D.C. Legislator Wants Green Card Holders To Be Allowed To Vote In Local Elections

D.C. Legislator Wants Green Card Holders To Be Allowed To Vote In Local Elections

By:

Martin Austermuhle

December 3, 2013 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kcivey/480629716/

Much like in the rest of the country, voting in local D.C. elections is limited to U.S. citizens.

Voting and jury duty are two hallmarks of U.S. citizenship, but one D.C. legislator wants to extend at least one of those to non-citizens.

Council member David Grosso (I-At Large) today introduced a bill that would allow legal residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections, provided they’ve lived in D.C. for 30 days prior to the election.

During the Council’s legislative session, Grosso said that the measure would allow the city’s growing population of non-citizens to weigh in on local issues that affect them.

"Pot holes, community centers, playgrounds, minimum wage, taxes, Supercans, snow removal, alley closings, alcohol license moratoriums, red light cameras— these are all important issues that voters in the District of Columbia entrust their leaders with. And unfortunately, not all of our residents have say in choosing the individuals who make these decisions. In my opinion, that is unjust," he said.

According to the U.S. Census, in 2012 some 54,000 D.C. residents — roughly eight percent of the city’s population — were foreign born but not yet naturalized U.S. citizens. Ninety percent of those were over the legal voting age of 18.

In 1992, residents of Takoma Park, Md. voted in a referendum to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. The proposal passed narrowly, 1,199 to 1,107, and allows even undocumented immigrants to vote, provided they have lived in the city for 21 days preceding an election.

Six other locations — three towns, three villages — in Montgomery County allow the same. In 2004, Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) introduced a bill to the same effect in D.C., but it was rejected. Last May, legislators in New York considered a bill of their own that would allow non-citizen legal residents to cast ballots.

Opponents of the idea — which in New York included Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion, Jr. — say that voting is a sacred enough practice that it should be limited to U.S. citizens.

D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray recently signed a bill allowing undocumented immigrants to gain special driver’s licenses. D.C. has also limited its cooperation with federal immigration authorities, limiting the time it holds immigrants wanted for deportation proceedings.

Disclosure: This reporter is a Green Card holder and D.C. resident.

Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2013

This morning along with Councilmembers Graham, Bowser and Wells, I introduced the Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2013. This bill would grant DC residents who are not U.S. citizens but are legal permanent residents voting rights for local municipal elections.

“All politics is local” is a common phrase in the U.S. political system. And while plenty of ink is spilled in this town giving the play-by-play on the endless rounds of political tug-a-war on the federal level, what most District residents care are the tangible things that affect their day-to-day life.

Pot holes, community centers, playgrounds, minimum wage, taxes, supercans, snow removal, alley closings, alcohol license moratoriums, red light cameras…these are all important issues that voters in the District of Columbia entrust their leaders with. And unfortunately, not all of our residents have say in choosing the individuals who make these decisions. In my opinion, that is unjust.

Since 1970, the District of Columbia has had a steady increase in the number of foreign-born residents. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012), approximately 53,975 residents in the District are foreign born, but not naturalized U.S. citizens.  Over 90% of that population is 18 years of age or older. These are law-abiding taxpayers who should have the opportunity to have their voices heard in local elections.

For most of American history, noncitizens were permitted to vote in 22 states and federal territories. It was not until the 1920s that, amidst anti-immigrant hysteria, lawmakers began to bar noncitizens from voting in local and statewide elections.

Currently, there are seven jurisdictions where noncitizens can vote in local elections in the U.S., six of which are in neighboring Maryland. None of these cities or towns has experienced incidents of voting fraud with regard to noncitizens voting in federal elections.

A similar bill was introduced in the Council in 2004 and unfortunately due to the political climate at the time regarding immigration reform, did not receive a full consideration by this Council. Almost ten years later, its time for us to reignite this conversation. After all, if we are in fact ‘One City’, how can we continue to deny every legal District resident of age their one vote?

Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2013

This morning along with Councilmembers Graham, Bowser and Wells, I introduced the Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2013. This bill would grant DC residents who are not U.S. citizens but are legal permanent residents voting rights for local municipal elections.

“All politics is local” is a common phrase in the U.S. political system. And while plenty of ink is spilled in this town giving the play-by-play on the endless rounds of political tug-a-war on the federal level, what most District residents care are the tangible things that affect their day-to-day life.

Pot holes, community centers, playgrounds, minimum wage, taxes, supercans, snow removal, alley closings, alcohol license moratoriums, red light cameras…these are all important issues that voters in the District of Columbia entrust their leaders with. And unfortunately, not all of our residents have say in choosing the individuals who make these decisions. In my opinion, that is unjust.

Since 1970, the District of Columbia has had a steady increase in the number of foreign-born residents. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012), approximately 53,975 residents in the District are foreign born, but not naturalized U.S. citizens.  Over 90% of that population is 18 years of age or older. These are law-abiding taxpayers who should have the opportunity to have their voices heard in local elections.

For most of American history, noncitizens were permitted to vote in 22 states and federal territories. It was not until the 1920s that, amidst anti-immigrant hysteria, lawmakers began to bar noncitizens from voting in local and statewide elections.

Currently, there are seven jurisdictions where noncitizens can vote in local elections in the U.S., six of which are in neighboring Maryland. None of these cities or towns has experienced incidents of voting fraud with regard to noncitizens voting in federal elections.

A similar bill was introduced in the Council in 2004 and unfortunately due to the political climate at the time regarding immigration reform, did not receive a full consideration by this Council. Almost ten years later, its time for us to reignite this conversation. After all, if we are in fact ‘One City’, how can we continue to deny every legal District resident of age their one vote?

A Good Day for D.C.

I just came from a mark-up of education bills that increased our investment per student in areas of the city that need it the most. Now I am gladly supporting an increase in the minimum wage and sick leave for restaurant workers. These two items are not unrelated – and in fact, I am very pleased to support our students and increase wages for entry level positions. This is a two-front battle against generational poverty.

Increasing the minimum wage is a victory for workers. It is long overdue and I am very happy to see that we won’t have to have a jump like this again now that we have indexed the wage including cost-of-living increases. Businesses in the region can now have the certainty they are seeking and workers in the area have come close to realizing the entry level living wage that they deserve.

I introduced an amendment to the bill that will hopefully make the minimum wage reporting provision less burdensome on restaurants by requiring all minimum wage certifications to be available online. I will follow up with the appropriate agency to ensure this is a simple one-click certification if no wages had to be supplemented and a two-click process when wages do have to be supplemented. All enforcement and certification should fall on the agency, not on the business. Businesses just need to keep good records in case of an audit, as they should anyway. The desired outcome of this provision, and this amendment to it, is an increase of prosecution of bad actors and less burden on responsible business owners.

Voting today to support a focused effort to improve education where it is most needed and higher wages for those who most need it is why I ran for office. This is a good day for D.C. 

Washington City Paper: The People Issue: They Asked, I answered

Photo Credit: Darrow Montgomery/Washington City Paper

The People Issue

We asked, they answered—the 20 people who make D.C. what it is

Freshman At-Large Councilmember David Grosso won his seat in 2012 in an unlikely victory over incumbent Michael Brown. Fresh off successfully proposing to keep the District’s government open during the federal government shutdown last month, he’s on a crusade against the Washington Pigskins name and the criminalization of marijuana. —Will Sommer

It seems like over the past year there’s been a lot of people talking about the [Pigskins]name. What do you think is behind that?

David Grosso: The whole country has shifted in a way recently the last couple years on lots of important issues. The culture’s changing, the country’s becoming more aware of when your personal actions have an impact on people.

You’re coming off the shutdown, where you came up with the idea of not closing the city government. How do you think that turned out?

I think it was a big success. I think we got a lot of attention on the issue which we hadn’t gotten in a long time.

You have personal experience with a marijuana possession arrest. How did that play into your feelings on marijuana legalization?

I have two personal experiences actually with this situation that I think go hand in hand. Yeah, I was arrested for possession of a small amount of marijuana in 1993 in Florida. It was a misdemeanor with possession case, and it’s been well discussed in D.C.

But I think more interesting is an experience I had when I was growing up in the city here. We moved into the city when I was 16 years old, to the corner of Georgia and New Hampshire Ave on Rock Creek Church Road—my mom still lives there. That was in 1987. In 1987, in that neighborhood, there was no Metro, it was very poor, and it was a hotspot for dealing drugs on all those corners. I used to work at Col. Brooks Tavern over in Northeast.

I would go to work and I would come home at two, three in the morning, and park my car usually on the corner because there was no spot there, and walk by the corner of Rock Creek Church Road and Warder Street, where there’d be a gang of guys hanging out dealing drugs, right?

Probably more than a dozen times I walked by there, when the police were there with them up against the wall, searching these folks. Not once in my years of doing that did the police ever look twice at me. They didn’t push me against the wall; they didn’t question me. They didn’t ask me what the heck I was doing there. Not even glanced at.

I’m white, all those kids were black. It tells you something, and it makes you a little nervous that we’re going down the wrong path.

It’s like it’s already decriminalized for wealthy white people in D.C.

I won’t tell you what I had in my pocket, usually. They could’ve arrested me, too, and that’s the point.

To see the full People Issue click here.

Grosso Statement at the AmeriHealth Behavioral Health/Physical Health Integration Summit

As you all know, one of the major challenges for effective health care delivery is the integration of services, particularly behavioral health and physical health programs. It is very rare that patients come to health clinics or providers with just one issue and if we can do our best to treat the whole person, it improves quality of care and outcomes for our residents.

I’ve brought this up in every meeting I’ve had with AmeriHealth staff and so it’s very exciting and impressive that AmeriHealth, who is new to the District, has called for this summit.

For a long time in the District, behavioral health programs were solely reliant on grant funding and therefore the services were not as expansive or as available as they should have been for all of our residents.

Many health plans did not offer coverage for behavioral health services. Providers were not accessible in all parts of the city – for example, a few years ago there was only one child psychiatrist that was east of the River. And there was little outreach to our African-American communities who were long reluctant to discuss mental health and illness even though many of those residents were dealing with incidents causing mental trauma on a daily basis.

As a result, there is a gap in the District of Columbia between our white and higher income residents and their minority and low-income counterparts when it comes to considering behavioral health and receiving proper care.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Services, African Americans are 20 percent more likely to report having “serious psychological distress” than non-Hispanic Whites. Yet, young adult African Americans are less likely to seek mental health services than their White counterparts.  In fact, the depression rate among African American women is estimated to be almost 50 percent higher than that of Caucasian women.

We know that when individuals are facing mental illness or challenge, and essentially cope and suffer in silence, the problem doesn’t go away; it just tends to manifest in other physical health issues becoming more costly and problematic as time goes on. This is why I think integration of behavioral health and physical health programs are key and I’m excited that you all are here to identify integration projects and make firm commitments to implementing them in 2014-15.

We have certainly come a long way in the District in terms of behavioral health services. I sit on the Committee on Education at the Council and every time I visit a school they are not just talking about the guidance counselor anymore, we now have psychologists and family therapists along with nurses and dentists who are coming directly to the schools to provide services because we realize how important it is to take care of the health of the whole child.

This summer I visited 12 primary health clinics throughout the District. With the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and the increase demand for health care, I wanted to get an on-the-ground feel of what health access is really like in the District. What I found were successful, mission-driven health clinics that are going above and beyond to meet the whole needs of the patients they serve. While they all were borne out of a need to serve a particular community or treat a specific health issue, they’ve evolved to treat the whole person. Behavioral health services are now integrated into all of them.

We need more clinics and health providers who see this importance in the District. That is why a couple of weeks ago when I sent my budget priorities for FY15 to the Mayor, I included a request that he infuse $3 million into the health professionals recruitment fund to help our clinics and hospitals recruit more providers to work and setup practice in our neediest of neighborhoods. Treating the whole patient is the only way we are really going to move the needle in terms of improving health outcomes for patients and reducing overall costs for care.

I want to thank you all for taking time out of your schedules to have these conversations. They are imperative for District residents and the patients you all serve!

Discussion on Race and Gender Disparities in the D.C. Criminal Justice System

Will The Marijuana Decriminalization Bill Solve D.C.’s Race And Gender Disparity Problem?

Photo by

clarissa.stark

Councilmember Tommy Wells’ (D-Ward 6) marijuana decriminalization bill—which would reduce the penalty of the simple possession of marijuana (one ounce or less) to nothing more than a $100 fine—is currently undergoing a language rewrite following a hearing last month. So far, most of the D.C. Council and Mayor Vincent Gray are behind the bill, albeit with a few caveats, and a revised version of the bill will be sent to the full Council for a preliminary vote in December and a final vote in January.

In theory, the soul of this bill is to help to ease the racial disparities in the D.C. criminal justice system. Statistics show that a majority of D.C.’s marijuana-related arrests are of black males, despite the fact that the self-reported use of marijuana in D.C. is about equal between white and black residents. But the main question that remains with Wells’ bill—”The Simple Possession of Small Quantities Of Marijuana Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2013”—is will it actually help alleviate some of these statistics?

Last night, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) held a forum at the David A. Clarke School of Law at UDC on race and gender disparities in the D.C. criminal justice system, and much of the conversation focused on this lingering question. Joined by a panel of legal experts—Niaz Kasravi, Director of the NAACP’s Criminal Justice Program, John Brittain, a UDC law professor, Josephine Ross, a Howard University law professor, Seema Sadanandan, Program Director for the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital, and Deborah Golden, Director of the D.C. Prisoners’ Rights Project and Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs—last night’s forum essentially turned into a critical symposium on the marijuana decriminalization bill and ways that the District can turn around some of the shocking statistics as it relates to race and the marijuana arrest rate.

Speaking to a packed room of over 100 citizens, law students, and activists, Grosso gave a brief introduction, explaining what led him to become so involved in this issue. “We’re here today because many people have done the hard work necessary to expose injustices in the way people are arrested, tried, arraigned, convicted, and sentenced,” Grosso said. “But the reason I’m here today is because of three independent events that happened over the past 12 months, which gave profound sense of responsibility to insert myself, as a leader in the District of Columbia, into the debate on race in the criminal justice system,” he said. Grosso cited the murder of Trayvon Martin (and subsequent trial of George Zimmerman), the book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, and comprehensive reports produced by the ACLU and Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs on racial disparity in arrests in D.C. as the three central reasons that led him to get so heavily involved on this issue.

Moderated by the Voice of Russia’s Kim Brown, each of the panelists laid out a variety of reasons why the U.S.’s failed War on Drugs has led to some disturbing trends in marijuana arrests and racial profiling, and how they’ve impact many black communities, specifically in D.C. Sadanandan of the ACLU said that, while working with young people in D.C., they would constantly tell her how they were “being stopped frequently by police under the pretext of marijuana,” and if cops thought they smelled like marijuana, they’d be searched. “The District, as compared to other jurisdictions in the United States,” Sadanandan said, “was one of the highest rates of marijuana enforcement anywhere, and we spent an enormous amount of money on marijuana arrests.” According to data compiled by the ACLU, 91 percent of all marijuana arrests in D.C. were of black people, and by and large, were of black men, despite the fact that the District is about 50 percent black and 50 percent white.

John Brittain, a UDC law professor mentioned that there is equal self-reported usage rate of marijuana in the District between white and black residents. He also talked about how the War on Drugs is a failed policy and that the country needs to not only be focusing on the legalization of marijuana, but to work on “[developing] uniform policies of cannabis and hemp to avoid corporate control,” he said. “Legal market of marijuana must be careful in not using taxes and other regulations to make marijuana so expensive that the criminal market continues,” Brittain also said.

Several other of the discussions panelists, including Kasravi and Golden, talked about how the current simple possession laws devastate the lives of those who are charged, making it increasingly difficult for them to reenter society because they have trouble finding work and housing with a record.

Toward the end of the discussion, the panelists opened up the forum to those in attendance, asking them what they think needs to be done to help solve the D.C. criminal justice system’s race and gender problem. One citizen gained many cheers and claps for calling out Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier. “You need to get rid of Cathy Lanier,” he said. “She puts road blocks in Trinidad, but she wouldn’t dare put those same road blocks in Georgetown.”

Perhaps the most cheers and claps of the evening came from another citizen who, while admitting that the marijuana decriminalization bill is a step in the right direction, the problem lives within the training of police officers and the lack of any sort of public oversight. “There needs to be a public oversight committee,” he said, “so that the police will actually have to listen and answer to the wishes of the public.”

Contact the

author

of this article or email

tips@dcist.com

with further questions, comments or tips.

By

Matt Cohen

in

News

on Nov 15, 2013 12:18 PM

Grosso Statement at the AmeriHealth Behavioral Health/Physical Health Integration Summit

As you all know, one of the major challenges for effective health care delivery is the integration of services, particularly behavioral health and physical health programs. It is very rare that patients come to health clinics or providers with just one issue and if we can do our best to treat the whole person, it improves quality of care and outcomes for our residents.

I’ve brought this up in every meeting I’ve had with AmeriHealth staff and so it’s very exciting and impressive that AmeriHealth, who is new to the District, has called for this summit.

For a long time in the District, behavioral health programs were solely reliant on grant funding and therefore the services were not as expansive or as available as they should have been for all of our residents.

Many health plans did not offer coverage for behavioral health services. Providers were not accessible in all parts of the city – for example, a few years ago there was only one child psychiatrist that was east of the River. And there was little outreach to our African-American communities who were long reluctant to discuss mental health and illness even though many of those residents were dealing with incidents causing mental trauma on a daily basis.

As a result, there is a gap in the District of Columbia between our white and higher income residents and their minority and low-income counterparts when it comes to considering behavioral health and receiving proper care.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Services, African Americans are 20 percent more likely to report having “serious psychological distress” than non-Hispanic Whites. Yet, young adult African Americans are less likely to seek mental health services than their White counterparts.  In fact, the depression rate among African American women is estimated to be almost 50 percent higher than that of Caucasian women.

We know that when individuals are facing mental illness or challenge, and essentially cope and suffer in silence, the problem doesn’t go away; it just tends to manifest in other physical health issues becoming more costly and problematic as time goes on. This is why I think integration of behavioral health and physical health programs are key and I’m excited that you all are here to identify integration projects and make firm commitments to implementing them in 2014-15.

We have certainly come a long way in the District in terms of behavioral health services. I sit on the Committee on Education at the Council and every time I visit a school they are not just talking about the guidance counselor anymore, we now have psychologists and family therapists along with nurses and dentists who are coming directly to the schools to provide services because we realize how important it is to take care of the health of the whole child.

This summer I visited 12 primary health clinics throughout the District. With the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and the increase demand for health care, I wanted to get an on-the-ground feel of what health access is really like in the District. What I found were successful, mission-driven health clinics that are going above and beyond to meet the whole needs of the patients they serve. While they all were borne out of a need to serve a particular community or treat a specific health issue, they’ve evolved to treat the whole person. Behavioral health services are now integrated into all of them.

We need more clinics and health providers who see this importance in the District. That is why a couple of weeks ago when I sent my budget priorities for FY15 to the Mayor, I included a request that he infuse $3 million into the health professionals recruitment fund to help our clinics and hospitals recruit more providers to work and setup practice in our neediest of neighborhoods. Treating the whole patient is the only way we are really going to move the needle in terms of improving health outcomes for patients and reducing overall costs for care.

I want to thank you all for taking time out of your schedules to have these conversations. They are imperative for District residents and the patients you all serve!

Certified Business Enterprise Program Needs Revamping Overall

By Councilmember David Grosso and Christina Henderson 

Anyone who has ever experienced the contract and procurement process for the District government knows it is not for the faint-of-heart. Governed by an elaborate maze of rules and sometimes the rather subjective interpretation of the rules, procurement requires organization, advanced planning, interpersonal skills, patience, and a healthy dose of persistence.  After only ten months on the job, Councilmember Grosso has probed a dozen of areas where the District’s procurement practice could be improved, but, chief among those would be the Certified Business Enterprise (CBE) program. He is not alone in this critique.

As many of you know, the District requires that all construction and non-construction contracts over $250,000 have at least 35 percent of the total dollar amount be subcontracted to a small business enterprise. When we first learned of this requirement working on procurement issues, we could not believe this was a blanket rule even for non-construction contracts. Sure, an agency can seek a waiver from the Department of Small and Local Business Development (DSLBD) if it cannot reach the 35 percent threshold, but as general practice, the blanket rule applies without regard to the needs of a particular scope of work. The recent dust-up over District’s instant tickets lottery games contract which lapsed on July 20 is a perfect example of how complicated this can be for businesses. When the vendor, Scientific Games International, reported that it was unable to meet the 35 percent requirement because the majority of its costs—printing and delivery of the tickets—could not be subcontracted, it was suggested at a Council hearing in June that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (the contract administrator in this case) “expand” the scope of work to make it easier for vendors to meet the 35 percent. In other words, there was suggestion that a D.C. contractor create the need for more work, that’s not needed, thereby costing taxpayers more. With OCFO choosing to rebid the contract, it seems they went that route. This is the very thing that frustrates people about government—waste. (Update: Since publishing this blog, we have learned that OCFO rebid the lottery contract using the original scope of work. Only one vendor has bid; it was not Scientific Games International.)

The instant ticket contract debacle peaked our interest about the District’s CBE program. Perhaps, we thought, the 35 percent requirement is tied to some sort of evidence-based look at the disparity in utilizing local small businesses for District contracts and best-practices around the country. However, the Council’s recent attempt to raise the subcontracting requirement to 50 percent for construction contracts, made it evident that policy making for the CBE program has been far more arbitrary than anyone would admit.

Across the country, hundreds of cities and counties have small business enterprise programs in place. We examined the laws/ordinances, policies and practices that govern 15 localities to see if there are any lessons to be learned and shared. There were differences among each of the cities. For example, some cities business enterprise programs are only for minority or women-owned businesses. Others only establish subcontractor participation requirements for construction contracts, and not professional services or purchasing. However, there are two major practices that would be helpful for the District to adopt.

Citywide Goals. All 15 cities and counties we examined have two different types of participation goals when it comes to their business enterprise programs – citywide goals and contract goals. Citywide goals are generally set annually by the local governing body to determine what percentage of contracting dollars they would like to see awarded to local businesses that fiscal year. In some cities, the participation goals differ based on type of contracts, as well as classification of the business. They are not summarily adopted as goals for individual procurements. More importantly, the goals are informed by the current business climate in the city. Philadelphia’s Code, for example, requires that their annual participation goals be based in part on: (1) the present availability of qualified disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE’s); (2) the utilization of qualified DBEs in past contracts awarded by the City; (3) a forecast of eligible contracts to be awarded within the fiscal year; and (4) an updated Disparity Analysis of businesses in the Philadelphia area. From New York City to Milwaukee, WI to Orlando, FL, they all have similar methods for setting their participation goals. As with any strategic planning effort, this allows for regular evaluation of the progress of the business enterprise program using accumulated data to determine whether specific program provisions require modification, expansion, or curtailment.

Contract Goals. The District’s blanket 35 percent subcontracting requirement for contracts over $250,000 stood out as an anomaly that appears to lack substance. Fourteen of the fifteen cities we studied set their goals contract-by-contract. In Denver, CO, the City enlists the help of 3 committees –Construction Goals Committee, Heavy Highway Goals Committee, and Professional Services Goals Committee – to help determine the various business enterprise participation goals for projects. So far this year, there have been goal determinations set as high as 40 percent.

In Houston, TX, the Office of Business Opportunity reviews scopes of work to determine specific participation goals based on a calculation that includes among other things available qualified businesses and past levels of utilization for similar contracts. In January, the New York City Council amended its business enterprise law to require that each agency set goals for individual procurements based in part by “the citywide goals and the agency’s annual utilization plan, the size and nature of  the procurement, and the availability of MBEs, WBEs and EBEs with the capacity to perform the specific types and scale of work involved in its procurements.” This type of approach seems to have worked well for these cities. Not only do the businesses appreciate that the goals are not arbitrary and therefore achievable, it requires the city to have a strong understanding of what’s happening in its small business community.

Tomorrow, the Committee on Business, Consumer, and Regulatory Affairs will hold a public hearing on two bills related to the District’s CBE program, the Certified Business Enterprise Program Enhanced Reform Amendment Act of 2013 (B20-422) and the Small and Certified Business Enterprise Development and Assistance Amendment Act of 2013 (B20-181). Both bills include some necessary enhancements, but without addressing the way in which we establish participation goals for our local businesses the program will continue to have problems. See a quick glimpse of how D.C.’s CBE program stacks up against other cities around the country:

Grosso Demands Stronger Oversight of Contracts

I write today to support Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, Chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, in his effort to pass a campaign finance reform bill that includes repealing council votes on contracts over $1 million.  For the past 11 months, I have taken a stand against this federally mandated Council requirement, and voted “present” on contracts that come before us. Continuous interference with the procurement process by the Council leads to an appearance of corruption that taints the Council’s credibility.

I am concerned that the contracting and procurement process is degraded and not enhanced by councilmembers voting on every contract over $1 million. The main purpose of contracting and procurement is to have a confidential process to ensure that the bids submitted for approval are shielded from political influence. The contract should be awarded to the company that presents the best bid and not simply to the company that has the most political connections. Throughout my time on the Council I have executed strong oversight of contracts being awarded by the Mayor’s agencies.  I have met with all interested parties and required follow-up reporting once the contracts have been awarded.  I will continue to demand vigorous oversight of every contract as it is implemented.

We must ensure that the contracting process in the District of Columbia is fair and efficient.

We also must ensure that councilmembers do not have the opportunity to improperly influence the contracting process to benefit their friends and campaign donors.

I. Good Government: The D.C. Council

This is first in a series of posts by Councilmember David Grosso on “Good Government.”

Today was the most frustrating day at the D.C. Council since I was sworn in as an At-Large Councilmember last January.  From the vote to postpone the elected Attorney General to the continuous meaningless votes on government contracts.  I asked myself, over and over again, how is what we are doing here making our city a better place?  What are we doing to improve the lives of D.C. residents or even to make the government operate more smoothly?  These thoughts caused me to reflect on what it means to create a “good government.” In fact, what is a “good government?” What does it mean as the legislative branch to work towards good government?   

Any discussion of this issue must include transparency, openness, thorough work product, and ultimately accountability. Certainly accountability to the people of the District is our primary duty that should guide us to govern the city in a way that makes our city a better city.  A “good government” includes: ethical leadership; effective and efficient agencies; engaged and active residents; thoughtful benchmarking of ideas; smart lively debates; compromises; principled stances; a constant quest to do what is right to gain credibility; and smart voters.

I don’t know all the aspects of what it takes to create a “good government” but I do know that today at the D.C. Council I felt that we were not heading down the right path.  Members were caught up in vote trading of the worst kind and self-serving votes that leave the city worse off than it was prior to the votes.  It is time for a “new day” on the D.C. Council.  It is time for a positive turn toward a “good government.” 

Share your thoughts with me in the comment section or over email (dgrosso@dccouncil.us) on what it means to create a “good government.”  I too will be researching this issue and thinking about how my actions and votes can be used to move our city in the right direction.

Criminal Justice Legislative Priority: “Anti-Shackling of Incarcerated Pregnant Women Act of 2013”

On Tuesday, September 17, I introduced the “Anti-Shackling of Incarcerated Pregnant Women Act of 2013.”   This legislation changes the standard operating procedures in the District of Columbia correctional system. The bill establishes that no woman who is pregnant while in the custody of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (D.C. DOC) can be shackled at any time while she is pregnant, during labor, during transport to a medical facility for treatment related to being pregnant, during delivery of her child, or during post-partum for a six week period. This bill aslo requires the D.C. DOC, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Halfway Houses, and the Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services (DYRS)  to collect and publish data about the practices of using restraints in their required quarterly reports and during annual oversight hearings before the Council. The bill also requires enhanced staff training and detailed notice to incarcerated women about this act.

I have introduced this legislation because it is an important human rights issue that must be addressed in D.C.  According to the American Civil Liberties Union, eighteen states already have laws prohibiting shackling pregnant prisoners. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that the number of female inmates is rising five-fold every year, mostly due to increased prosecutions and convictions of offenses related to “recreational” drugs. There are currently more than 200,000 women in U.S. prisons, and at least 12,000 of those women are pregnant at the time of incarceration. The D.C. DOC reported that in July of 2013, the daily average of women and juveniles in the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility was 137.  What we do not know is how many of these women enter the D.C. criminal justice system pregnant or how many of them deliver while they are incarcerated.  D.C. government officials, with oversight, need to know how these situations are handled and how these women are treated during pregnancy.

Currently, the D.C. DOC regulations only address shackles on women who are in their last trimester of pregnancy.  There is a restriction for using shackling restraints during labor and delivery or immediately following delivery unless the inmate poses an extraordinary security risk.  My bill would ensure that no woman is shackled during her pregnancy or for up to a six-week period during post-partum recovery.  This measure will ensure both the safety of the mother and of the fetus.  There is always a concern for balancing the safety of our corrections officers, the mothers, and the fetus.  In this circumstance, I do not believe that laboring women are a flight risk.  Studies in the other 18 states that have banned shackling have shown that women who were laboring, delivering, or recovering from child-birth posed little to no threat to the corrections officers, the hospital staff, or to themselves. 

This is not a problem that will remedy itself, especially while we watch the number of women being incarcerated rapidly increasing each year.  It is important that the Council addresses its responsibility to protect those who are vulnerable to adverse treatment especially when no one is watching.  I believe that we must have safeguards in place to recognize that punishment for a crime does not equate to the loss of an individual’s right to appropriate safety measures, medical attention, and personal dignity.   We live in a progressive city that often sets the standards for other cities and states nationwide.  It is imperative that we join the other states that have passed similar anti-shackling.

Some might argue that the section of this bill that will require data collection is costly and cumbersome.  However, it is essential that we maintain records about government funded Departments and their activities.  These systems of record keeping in the prisons should already be in place and if they are not, we need to hold our prison systems to a higher standard.   I have stood, and will continue to stand, on a platform of transparency and accountability.  The D.C. DOC has significant room for improvement in collecting accurate and timely data and reporting it to the Mayor, the Council, and most importantly the residents of the District. 

Women who are about to enter the criminal justice system must be educated about their rights while they are in prison.  They should be afforded the appropriate care and should not be subject to any kind of shackling or restraint while they are experiencing labor or delivery.  This is a basic human right and it is our duty as civic leaders to stand behind all members of our community.

13 Public Forums on School Reform 2.0

Earlier this year, the Committee on Education held hearings on nine bills designed to strengthen the public education system in the District. I co-sponsored seven of the nine bills that range from radically changing how we finance our schools to the creation of a unified lottery. I co-sponsored these bills because they are a great first step in spurring a public conversation and debate about the next step in the public education reform discussion here in the District.

I was pleased to join the Chairman of the Education Committee, David Catania at all five of the public hearings at the Wilson Building and at the eight important public forums held in all eight Wards of the District. Each of these 13 distinct public meetings were attended by large crowds eager to share thoughts and feedback on our legislative plan. The conversations ranged from specifics about the draft legislation to the overall state of our public education system. The resurgence of public interest in education reform was evident.

The education debate that surrounded these bills elicited a wide variety of opinions within Wards and between Wards. Although in each of the Wards, residents brought specific concerns about the state of education to the discussion, more often than not parents, activists and educators had common concerns and ideas.

Parents and families across the city expect a culture of high expectations in the public school system. They do not accept that poverty is an excuse to demand less from children. They believe that poverty does not reflect a student’s ability to achieve, but that poverty is a hurdle that must be overcome with targeted, well-financed support. There was a consensus that a weighted student funding formula was one way to begin to address this problem. During the Committee’s earlier hearings, we learned that successful charter schools on average spend $1500-$1800 more per student to cover the additional needs of educating their students from high poverty backgrounds. This is one area where the traditional system can learn from the charter sector.

Our families desire more in terms of educational enrichment opportunities for their children. No one denies the fact that our current proficiency rates do not meet our standards. Almost every resident who came to the forums believe that test scores alone should not dictate whether or not children receive a full and vibrant education. In Ward 7, we heard of a thoughtful proposal from the community to establish an application middle and high school in Hillcrest. In Ward 2, families attending Garrison Elementary would love to see a language immersion program, especially considering the Office of Bilingual Education is located in their school building. In Ward 6, a parent spoke about the desire for her child to learn art and dance as part of the educational experience. In Ward 1, an educator expressed concerns that there is no longer an emphasis on cursive writing and civics in school curriculums. These comments, and many others, served as a constant reminder that for parents and educators, they are not raising test takers, but instead productive, engaged members of society. We cannot lose sight of the responsibility of our public education system to help ensure robust educational opportunities – for everyone.

Our families also desire meaningful communication with D.C. Public Schools (DCPS). From west of the Park, to east of the River, and everywhere in between, this issue was vociferously raised by residents. Parents can forgive poor facilities if they have strong leadership, curriculum, and communication.  Leadership on these priorities must come first from the Chancellor and Mayor and then from the D.C. Council to ensure that parents, teachers and other community members have the opportunity to engage and ultimately “buy-in” to the current school reform effort. Teachers and other employees of DCPS will respond to strong guidance from the Chancellor and Mayor. No resident should ever have to say with desperation in her voice: “It is as if we want DCPS more than DCPS wants us.” The Council must make sure the government is responsive to the people in all issue areas, but especially during this tumultuous time in our school reform process.

Finally, during this public engagement period I saw, as I did during my campaign, that our residents are passionate and engaged in our public school reform process. While there were a lot of parents and grandparents represented at these meetings, there was also a strong presence from members of the community who do not have children in schools. They want to engage and be active in a way that is not disruptive, but so far have not been given opportunities to do so. Even some parents reflected on the difficulty of volunteering with their child’s school. Why does the government bureaucracy make volunteering at our local schools so complicated? For instance, why is DCPS’ central office the only place that someone can go to get fingerprinted to become a volunteer? Can we not work out a system with the Metropolitan Police Department that allows individuals to be fingerprinted at any district station and the list of those cleared are simply shared with the school system? We are focused on achievement, but these conversations in the community highlighted some easily achieved success, that if addressed would actually support more academic growth.

I found these meetings to be incredibly informative and fruitful. As the summer continues, I hope that more residents will share their thoughts and opinions with me and the Committee on Education. I know that working together we can certainly improve the current legislation and the overall performance of our public school system. I, for one, am committed to ensuring that your voice is heard.

Safety First Initiative

By Aaron Pritchard, Chief of Staff

Yesterday, WAMU reported that D.C. has a higher rate of pedestrian fatalities than the national average. With the news coverage during the first half of 2013 this should come as no surprise.   On consecutive days along Councilmember Grosso’s commute several pedestrians were hit near Union Station and another just up the street on 4th and Massachusetts NW.   After the second accident he came into the office distraught about the dangerous situation for pedestrians in our city. Our office hatched the “Safety First” initiative on that day in mid-June.

The “Safety First” initiative focuses first on improving the safety of our most vulnerable and common users of transportation – our pedestrians. Yes, many people drive, others take the metro or ride buses, and a growing number of residents bike to work – but pedestrians are everywhere, all day. Grosso’s question was: how could we begin to improve pedestrian safety in the District of Columbia immediately? We started with legislative and oversight efforts focused on pedestrian safety.

First, we inserted Budget Support Act (BSA) language that mandates that DDOT (D.C. Department of Transportation) create a safety nexus for speed cameras throughout the city. Grosso’s theory, created after months of campaign questions about speed camera’s, was that if DDOT were to incorporate speed cameras into its safety calculus, then we could use that analysis to reduce the number of serious pedestrian/car collisions in D.C.  The desired result would be that D.C. residents would trust that when speed cameras are installed, the government was motivated by improving safety, and not just increasing local revenue. D.C. residents support speed cameras, and red light camera’s, in their neighborhoods and on streets near their homes, because they understand that reducing the speed of cars creates safer communities. Our office anticipates that a safety nexus for speed cameras, rather than focusing our limited camera resources on generating revenue, will improve pedestrian safety.

The second idea came when Councilmember Grosso heard about the successful reduction in pedestrian injuries when Traffic Control Officers (TCOs) were deployed in a pilot project on Wisconsin and M Street NW. The officers issued enough tickets to cover the cost of their time working while also improving traffic flow and, most importantly, improving pedestrian safety at the intersection. We had heard of rumors of political and other reasons (not including safety) driving decisions on where TCO’s were located so we included language in the BSA that would require DDOT to identify the top ten most dangerous intersections in D.C. and to prioritize the placement of TCO’s at these intersections.

With TCO’s covering the most dangerous intersections, a secondary impact can be realized in identifying and publicizing the most dangerous intersections in our city. It is Councilmember Grosso’s hope that local activists, once notified of a dangerous intersection in their neighborhood, will pressure the D.C. Council and the Mayor’s office for more safety resources at that location. These efforts may include: educating pedestrians of the dangerous locations; implementing traffic calming devices and enforcing traffic safety laws.

Finally, during the DDOT performance oversight hearing Councilmember Grosso noticed that DDOT was not using pedestrian safety data in their agency performance measures. As a result, they were also not reporting pedestrian safety data in their yearly performance report to the D.C. Council. Councilmember Grosso raised this at the performance and budget hearings noting that pedestrian safety should be a top priority at DDOT and he requested that they include pedestrian safety data in their annual performance measures for the agency. 

Our office recognizes that there are many transportation priorities in D.C. – the streetcar, bike lanes, and other various modes – but we are keenly aware that focusing on pedestrians must also drive DDOT’s policy decisions and performance measures. Everyone, regardless of age, disability, or choice of locomotion is a pedestrian at some point. We must do better to ensure that our pedestrians are our highest priority. DDOT agreed to include pedestrian safety this year in their performance measures as a result of Grosso’s questions.  Our office looks forward to analyzing this data next year in the performance hearings.

Councilmember Grosso’s “Safety First” initiative is just a small first step, but we will continually use it to focus DDOT’s efforts on improving pedestrian safety in D.C. and on making our communities safer places to walk. If you have any suggestions or ideas for improving pedestrian safety, please contact me at apritchard@dccouncil.us .

*This post is part of an ongoing series of posts by Councilmember Grosso’s staff to support professional development. All posts are approved and endorsed by Councilmember Grosso.

On Data and School Choice: Scoring Potential or Scoring Failure?

By Christina Henderson

Many of our children from low-income households are beginning school at a disadvantage. According to a report from the Brookings Institution, fewer than half (48 percent) of poor children are “school ready” at age five, compared to 75 percent of children from families with moderate and high income. School readiness is generally indicated by language development, cognition and general knowledge, approaches to learning, physical well-being, and social and emotional development. These early setbacks often times can continue to persist well throughout a student’s education.

Measuring student growth and annual progress has been an important component of our accountability systems, nationally, for almost 20 years. Public reporting of student growth provides a more accurate picture of school and educator effectiveness than just the static snapshot of annual proficiency rates because it takes into account where a student started academically.

For example, if Michael cannot recognize numbers or letters when he enters kindergarten, if by the time he enters fifth grade and has an average of a third grade reading level, is that significant progress? Is it an unrealistic expectation that he will be able to achieve an advanced mastery of the fifth grade content by the end of the school year? Michael’s teacher, however, is pretty confident that he can handle fourth grade content by the April test. As a result, Michael may score “Basic” on the DC CAS; but the untold story is where Michael started in kindergarten and how much he improved from last year relative to his academic peers.

The Office of the State Superintendent of Education has been calculating the median growth percentile (MGP) for each school based on the CAS scores for the last two years, as Ken Archer recently reported in an article for Greater Greater Education. The median growth percentile tells us how well a group of students are growing in comparison with other groups. Even more importantly, it helps us understand which schools are doing a great job with their kids, no matter how high or low their test scores were when they started, as well as which schools are not getting their students to progress at the rate of others. The DC Public Charter School Board already uses MGP in its Performance Management Framework which evaluates District charter schools.

Although, the MGP generally provides a much more accurate picture of how well a school is performing, the District’s current method of measuring performance drives parents toward evaluating schools, and therefore students, on static school-wide proficiency rates. The MGP data is hardly mentioned in news reports and is nearly non-existent on school profiles that parents use to evaluate if a school is the right fit for their child.  The school system should provide parents with more comprehensive information to help them make better choices upon entry into the school system and throughout the child’s public school experience. Parents that choose schools based on how well the school can help their children reach their highest potential, rather than the lowest measure of achievement will create a system the lifts each school and each child. As we all mull over the recently released 2013 DC CAS results, it’s important to ask: are the ratings by which we evaluate students and schools really telling the whole story?

*This post is part of an ongoing series of posts by Councilmember Grosso’s staff to support professional development. All posts are approved and endorsed by Councilmember Grosso.

One Woman’s Mission Spurs Collective Vision and Community of Leaders

By Dionne Calhoun, Communications Director

For those of you who have embarked upon an endless journey to help empower those within your respective communities, I ask that you stand with me today to salute those leaders who serve to inspire, educate, empower and improve the quality of life for D.C. residents.

I had the pleasure of attending The Women’s Collective (TWC) “Youth, Chat and Chew” event and to learn about the advocacy work of the young women who lead the TWC, including: HIV/AIDS education, testing and prevention; access to care; sexual reproductive health curriculum; community outreach, referral and support services; special events to raise awareness and encourage the importance of getting tested and creating platforms to bring young women together so that their voices are heard.

Each attendee at the “Youth, Chat and Chew” event gave a brief introduction about their work with TWC. The Youth Program Associate, Chantil Thomas, was roundly praised for her tireless dedication and commitment to serve women and youth, always with a smile on her face. Thomas then rose to speak and was overwhelmed with joy as she stated, with tears in her eyes, “I could not have done this without the help of the staff” and the one who paved the way for her – Patricia Nalls, founder and executive director of TWC. Patricia Nalls wiped tears from her eyes while everyone in the room stood up and applauded her for her dedication to empowering women, girls and families, especially those living with and at risk for HIV/AIDS.

Patricia Nalls was diagnosed with AIDS in 1986 after she lost her husband and three-year-old daughter from AIDS within six months of each other. Nalls shared her story of being ashamed with the diagnosis which led her to isolate herself from help and support. “I stayed in self-imposed exile for several years before I realized I wasn’t dying and I wasn’t actually living either. And living with HIV is what I had to do for my children’s sake and mine,” said Nalls. With a new perspective on life and a growing frustration with many years of not finding appropriate services for women, Nalls set-up a private phone line in her home for those living with HIV/AIDS to call for support, but kept it a close-held secret because of the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS. The phone line grew into a support group where women shared their personal stories, laughed and cried and provided recommendations for HIV care and services while relying on one another for strength as they coped with their health status. In 1995, Nalls founded TWC with the goal of supporting women and their families and with the hope of creating a “woman-focused” organization. The board set-up training sessions, identified funding opportunities and eventually tied in policymakers, local providers and the District of Columbia Department of Health.

Nearly twenty years later through the vision of Patricia Nalls, TWC has evolved into a strong body of women who are committed to empowering the lives of women and girls each day. Through Patricia’s vision comes a new vision - from Chantil Thomas, a former teacher and D.C. public school graduate with a passion for music. She developed a sexual reproductive health curriculum with a focus on HIV/AIDS which is currently offered at Cardozo Senior High School, Luke C. Moore High School, Hospitality High School, Bell Multicultural High School, The Washington Metropolitan High School and Youthbuild Public Charter School.

Thomas developed a curriculum using music to resonate across cultures and “to meet the needs of youth and young adults where they are.” Each workshop is titled after a hip-hop song to engage students. Thomas also highlighted a workshop targeted for middle school students; “Between us Girls” which is a social, emotional, sexual reproductive wellness curriculum that focuses on self-sufficiency for young girls.

TWC, under the leadership of Chantil Thomas, also empowers and educates young women and girls through special events such as “Girls on Fire: Blazing the Way and Passing the Torch,” an event to celebrate National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day and to honor female trailblazers in the community featuring local artists, a fashion show, free HIV testing and giveaways.

Just as Patricia Nalls is praised for her leadership in empowering the lives of women, girls and families, she has developed a team of other women and young aspiring leaders to carry the torch to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the city, reduce barriers to care and services, meet the needs of women and girls “where they are” and improve their overall quality of life.

*This post is part of an ongoing series of posts by Councilmember Grosso’s staff to support professional development. All posts are approved and endorsed by Councilmember Grosso.

Only $26,000 per year!

Last week, my colleagues and I took up the Large Retailer Accountability Act (LRAA), which requires all District retailers whose parent companies make at least $1 billion in sales to pay their employees a minimum of $12.50 per hour — $4.25 above the current District minimum wage. After much deliberation, I supported this legislation and it passed the Council and is now waiting for the Mayor’s signature.

 The District of Columbia has seen immense growth and development over the last 10 years. Much of the growth has been possible because of government subsidies, incentives and partnerships with developers and retailers. As a result, the city’s strong economy and growing population has become attractive to national businesses. We certainly have more work to do; however, the District of Columbia is in a strong bargaining position to attract quality jobs and quality opportunities for District residents.

We must balance the interest of attracting large retailers to our less developed Wards 5, 7 and 8, while also attracting quality jobs to support our residents and their families. The federal minimum wage has remained stagnant, while the numbers of low-wage jobs and temporary positions have increased. Under this legislation, a full-time employee of a larger retailer making the minimum would take home only around $26,000 annually. That is it; barely over the federal poverty line for a family of four.  We can do better than this for our residents.

Wal-Mart made this the Wal-Mart bill with a concerted, expensive lobbying effort. Other large stores in the District like Costco, Home Depot, Target, and Macy’s would also have to abide by the law, but considering that Wal-Mart currently pays its workers 28 percent less on average than other larger retailers, I get why they have made this about them. Other communities around the country have fought Wal-Mart on wages, on benefits, on preserving local business. Almost every community has lost the fight — that is one method Wal-Mart has used to become the number one grossing company on the Fortune 500 list again in 2013.

Wal-Mart employs more people than any other company in the United States outside of the federal government, yet the majority of its employees with children live below the poverty line. According to the company, Wal-Mart pays its full-time, associates an average of $12.67 per hour. But with an increased reliance on temporary hires, about a third of its employees work less than 28 hours per week. Entry associates typically start near minimum wage, and have the potential to earn raises of 20 to 40 cents an hour through incremental promotions. A perfect review on your annual performance evaluation will get you an increase of 60 cents. As a result, an entry-level associate (earning $8.25 per hour) who “exceeds expectations,” and gets one promotion, is likely to earn only $10.90 per hour after five years of service.

Sadly, that is what our residents have to look forward to if the LRAA is not signed into law. I believe that the long-term effect of six Wal-Marts in D.C. would perpetuate a system of poverty that traps our poorest residents in low-paying jobs, with little hope for advancement.

I, along with the seven other Councilmembers who voted in favor of the LRAA, am asking that we treat our residents better. According to a 2012 report by the non-partisan think tank, Demos, raising wage standards to the equivalent of $25,000 per year for full-time retail workers would lift 734,075 people out of poverty, increase the GDP by billions, and create 100,000 to 132,000 additional jobs. Having saturated many suburban and rural areas, Wal-Mart has long had its eyes on our great city as part of its larger effort to expand into highly populated urban areas. Rather than continue its habit of paying low wages, Wal-Mart could use its position of influence as one of the nation’s largest retailers to drive up wages and spur job creation in the District.

If Wal-Mart chooses not to go forward with its three remaining stores, I would not be upset. In fact, we should really be asking ourselves if our city can even support six stores, all of which are about 15 minutes or less from each other.

This presents an opportunity for the city to become more creative in its efforts to spur more development in our Wards east of the river. For example, why not recruit Trader Joe’s, a company that pays its entry-level crew members, $10 to $12, for Skyland?  Not only would it provide residents in that neighborhood with a high-quality grocery option, but also lure residents who faithfully travel into Arlington and Alexandria to make the journey to a popular brand. I am willing to invest D.C. tax dollars to support such an effort – if we can show the area can support the investment. If Ward 7 needs other investments to entice businesses, we have a host of solutions we can try from improving safety to fixing blight. That is our role as a government in an economically powerful city.

I will continue to work along with my colleagues at the Council, to better ensure that D.C. residents have greater opportunities to earn a living wage.  Retailers and companies like Costco Wholesale and the grocery store chain Trader Joe’s, are proving that the decision to offer low wages is a choice, not an economic necessity.

Why D.C. needs public campaign financing

My Op-Ed on “Why D.C. needs public campaign financing” was featured in the Washington Post this past Sunday. It is clear that the moment has come for comprehensive campaign finance reform. Please share to get the conversation started. Also note that Councilmember McDuffie will hold a public roundtable on public financing of campaigns on Thursday, July 11, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. in room 500 of the John A. Wilson Building located at 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

The presence of corporate dollars flowing into D.C. elections has corrupted our electoral system and failed our residents. The system has fallen out of balance, and forces with something to gain from political influence have come to badly outweigh the interests of ordinary citizens. The solution is to increase the number of engaged residents who have a stake in ethical leaders. Fair Elections D.C., a bill that I have proposed with council member Kenyan McDuffie (D-Ward 5), can help restore this balance between residents and corporate interests.

To read more, click here.

To read more about campaign finance and why I vote no on contracts, click here:

Help Clean Up D.C. with Fair Elections Legislation, Washington Post

D.C. Development: Fixing the System, WAMU

Curtail D.C. Council power over contracts, Washington Post

Pol protests D.C. Council contract vote, Washington Examiner

D.C. Zoning Regulations Review: Government Oversight vs. Government Overstepping

The Council is tasked with making our city a better place to live, work, and visit.  The work we do impacts and hopefully improves lives.   We often must spend countless hours meeting and discussing bill drafts and redrafts, and holding roundtables and hearings.  But the legislative process can often slow progress down and good intentions of the Council can get lost somewhere in the tangled process. 

The “process” is currently impeding progress by not allowing the Office of Planning’s update to the Zoning Regulation to go forward to the Zoning Commission.  This process should be straightforward like this: 

• Step 1. Determine that substantial change has happened since 1958; 
• Step 2. The Office of Planning (OP) creates the Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR) to recommend revisions to the DC Zoning Regulations.  OP meets to discuss and re-draft the proposal until there is a revised document that they can send to the Zoning Commission (ZC).  The ZC is a wholly independent body that oversees District zoning – according to the Home Rule Act neither the Mayor nor the Council has authority over the ZC. 
• Step 3.  The ZC holds hearings and then denies or approves the new Zoning Regulations. 

It may not actually be that easy, but it should not be hard either.  And the Council should not be making it any more difficult.  When we make the process more difficult, we move from a position of oversight to a placewhere we are overstepping our role.  In the current situation, the Council should stop holding hearings and instead support sending the proposal to the ZC. 

Historical background:

The Council passed a Comprehensive Plan in 2006 that required (via the Home Rule Act) an overhaul of the regulations for future planning and development of the District.  The authority for making these changes was then vested in OP.   In 2007, OP created the Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR) to revise the DC Zoning Regulations.   ZRR got a new name and is now known as the Zoning Update (ZU).  The ZU focused on twenty subjects, which the new regulations describe by specific subject.  Five years later in 2012, the ZU proposed recommendations were sent to a Task Force made up of mostly Councilmember appointees.  And this is where the trouble begins.

The progression at this point should have been that the Task Force makes their comments, OP makes some edits to the ZU, and then OP sends the final proposed regulations to the Zoning Commission.  When the proposals are sent to the ZC they schedule public hearings on the proposed regulations prior to making any final decision.   This was supposed to happen during the first quarter of 2013.  At the current rate, this implementation process has been stalled for at least another year.

The Task Force and the Council continue today to delay the proposed regulations and delay the process.  Many residents are confused and think that at the least this process should be completed already.  So, what is the hold up?  I cannot speak about motives of other people, but here is what I understand are the major issues delaying this process and where I stand on them:

         Zero Minimum Parking Requirements:  

• OP wants to eliminate on-site parking requirements for all new buildings constructed downtown or in mixed-use, transit-accessible neighborhoods throughout the city.  I support this measure – in terms of required parking spaces, let the market decide.

         Corner Stores:

• Corner stores are currently not permitted unless they have a current, valid Certificate of Occupancy.  In the proposed draft text, new corner stores such as retail, arts-related, or eating and drinking establishments would be permitted in the R-3 and R-4 zones by special exception, which would include a hearing before the Board of Zoning Adjustment. I support this measure.

        Accessory Dwellings Units

• The proposed regulations would allow homeowners to make changes within their current home or garage, by right.  If they want to build a new dwelling separate from the main house, they will need to secure a special exception.  I support this measure.

Zoning is an organic process and very difficult to regulate.  How can we possibly anticipate how the city will look in the future?  We cannot. We have to do our best to make it safe and reasonable, but beyond that point it must have the freedom to grow on its own.  I think that OP has done a very good job completing a very difficult task.  Now, we need to step back, let OP finish their work, and send their proposed regulations to ZC.

For more information about modernizing the zoning code, click here.   

For updates on the process: http://zoningdc.org/ and http://www.dczoningupdate.org