson for five years, where he specialized in contract law.

In 1991 he founded the law firm Grayson, Kubli which concentrated on government contract law. He was a lecturer at the George Washington University government contracts program and a frequent speaker on the topic. In the 2000s, he worked as a plaintiffs' attorney specializing in whistleblower fraud cases aimed at Iraq war contractors. One contractor, Custer Battles, employed individuals who were found guilty of making fraudulent statements and submitting fraudulent invoices on two contracts in 2003 the company had with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. On behalf of his clients, Grayson filed suit under the False Claims Act and its ''qui tam'' provisions. The jury verdict was more than $13 million, which was upheld on appeal in April 2009. The case remains the only successful prosecution of those who profited illegally from the war in Iraq. The Iraq war contractor fraud case brought Grayson his first national attention. In 2006, a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter described Grayson as "waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq" and as a "fierce critic of the war in Iraq" whose car displayed bumper stickers such as "Bush lied, people died".

President of IDT Corp.

Grayson made his fortune as the first president of IDT Corporation (International Discount Telecom), which pioneered competition and discount pricing in the long-distance telecommunications industry and became a $2-billion-a-year Fortune 1000 company.

U.S. House of Representatives

Grayson is considered a progressive Democrat and he represented a district that was historically Republican. He supported Barack Obama in 2008. He was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which he was vice-chairman.

Committee assignments

Committee on Financial Services

*Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government-Sponsored Enterprises

Committee on Science and Technology

*Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

*Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

Legislation head sponsored by Grayson

Pay For Performance Act (H.R. 1664)

Public Option Act (H.R. 4789)

War Is Making You Poor Act (H.R. 5353)

Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790)

Paid Vacation Act of 2009 (H.R. 2564)

Political positions

Federal Reserve transparency

During his first term in office, Grayson supported Ron Paul's Audit the Fed legislation. Grayson gained attention for exchanges with Federal Reserve System Vice Chairman Donald Kohn and Inspector General Elizabeth A. Coleman. The 5-minute examination of Coleman in the House Financial Services Committee was posted on the Congressman's official YouTube page. As of December 2010, it has been viewed more than 3.4 million times.

In March 2009, following the AIG bonus payments controversy, Grayson joined with fellow freshman Democrat Jim Himes of Connecticut to introduce the Grayson-Himes Pay for Performance Act, legislation to require that all bonuses paid by companies that had received funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 be "based on performance". The bill was co-sponsored by eight other members of the House. On March 26, the bill was approved by the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 38-22 and on April 1, the bill was passed by the full House of Representatives by a vote of 247-171.

Grayson was a co-sponsor of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, which would provide additional provisions to audit the Federal Reserve, including removing several key exemptions.

Economic stimulus

Grayson made it a priority to increase the amount of federal money coming back to the 8th Congressional District. He often said that people in the 8th District have been "exporting taxes and importing debt." During his first year in office, the amount of federal grant dollars returning to the district nearly doubled (98% increase). The Congressman established a grant notification system. The system notifies subscribers immediately when a federal grant opportunity in their areas of interest becomes available. He also hired a full-time grants coordinator, who focused solely on helping people navigate the federal grants process.

Congressman Grayson twice broke ranks with Democratic leadership and joined Republicans to oppose the raising of the federal debt limit (Roll no. 46, 2/4/10, Roll no. 988 12/16/09). He said at the time of the February vote, "We need to live within our means. We need to eliminate wasteful spending. If we did those two simple things, we would not need to raise the debt limit."

Grayson supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and has been outspoken in favor of extending unemployment benefits for Americans who have lost their jobs. The Congressman argues that the government has never cut off unemployment insurance when the unemployment rate was higher than eight percent. Grayson also voted for the FDA Oversight of Tobacco Products, which gives the FDA power to regulate tobacco products.

On a September 2009 ''Alex Jones Show'' segment, Grayson criticized Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke's senior adviser Linda Robertson, saying "Here I am the only member of Congress who actually worked as an economist, this lobbyist, this K-Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics!" Robertson had previously worked as a lobbyist for Enron. Grayson's language was widely criticized as inappropriate, and Grayson apologized.

Health care reform

In response to Republican arguments that the Obama administration's preferred health care bill was too long and complicated, Grayson on March 9, 2010, introduced H.R. 4789, the Public Option Act (sometimes called the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act), a short four-page bill which would allow all citizens and permanent residents of the United States to buy into the public Medicare program at cost. The bill immediately attracted high praise from the progressive blogosphere, and even critics of public health care plans conceded its "nearly irresistible" simplicity. The bill attracted 82 co-sponsors and was referred to the Ways and Means Committee.

Grayson later voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. He voted in support of Eliminating Adjustments of Medicare Rates of Payment. He also voted against Republican substitutes for the health care amendment and insurance law amendments.

Civil rights

Grayson voted in support of the Hate Crimes Expansion Act, which expands the definition of hate crimes and strengthens enforcement of hate crime laws. He also voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Grayson supported the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that allows victims of wage discrimination to sue for punitive damages.

Environment

Grayson voted for the House's 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Cap and Trade Bill). A main reason he supported it was the promise from the White House and the Speaker of the House for a $50 million "Hurricane Research Center" in Central Florida, paid for with research dollars set aside in the bill. Grayson noted after the passage of the ACES Act his concern about our dependence on foreign oil, the need to promote green technologies and renewable energy sources, and the job creation from the bill (an estimated 95,000 jobs in Florida). "This bill unleashes American ingenuity to solve the energy crisis. It lets us solve our problems by being Americans and thinking our way out of it. We will become an international energy power," he said in a news release.

The BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico affected Florida's number one industry, which is tourism. The lack of a relief well prevented company officials from shutting down the leak immediately. Instead, it took months to drill a new relief well, while millions of gallons of oil gushed into the Gulf each week. In response, Grayson introduced the Emergency Relief Well Act (H.R. 5666). It requires that an emergency relief well be drilled at the same time as any new exploratory well.

Defense

Congressman Grayson has been an outspoken critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May 2010, he introduced the "War Is Making You Poor Act" (H.R. 5353). The bill requires the President to fund the wars from the Department of Defense's FY '11 base budget of $550 billion. It uses the $159 billion in "supplemental funding" to eliminate federal income taxes for everyone's first $35,000 a year. The bill does not necessitate an end to the wars or mandate a cut-off date. In addition to the tax cuts, the bill cuts the federal deficit by $15.9 billion.

The Congressman has tried to combat wasteful spending by government defense contractors by introducing his "Gold Plating Amendment." The amendment requires that cost or price account for half of the evaluation of bids for defense contracts. The law at the time allowed for cost to account for only one percent of the evaluation. The amendment passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) in June 2009. However, the language was stripped from the final bill during the conference committee between Senate and House leaders. Congressman Grayson worked successfully to get the amendment inserted into the IMPROVE Acquisition Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on April 28, 2010.

Grayson voted for the 2009-2010 Defense Appropriations, which authorizes $681 billion of appropriations for the Department of Defense. He also supported the 2009-2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Authorizations, which provided $46.18 billion in appropriations for 2009-2010.

Combating Federal Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

Grayson has worked to combat federal waste, fraud, and abuse. In the September 6, 2009 edition of The New York Times, columnist Gretchen Morgenson thanked Congressman Grayson for uncovering the fact that, due to the federal bailout of mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae, taxpayer money had been funding the legal defense fees for former top executives at the institution. Grayson requested information about these legal costs after a June 2009 hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. The Congressman’s work uncovered that, between September 6, 2008 and July 21, 2009, taxpayers spent $6.3 million defending Fannie Mae executives Franklin Raines, J. Timothy Howard, and Leanne Spencer. Taxpayers paid an additional $16.8 million to cover legal expenses of workers at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fannie’s former regulator.

In September 2009, Congressman Grayson used a parliamentary maneuver called an “extension of remarks” to provide crucial instruction on H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, a bill that, among other things, included a provision that prohibited funding for ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Grayson’s extension of remarks directed that the legislation defund ''any'' organization that cheats the federal government, not just ACORN. The defunding measure passed the House with a final vote of 253-171. Grayson also encouraged the public to report companies covered by the bill and set up a method to report offending companies via his Congressional web site.

“Teach the Constitution Week”

On September 14, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Congressman Grayson’s “Teach the Constitution Week” resolution (H.Res. 686). The bill urged high schools to spend one week each September teaching the United States Constitution to high school seniors and also encouraged students to petition the government on an issue of personal importance to them to demonstrate their understanding of their rights and responsibilities as citizens of the United States. The non-partisan resolution was passed by a voice vote and featured 222 co-sponsors.

New Frontier Congressional Gold Medal Act

On the 40th anniversary of the historic Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Congressman Grayson’s New Frontier Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2009 (H.R. 2245). The bill asked the President to present Congress’s highest civilian honor, the Congressional Gold Medal, to Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin Jr., and Michael Collins, as well as John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth. Only about 200 medals have ever been awarded in the country’s history. The New Frontier Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2009 passed the House unanimously on July 20, 2009.

Controversial public remarks

Grayson quickly gained a reputation as an elected official who was "not shy about his opinions." He was unrestrained in his criticism of right-wing positions, politicians, and pundits, particularly those employed by and/or frequently appearing on Fox News Channel. His sharp characterizations in public remarks earned him national attention both positive and negative.

Health care

In September 2009, during the debates leading to the passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act by the House in November, Grayson summed up the "Republican health care plan" as "'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.'" His remarks were widely condemned by Republican politicians but, according to Grayson, were well received by his constituents. Grayson reported that his comments resulted in over 5,000 campaign contributions and that the positive emails he received outnumbered the negative ones by a four-to-one margin; the comments also generated funds from the Democratic National Committee towards his upcoming 2010 campaign race. Grayson raised $347,000 for his reelection campaign during the third quarter, much of it attributed to his remarks.

He defended his comment and in a House Floor speech stated, “I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America." Grayson, who is Jewish by birth, apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use of "holocaust". He also maintained that Congressional Republicans have failed to offer a feasible plan. In October 2009 he launched www.NamesOfTheDead.com, a website to "memorialize Americans who die because they don’t have health insurance." He subsequently read stories of the dead submitted through the ''Names of the Dead'' site on the House floor.

Political campaigns

Grayson is the second Democrat to represent this district since its formation after the 1970 census (it was the 5th District from 1973 to 1993 and has been the 8th District since 1993). The only other Democrat to represent this district, Bill Gunter, gave it up after only one term to run for the United States Senate in 1974.

2006

In 2006, Grayson first entered into electoral politics, losing the 2006 Democratic primary for Florida's 8th Congressional District to Charlie Stuart, a prominent local businessman and center-right Democrat. Stuart went on to lose the general election to incumbent Republican Congressman Ric Keller. In late 2007, Grayson announced that he would run again for the 8th District seat, and again faced Stuart in the primary. During the primary, his campaign retained the services of Bill Hillsman.

2008

In the August 26, 2008 Democratic primary, Grayson prevailed, receiving 48.5% of the vote. Stuart trailed with 27.5%, with three other candidates splitting the remaining 24%. During the general election campaign, Grayson maintained a consistent lead over Keller, who had barely eked out renomination in the Republican primary over attorney Todd Long. On Election Day, Grayson received 172,854 votes, or 52%, to Keller's 159,490 votes, or 48%. Although Keller won three out of four counties in the district, Grayson won by a margin of 55% to 45% in Orange County, home to Orlando and by far the largest county in the district. Grayson was also helped by a massive voter registration drive by the Democratic Party in the 8th District that gave Democrats a slight edge in registered voters.

2010

Grayson was challenged by Republican nominee Daniel Webster, Florida TEA Party nominee Peg Dunmire, Independent candidate George Metcalfe, and write-in Florida Whig Party candidate Steve Gerritzen.

Grayson ran a September 2010, commercial calling Webster a "draft-dodger," (Webster had received student deferments and a draft classification as medically unfit for service), and a later 30-second commercial calling Webster "Taliban Dan" and warning viewers that "Religious fanatics try to take away our freedom, in Afghanistan, in Iran and right here in Central Florida." Grayson's ads were criticized for editing video mid-sentence to make Webster appear to be saying things he did not say. Grayson released a toned-down version without the edited video or Taliban references in early October.

Grayson was targeted by conservatives and conservative groups in commercials and the media, and on the Internet. On Glenn Beck's radio show, Sarah Palin agreed with a co-host's remark, "It’s okay if the Republicans lose every seat in the Senate and the House except for one. As long as that one is Alan Grayson losing." Conservative Newsweek columnist George Will called Grayson "America's worst politician." Grayson was also heavily targeted in attack ads funded by groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 60 Plus Association. The Chamber of Commerce ads were in turn criticized by Grayson and his supporters as "deeply dishonest".

Grayson was endorsed by 8th District resident, former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), who characterized Webster as having "13th-century views" on women's issues. Former DNC Chair and Vermont governor Howard Dean called Grayson a "healthcare hero." Grayson received more votes for "progressive hero" from Democracy for America than any other candidate in the country. Moveon.org, in an appeal to its members, termed Grayson "a populist hero who's never afraid to call out the pernicious corporate influence in Washington."

Grayson conceded the race on the evening of November 2 after Webster showed a clear lead. Election results were: Grayson 38% Webster 56%

2012

On the evening of July 11, 2011, Grayson announced in an e-mail to supporters and via Daily Kos that he planned to run once again for Congress.

Personal life

Grayson was ranked as the 11th-wealthiest member of Congress in 2010, based on financial disclosure forms with a minimum net worth of $31.41 million, according to ''Roll Call''. Grayson disclosed that his attorney fees and costs for the war contractor case had exceeded $4 million.

While pursuing the whistleblower cases, Grayson worked from a home office in Orlando, where he lives with his wife and five children.

References

External links

Alan Grayson for U.S. Congress ''official campaign site''

Alan Grayson: "Bipartisanship Has Become Code Word for Appeasement" - video report by ''Democracy Now!''

Category:1958 births Category:Living people Category:American businesspeople Category:American health activists Category:The Bronx High School of Science alumni Category:Florida Democrats Category:Florida lawyers Category:Harvard Law School alumni Category:Jewish members of the United States House of Representatives Category:John F. Kennedy School of Government alumni Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Florida Category:Whistleblowing

de:Alan Grayson he:אלן גרייסון pl:Alan Grayson sh:Alan Grayson sv:Alan Grayson

Name	Adrian Fenty
Office	6th Mayor of the District of Columbia
Term start	January 2, 2007
Term end	January 2, 2011
Predecessor	Anthony Williams
Successor	Vincent Gray
Office2	Member of theCouncil of the District of Columbiafrom Ward 4
Term start2	January 3, 2001
Term end2	January 2, 2007
Predecessor2	Charlene Drew Jarvis
Successor2	Muriel Bowser
Birth date	December 06, 1970
Birth place	Washington, D.C., U.S.
Party	Democratic Party
Spouse	Michelle Cross
Children	MatthewAndrewAerin
Alma mater	Oberlin CollegeHoward University
Profession	Attorney, consultant
Religion	Christian
Signature	Adrian Fenty Signature.svg }}

Adrian Malik Fenty (born December 6, 1970) was the sixth, and at age 36, the youngest, mayor of the District of Columbia. He served one term—from 2007 to 2011—losing his bid for reelection at the primary level to Democrat Vincent C. Gray. Though Fenty won the Republican mayoral primary as a write-in candidate, he declined the Republican nomination and said he would likely not seek elected office again. Gray went on to win the general election for Mayor in the largely Democratic District.

Since leaving office, Fenty has embarked on a career as a paid speaker, part-time college professor, adviser for the state and local government practice of an information technology consulting firm and special counsel to a Washington D.C. plaintiffs' litigation firm. Previously, Fenty was a D.C. Council member for six years. A Washington D.C. native, Fenty is a graduate of Oberlin College and Howard University Law School.

Early life, education, and family

Fenty was born in Washington D.C., the second of the three children of Jeanette Bianchi Perno Fenty and Phil Fenty. Fenty's mother, Jeanette Bianchi Perno Fenty, is Italian-American. Her family immigrated to the United States from the comune of Monte San Giovanni Campano in Lazio in 1920. His father, Phil Fenty, who is originally from Buffalo, New York, has roots in Barbados and Panama. Phil and Jeanette Fenty moved to Washington D.C. in 1967. Fenty was raised in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood. While he was growing up, his parents owned and ran a Fleet Feet athletic shoe store in the D.C. neighborhood of Adams Morgan.

Fenty graduated from Mackin Catholic High School, earned a B.A. in English and economics at Oberlin College, and a J.D. from the Howard University School of Law. He is a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity.

In 1997, Fenty married Michelle Cross Fenty, an attorney. The couple has three children—twin sons born in 2000, and a daughter born in 2008.

Early political career

Before becoming involved in local D.C. politics, Fenty worked as an intern for U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), U.S. House of Representatives D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), and U.S. Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II (D-MA).

He then served as an aide to Councilmember Kevin P. Chavous, was elected to the Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC), district 4C, and was president of the 16th Street Neighborhood Civic Association.

D.C. Council

In 2000, Fenty won a seat on the D.C. Council, defeating longtime Ward 4 Councilmember Charlene Drew Jarvis by a margin of 57 to 43 percent after engaging in an aggressive door-to-door strategy. Unopposed in both the primary and general elections in 2004, Fenty was reelected for a second term.

''The Washington Post'' described Fenty's performance as a Council member as "independent" and "contrarian". During his time on the Council, he opposed public funding for a new baseball stadium, saying the owners should pay for it. He proposed a $1 billion capital improvement program for the public schools—which the Council initially opposed, but eventually passed. According to the Washington Post, Fenty's legislative style was to focus on constituent services and take attention grabbing positions.

2006 mayoral campaign

Fenty began his campaign to replace retiring mayor Anthony A. Williams in 2005. Then-Council Chair Linda Cropp, businesswoman Marie Johns, then-Councilmember Vincent Orange, and lobbyist Michael A. Brown also vied for the position.

The race was widely viewed as neck-and-neck between Fenty and Cropp through the spring of 2006. Fenty ran on a platform of bringing a more energetic and hands-on approach to city government,, advancing bold ideas for change, and sticking to them. Fenty said he would take his uncompromising style to the mayor's office, and cited with approval, Margaret Thatcher's saying that, "Consensus is the absence of leadership". Cropp stressed her 25 years of experience in city government and her desire to continue the progress made by Anthony Williams, who endorsed her candidacy. She also stressed her ability to cooperate with diverse groups and reach consensus. She criticized Fenty's proposed approach to governing; being mayor, saying the mayors job is "not just standing up and saying, 'This is what I want done,' and miraculously it's going to happen." Both candidates raised significant and nearly equal amounts of money – roughly $1.75 million through June 10, 2006 – and neither gained any significant advantages from the numerous candidate debates and forums.

By July 2006 polls showed Fenty with a roughly 10-point advantage; political observers debated whether it was due to Fenty's unprecedented door-to-door campaign, Cropp's lack of engagement in the campaign, or the electorate's desire for a new direction. Cropp's campaign began running negative attack ads during the month before the primary, painting Fenty as unfit for the job and as a careless lawyer who had been admonished by the D.C. Bar, (in 2005, he received an informal admonition from the Bar for his role in a probate case in 1999). The attacks backfired. Fenty won all 142 city precincts in the Democratic Primary—a feat unparalleled in earlier mayoral elections—defeating Cropp by a 57 to 31 percent margin. He received 89 percent of the vote in the general election and became the District's sixth elected mayor since the establishment of home rule.

D.C. mayor (2007–11)

Education reform was a major focus of Fenty's mayoral tenure. On the first day of his term, he introduced legislation to vest control of the public schools in himself, rather than the elected school board. Previous attempts to reform the schools, including one in 1996 where a D.C. financial control board took charge of the schools, had failed. At the beginning of Fenty's term, student test performance scores and graduation rates were among the lowest in the nation and District residents had been demanding that the schools be "fixed". In April 2007, the D.C. Council approved Fenty's plan; the necessary legislation was approved by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in May 2007.

Under the new structure, the existing superintendent was replaced by a chancellor selected by the mayor and reporting directly to him. The power shift also allowed Fenty to make swift changes in the system’s central office, alter teacher qualification requirements, and implement a school consolidation process. His selection of Michelle Rhee to manage District schools surprised the education establishment.. In choosing Rhee, Fenty consulted with national education figures including New York City School Chancellor, Joel Klein.

The restructuring has been credited with improvements. To better allocate resources, Fenty and Rhee significantly reduced the school system's central administrative staff and closed 23 schools with low enrollments. After 2007, student achievement tests at the secondary level reportedly rose an unprecedented 14 points in reading and 17 points in math. Student SAT scores rose 27 points in 2010. Graduation rates rose each year since 2007, and 72 percent of District students took the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT), which functions as a practice test for college bound students. Fenty's administration has also took on a major, five-year maintenance and construction effort to improve school buildings by 2014. Fenty and Rhee successfully negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the Washington Teachers Union that establishes a system of performance-based teacher compensation.

The Fenty administration also overhauled District agencies for efficiency. His choice of a woman for police chief, Cathy Lanier, received media attention. Under Fenty, Lanier added police officers to the streets and expanded community policing initiatives, for example, "beefing up" the policy of accepting anonymous text message tips from local residents to cut down on potential retaliation. By local news accounts, showed evidence of success. The homicide rate in the District dropped 25% in 2009. The homicide closure rate rose to 70%. In his "State of the District" speech, Fenty reported that homicides were at their "lowest level since 1964" and that "both violent crimes and property crimes" had experienced a double-digit decline.

Fenty championed development efforts including renovating libraries, parks and recreation centers. Under Fenty, 16 neighborhood and school playgrounds were opened and 9 play courts and fields were completed. Under his leadership, the District's largest shopping center, the DC USA Shopping Center and the Camp Simms retail development were opened, and thousands of affordable housing units were established or renovated. The "Housing First" program to provide permanent supportive housing for the city’s homeless was begun. The backlog of Child Protective Services (CPS) investigations was reduced by improving the retention of social workers, increasing recruitment of social workers to fill vacancies, and building an experienced leadership team. Additionally, the Fenty administration improved the delivery of emergency medical services and expanded health care coverage for the uninsured. It also finalized the sale of Greater Southeast Community Hospital (now United Medical Center) in a public-private partnership that kept the facility open.

In December 2009, Fenty made history by signing the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act of 2009 to legalize same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia.

While serving as mayor, Fenty was a member of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, an organization formed in 2006 and co-chaired by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston mayor Thomas Menino. Fenty was known to carry three BlackBerry devices: one directly connected him to the police chief, the second was for other city business, and the third was for personal matters.

Controversies

A significant charge was that Fenty circumvented the D.C Council and made certain contract awards for park improvements through the D.C. Housing Agency. Then-Council Chair Gray complained that Fenty did not share tickets to sporting events

2010 re-election campaign

On July 31, 2009, Fenty's 2010 mayoral campaign chest passed the 2006 primary fundraising total of $2.4 million. Fenty officially launched his reelection bid in April 2010, defending his management style and pledging to remind voters that had made the types of tough decisions that are necessary for real change.

On August 1, 2010, the editorial board of ''The Washington Post'' officially endorsed Fenty, citing his attempts to fix the District's struggling public school system. ''Washington City Paper'' followed on September 9.

January 2010 hypothetical polling showed Gray in the lead by 4 points; a ''Washington Post'' poll of August 29 found Gray with a 17-point lead; a Clarus poll conducted September 7 gave Gray a 7-point lead; and a Public Policy Polling survey sponsored by WAMU-FM radio and ''Washington City Paper'' showed an 11 percent lead for Gray on September 8.

Fenty lost the September 14 Democratic primary to Gray by a margin of 13 points—53 percent to 46 percent. While Fenty received the most write-in votes for mayor in the Republican primary election, Fenty had previously said he would not accept the Republican nomination. Following the reporting of the primary results, Fenty called it highly unlikely he will run for public office again.

In August 2011 an investigation into the hiring practices of Mayor Vincent Gray found that during the 2010 primary, a Gray campaign official had paid another candidate, Sulaimon Brown, to disparage Fenty.

After politics

Fenty signed with Greater Talent Network, a major speakers bureau, in January 2011. The same month, Fenty became an outside adviser and counsel to Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, an accounting and consulting firm based in Philadelphia. Also in January 2011, it was announced that Fenty would become a distinguished visiting professor of politics, a featured lecturer and a career adviser in the Department of African American Studies at Oberlin College. In February 2011, Fenty became an outside adviser to Rosetta Stone, which produces foreign language software. In March 2011, Fenty became a strategic adviser for the state and local government practice of Capgemini Government Solutions LLC, an information technology consulting firm. In May 2011, Fenty became a member of the advisory board of EverFi Inc., an online education and certification firm. In July 2011, Fenty joined the plaintiff and litigation oriented law firm of Klores Perry Mitchell P.C. as special counsel.

On the Morning Joe Program of March 8, 2011, Fenty backed Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker's anti-union efforts and broadly condemned the concept of collective bargaining. Saying that "Most governors and mayors would love to be able to manage their team without the interference of collective bargaining", Fenty expressed his faith in the ability of managers to set fair wages and hours, and to fairly reward or hold their employees accountable. He also said that the Democratic Wisconsin senators should be held accountable for leaving the state to delay the enactment of Walker's legislation.

Electoral history

References

External links

Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty

Fenty for Mayor official Web site

CityMayors profile

Adrian Fenty radio interview on WAMU's Kojo Nnamdi Show

Adrian Fenty radio interview on WTOP's Post Politics Program

Mayor Against Illegal Guns homepage

Washington Post profile of Fenty

Washington Post endorsement of Fenty

Article about the Mayor's Inaugural Ball

Fenty Sweep Is One for the Record Books

|-

Category:1970 births Category:Living people Category:Mayors of Washington, D.C. Category:Washington, D.C. City Council members Category:Washington, D.C. Democrats Category:African American mayors Category:Oberlin College alumni Category:Howard University School of Law alumni Category:American people of Italian descent Category:American people of Barbadian descent Category:American people of Panamanian descent Category:Education reform

de:Adrian Fenty fr:Adrian Fenty la:Hadrianus Malik Fenty nl:Adrian Fenty simple:Adrian Fenty sv:Adrian Fenty