Councilmember Grosso provides a brief video update on the Fiscal Year 2016 budget that the D.C. Council passed on May 27, 2015. You can read more about the budget in Grosso's press releases and see the details of the Committee on Education's budget in its report. Grosso also invites community members to education town hall meetings over the next month and a half.
Viewing entries in
Blog Post
Please join Councilmember Grosso for community town hall events between June 16 and July 11, 2015. The Councilmember will hold a meeting in each Ward to hear from residents, parents, students, and education stakeholders about public education in the District of Columbia.
By Kristi King, WTOP, May 12, 2015
WASHINGTON — New voices are joining the debate over a proposed power company merger and whether it would mean better or worse conditions for people now served by Pepco.
Twenty-two of the District’s 40 Advisory Neighborhood Commissions have declared their opposition to a deal for a Chicago-based company to buy Pepco, and they’re calling on Mayor Muriel Bowser to do the same.
“She needs to come out and say something,” said Judi Jones, a commissioner from Ward 4, said Tuesday at a rally on the steps of the Wilson Building.
“I don’t want to take a step backward,” At-Large D.C. Councilman David Grosso said at the rally in announcing his opposition to the merger.
“I don’t see Exelon as a full partner in the District of Columbia to continue the high standards we have for improving the environment and protecting the environment.”
Grosso and other opponents also fear that having Exelon, a company that generates power, as a parent company to Pepco, which is a distributor, will lead to higher rates.
D.C. Council members Mary Cheh, Charles Allen and Elissa Silverman are already on record saying they believe the merger would best serve the interests of power-company shareholders, but would eventually lead to higher utility rates, a degraded environment and lost local jobs.
The county executives from Prince George’s and Montgomery counties both want the Pepco-Exelon merger to go through. Rushern L. Baker III and Isiah Leggett say in a joint letter published in The Washington Post that the merger would increase power company accountability and the reliability of power supplied to the region.
A decision on the merger from Maryland’s Public Service Commission is expected Friday. A decision from the District’s Public Service Commission is expected this summer.
“The Pepco-Exelon is still under review by the mayor’s legal team. As the last jurisdiction to review the merger, the Bowser administration is committed to negotiating a resolution that best serves the interests of District residents and rate payers,” Bowser’s office said in a statement.
Pepco released the following statement about the proposed merger:
“Since announcing our proposed merger over a year ago, we’ve listened carefully to feedback in the District of Columbia. A diverse set of individuals and organizations — including District residents, business owners, organized labor, faith groups and local nonprofits — have voiced their support for the merger because they understand that it will provide substantial benefits to Pepco customers and communities, and to the District. A number of parties made constructive proposals, and in response, we substantially enhanced our proposed package to deliver even more value to the District and its citizens. Unfortunately, a few parties have taken a “just say no” position on the merger which, in our view, ignores the immediate and long-term benefits to customers and to the District that will not be available if the merger does not go forward.
“We believe that the merger is in the public interest and that the evidence supports this. The Public Service Commission will review the full record and rule in the interests of Pepco customers in the District. Pepco Holdings and Exelon have proposed a $34 million fund to be used for direct customer benefits in the District, and another $51 million in projected merger savings over 10 years will flow back to District customers through rates lower than they would be without the merger. We’ve enhanced our reliability performance commitments to reduce the frequency of outages by 36 percent and the length of outages by 40 percent in the District and have proposed stiffer financial penalties if we fall short of these goals. We’ve committed to keeping Pepco leadership, jobs and control local and to providing $16 million in charitable giving in the District over 10 years. We are committed to working to bring all of these benefits to the District when the merger closes.”
D.C. residents can comment to the Public Service Commission through May 25.
by Emily Crockett, RH Reality Check, May 8, 2015
A group of anti-choice organizations released a joint statement this week that, to many observers, seemed like a vow to commit civil disobedience and violate the District of Columbia’s new Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA).
It’s not clear, however, if these groups’ planned “resistance” would actually break the law, or whether their objections to the law have any grounding in reality.
“The statement from Alliance Defending Freedom and other groups shows that they still have not taken time to read or understand my legislation,” D.C. Councilmember David Grosso, who sponsored the reproductive health bill, told RH Reality Check via email.
The statement, signed by representatives of Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, March for Life, Concerned Women for America, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, pledged to “vigorously resist” alleged violations to their First Amendment rights under the new law.
The pledge comes on the heels of action by congressional Republicans to try, unsuccessfully for now, to block the new law. A resolution of disapproval of RHNDA failed to pass both the House and the Senate before a 30-day deadline, but Congress could still try to block it using the budget appropriations process.
“It is appalling that these organizations have sought congressional interference in our local legislative process and now claim an intention to disobey the law based on their own ignorance about what the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act does and does not do,” Grosso said.
The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal website released the statement along with a report claiming that the groups are “putting themselves at risk of violating the law.”
It would in fact violate the law if the groups wanted to fire women for having an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, or fire men whose wives use birth control. The RHNDA amends D.C.’s Human Rights Act to protect employees from discrimination based on their, or their dependents’, personal reproductive health care choices for which some religious conservative employers have been known to fire women.
But if this is the anti-choice groups’ intent, it’s not at all clear from their statement. Instead, the groups appear to be using common misconceptions about what the bill actually does to support their arguments that the bill violates the religious freedom of employers.
“They claim they will not obey the D.C. Human Rights Act, yet their uninformed stance actually means they will be taking actions completely within the law,” Grosso said.
The anti-choice groups’ statement claims that RHNDA is “aimed squarely” at the organizations’ freedoms to “draw our workforces from among those who share our foundational commitment to the sanctity of human life” and to “purchase and provide employee health plans that comport with our pro-life beliefs.”
“Despite the enactment of this unjust law, we will continue to hire employees who share our commitment to the dignity of every member of the human family,” the statement concludes. “We will not abandon the purpose of our organizations in order to comply with this illegal and unjust law. We will vigorously resist any effort under RHNDA to violate our constitutionally protected fundamental rights.”
If all these groups want to do is hire people who share their views, or decline to provide comprehensive insurance that covers contraception and abortion, it doesn’t appear that RHNDA prohibits them from doing that.
The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, as much as it rankled reproductive rights supporters and many D.C. Council members, is still the law of the land. Council members and aides have repeatedly said that nothing in the bill deals with insurance, and the bill now contains language clarifying that point.
That clarifying language is temporary, which the anti-choice groups objected to. But D.C. Council members plan to make that clarification permanent, even though some have argued that it would be redundant to do so.
As for the groups’ concerns about being able to hire people who share a “commitment” to their values, the law’s supporters say that groups can hire who they want, and that the purpose of the law is to prohibit firing an employee for their health-care choices.
“This is about ensuring that workers can make their own health decisions without their bosses’ intrusion, whether that is to initiate or terminate a pregnancy, whether that is taking birth control or in-vitro fertility treatments,” Grosso said.
Religious groups might argue that an employee’s abortion or use of birth control demonstrates a lack of “commitment” to their values, but that’s where the new law draws the line.
It’s possible, for instance, for a person to strongly identify as “pro-life” and Catholic but still use birth control funded by private insurance, or to have a daughter who does. Nothing seems to prohibit a group from refusing to hire someone who says they are pro-choice.
“If Concerned Women of America and the other groups are asking individual job applicants whether they use birth control, have had an abortion in the past, or have used assistive reproductive technologies, then they will be clearly violating the law, and doing so in a really despicable manner,” Grosso said.
He added that those employers are “well within their rights to evaluate a job applicant’s ability to execute the functions of the advertised position and seek employees who agree with the organizational mission.”
For Emancipation Day 2015, Councilmember David Grosso sent a letter of greetings to the Pearl Coalition thanking them for their Emancipation Day activities and the efforts to honor the history of the "Pearl"--a schooner chartered by African Americans to help escaped slaves in 1848.
by Lou Chibbaro, April 14, 2015, Washington Blade
D.C. Council members David Grosso (I-At-Large) and Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would require continuing education programs for licensed healthcare professionals to include LGBT related “cultural competency” training.
The LGBTQ Cultural Competency Continuing Education Amendment Act of 2015 would amend an existing health care licensing law to require healthcare professionals, including doctors and mental health practitioners, to receive two credits of instruction on LGBT subjects.
The bill says the two credits of instruction would pertain to “cultural competency or specialized clinical training focusing on patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender non-conforming, queer or questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression (LGBTQ).”
All nine of Grosso and Alexander’s Council colleagues signed on as co-sponsors of the bill at the Council’s regularly scheduled legislative meeting on Tuesday.
“Over 66,000 LGBTQ citizens reside in D.C., and they deserve access to medical professionals who are sensitive to and knowledgeable about the unique health needs of the LGBTQ community,” Grosso said in a statement.
Alexander, who chairs the Council’s Health Committee, said she plans to hold a hearing on the legislation as soon as possible and move the measure to a vote by the full Council following a markup on the bill. She said the legislation is especially needed for the trans community, which she said historically has experienced discrimination in seeking medical and mental health related services.
“LGBT people face substantial systemic discrimination in healthcare due to a lack of understanding of the unique needs and challenges faced by the community,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which is coordinating a lobbying effort to help pass the bill.
The Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, Whitman-Walker Health, National Children’s Hospital, and the D.C. Center for the LGBT Community are working with HRC as part of a coalition pushing for the bill, according to a statement by HRC.
“Cultural competency is critical to reducing healthcare disparities for LGBT people and improving access to high quality healthcare, especially for transgender people,” Warbelow said.
by Will Sommer, April 14, 2015, Washington City Paper
Endorsements from two mayors and a heavy lobbying campaign weren't enough to convince the D.C. Council to let controversial correctional health provider Corizon take over at the D.C. Jail. After months of wrangling with the Tennessee-based company, a slim majority of the Council voted to disapprove the jail health contract backed by Muriel Bowser.
The dispute came down between six opponents of the contract, which looks bad because of Corizon's record for attracting lawsuits over its allegedly deficient inmate care, and proponents who either want the Council out of contract approval or because they actually think it's a good deal.
After a motion to change an approval resolution from backer Vincent Orange was amended by six councilmembers to become a disapproval (a majority on the temporarily eleven-member Council), the contract's fate was clear. Charles Allen, Mary Cheh, David Grosso, Phil Mendelson, Brianne Nadeau, and Elissa Silverman voted to disapprove, while Yvette Alexander, Anita Bonds, Jack Evans, Kenyan McDuffie, and Vincent Orange voted against efforts to shut down the contract. With the contract blocked, current jail health provider Unity will keep running jail health services for now.
The dais fight put opponents of the deal in an awkward spot, since many of them are the same good-government-minded councilmembers who generally oppose Council interference in contracting. Before introducing his resolution, Orange read off a list of councilmembers who want the Council to lose its contracting powers who are now opposed to the Corizon contract.
“Sometimes one strong, principled stance must outweigh another strong, principled stance," Grosso, the Council's most outspoken opponent of both the contract and the Council's contract approval power, said.
Orange argued that the deal had already been approved by the Office of Contracting and Procurement in two mayoral administrations, as well as the chairmen of relevant Council committees.
“We all know that the Bowser admin and the [Vince] Gray administration were like oil and water, but they both came to the conclusion that this was the appropriate avenue," Orange said.
In an emailed statement, Bowser spokesman Michael Czin pointed to Corizon's success in the Office of Contracting and Procurement's bidding process. "The Council’s action will extend overpayment for care, which does not fully meet the health needs of a vulnerable population, until a new contract can be awarded," Czin said.
(The argument that OCP approval should be enough for the contract is strange for Bowser, since, just yesterday, she told the Council that she was so unhappy with Gray's contracting boss that she paid $40,000 to push him out of her new administration).
In a statement, Corizon CEO Dr. Woodrow A. Myers, Jr. said he was "disappointed, not solely for our company, but also for the District."
Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large), concerned about the city’s response to the widespread power outage that occurred in D.C. and the metropolitan area on April 7, sent this letter to City Administrator Rashad Young regarding the District’s emergency response plan moving forward.
On April 3, 2015, Councilmember Grosso joined Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie and Attorney General Karl Racine to announce a new D.C. Superior Court policy what would end the indiscriminate shackling of youth being tried in Family Court. Grosso has worked on this issue since he learned about it in the course of passing his "Limitations on the Use of Restraints Amendment Act of 2014" which ended the shackling of pregnant inmates and detainees in D.C. adult correctional and juvenile detention facilities.
You can watch the announcement thanks to OCT/DCC:
Today, Councilmember Grosso joined Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Kenyan McDuffie and Attorney General Karl Racine to announce today a policy change at the D.C. Superior Court pertaining to youth shackling. The routine and indiscriminate shackling of youth appearing in the Family Court division is coming to an end with the issuance by Chief Judge Lee Satterfield of an administrative order. The Chief Judge's order instructs judges and court personnel to remove the shackles from juveniles after they arrive in a court room for a hearing, unless there is a clear need for the youth to remain in restraints due to danger of harm to the youth or others, or danger of flight. This order is the result of close collaboration between the Chief Judge, Councilmembers, Attorney General, Public Defender Service, and the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services.
Grosso became involved in this issue after successfully passing his "Limitations on the Use of Restraints Amendment Act of 2014", which prohibited the use of shackles on pregnant women and girls in D.C. jail or detention centers. He visited the courts, met with the U.S. Marshals and the Chief Judge, and saw the practice of shackling youth with his own eyes. Grosso and his staff will keep a close eye on implementation of the new administrative order to ensure that youth are not being needlessly shackled. Councilmember Grosso is prepared to introduce legislation if necessary to safeguard the human rights and due process of youth in the courts if the new policy does not live up to its expectations. You can view the order below.
Councilmember Grosso often sends letters to agencies with additional questions after their performance oversight hearings. On March 4, 2015, Grosso sent a letter with questions about residential and commercial property tax assessments to the Chief Financial Officer, and received a response on March 26, 2015. We thank the CFO for the quick response, and both letters are below--first the Councilmember's followed by the CFO's response.
As Indiana considers ways to fix its religious discrimination bill, the Human Rights Act of the District of Columbia provides excellent language that Indiana could use to ensure that LGBTQ individuals are not the targets of religious discrimination. It is important to note that Part E, relating to educational institutions, had a religious exemption passed by Congress. The Council recently removed that religious exemption, which is currently under Congressional review.
§2-1402.01 Subchapter II, Prohibited Acts of Discrimination. Part A. General:
(a) Every individual shall have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the economic, cultural and intellectual life of the District and to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life, including, but not limited to, in employment, in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, in educational institutions, in public service and in housing and commercial space accommodations.
§2-1402.11 Part B. Employment:
(a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearances, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, or political affiliation by any individual:…
§2-1402.21 Part C. Housing and Commercial Space:
(a) It shall be unlawful discriminator practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, disability matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, or place of residence or business of any individual:…
§2-1402.31 Part D. Public Accommodations:
(a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business of any individual:…
§2-1402.41 Part E. Education Institutions:
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice…for an educational institution:
(1) To deny, restrict, or to abridge or condition the use of, or access to, any of its facilities, services, programs, or benefits of any program or activity to any person otherwise qualified, wholly or partially, for a discriminatory reason, based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, or disability of any individual;…
Today, D.C. Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) sent a letter to the Mayor asking her to support the effort of the Funk Parade to march down U Street NW on May 2, 2015.
For the past two years, I have introduced and supported legislation to advance and promote the human rights of every District of Columbia resident. I understand that improvements to our various sectors cannot be achieved in a vacuum. Real change demands government accountability, transparency and openness.
To this end, I have been a fierce advocate for ethics reform, particularly as it relates to the Council’s role in voting on contracts over $1 million. I believe that this authority can be viewed as a vehicle for corruption, enabling lawmakers to exert undue influence over the contract procurement process, and I have voted “present” on all contracts to promote and encourage a commitment to good government. I have also engaged in oversight monitoring the performance of government contractors and the integrity of procurement processes through other avenues. However, there are times when circumstances arise that are too egregious to ignore, warranting immediate action.
After significant research, including a visit to the D.C. jail, meetings with advocates and a meeting with the CEO of Corizon, I determined that awarding the D.C. Jail contract for healthcare services to Corizon, would violate the human rights of D.C. residents who are incarcerated. The World Health Organization’s Constitution enshrines the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being. This right includes access to timely and quality healthcare. Unfortunately, Corizon has repeatedly failed to meet this standard.
The company, a Tennessee-based for profit, has a well-documented history of failing to provide necessary medical care, allowing extreme delays in medical services to persist, and operating substandard facilities. Over the past five years there have been over 1,000 lawsuits filed against Corizon for neglect and abuse. Additionally, Maine, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Minnesota have all ended their contracts with Corizon for poorly delivered healthcare services. Just recently, the New York City Council publicly challenged Corizon and questioned whether it was time to end the healthcare services contract, which Corizon holds at Rikers Island.
The examples of Corizon’s deplorable services are innumerable and while it may be argued that prison healthcare is in general need of reform, the District of Columbia cannot disregard the ample evidence of gross systemic deficiencies. Awarding this contract would be an absolute failure of government to protect the health and well-being of District of Columbia inmates. Even if the Council did not vote on contracts, I would work diligently to stop this one from going forward. The gravity of the circumstances have required me to take a strong stand.
By Darby Hickey, Legislative Assistant*
After decades of the ‘war on drugs’ and an obsession with ‘broken windows’ or ‘quality of life’ policing, our country seems to finally be reaching consensus against our over-reliance on incarceration. The devastating effects of mass imprisonment and biased policing are evident around the U.S. and certainly in the District of Columbia. Recent efforts to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, reform the practice of asset forfeiture, and overhaul our approach to juvenile justice have all resulted from this shift in perspective. Our city has begun to look at criminal justice through a lens of human rights, and the country is doing so as well. We are reworking our policies to recognize and address the underlying factors of why people engage in certain activities. We are grappling with the reality that some criminal penalties are worse for our communities than the behaviors that the penalties target. In light of all of this, it is worth reconsidering our policies and practices regarding sex workers and others involved in commercial sex.
On February 15, the Washington Post reported on a new round of arrests of people involved in commercial sex, resulting from online stings conducted by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The MPD official quoted in the article stated, “We could probably do this every weekend and get the same numbers.” This echoed statements made by Assistant Chief Newsham in 2012 that MPD “can’t arrest our way out of” prostitution. In a recent exchange of letters between Councilmember Grosso and MPD Chief Cathy Lanier, the Chief wrote that while “there are very complex individual and socio-economic factors related to sex work, [MPD’s] options related to this are limited [i.e. arrests].”
Missing from the Washington Post article, like most discussions about sex work, is any consideration of the economics of commercial sex. It was also disappointing that the Post failed to interview any sex workers or advocates for this community, who likely would have noted that it is an income-generating activity. People engage in sex trade not out of some deviant mind-set, but as a means of survival--a way to pay rent, put food on the table, buy clothes for kids, and meet other needs. Arresting a sex worker doesn’t address any of these problems and, in fact, it usually exacerbates them.
Many people in D.C. and around the world have argued that a better approach to the complexities of commercial sex would be to focus directly on the individuals involved, and treat them as fully deserving of basic human rights. A human rights response to commercial sex would reframe the discussion—issues of violence against sex workers, police misconduct, public health, and stigma become the focus and sex workers and their activities stop being ‘the problem’.
A key part of a human rights approach is listening to the individuals involved in commercial sex. As Councilmember Grosso emphasized during the public hearing last year on the Sex Trafficking of Minors Prevention Amendment Act, “We must listen and respond to these diverse experiences with compassion and respect, not with arrest or judgment. Youth trading sex for money are already asking for access to low threshold, voluntary services for housing, healthcare, education, legal assistance and more.” The same goes for adult sex workers.
Yet some police officials state that arresting individuals trading sex for money is the best way to link them to such services. For example, in the MPD response to oversight questions from the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chief writes, "arrest is often the tool by which MPD can take the juveniles into custody... so that the juvenile can be connected with a service organization."
This misses the reality that an arrest itself can be traumatizing. In fact, police crack downs, whether on the streets or online, usually make it harder for outreach groups to contact people engaged in commercial sex who may need help. And it ignores the deep-seated mistrust of police and other authorities that exists in these communities. For example, research in Chicago revealed that young people involved in sex trade named police and healthcare officials as the main sources of violence and abuse in their lives.
We should not be arresting a sex worker or a minor engaging in sex trade in order to force them into services or to cooperate in a criminal investigation—a phenomenon noted in a City Paper article just last month. This goes against all we have learned about victim-centered approaches to violence and abuse. That is why Councilmember Grosso argued that the “Sex Trafficking of Minors Prevention Amendment Act” should prohibit police from arresting young people involved in sex trade.
A human rights-based practice would ensure that MPD is adopting proactive community policing. Police should be seeking to build relationships and trust, responding positively and with sensitivity to service calls, not seeking to get an arrest or conviction at all costs but addressing the needs of the survivor.
One place to start would be for MPD to not treat sex workers (or those assumed to be such) as “criminals” when they are victims of violence and are seeking redress. This problem was found to be pervasive in D.C. in a 2008 community-based research project. Respondents reported being told they “got what they deserved” for being sex workers when they were raped, stabbed, or otherwise attacked. This finding is supported by research in other jurisdictions across the country from New York to Los Angeles to New Orleans. A recent report by WAMU highlighted that this remains an issue today.
Another aspect of a human rights approach to people involved in sex trade has already been partially implemented in D.C.—the policy of MPD that condoms are not to be used as evidence of engaging in prostitution. The community-based research referenced earlier and a subsequent study by Human Rights Watch found that while officially MPD and prosecutors rarely included condoms as evidence, they were used as pretext for arrests or confiscated or destroyed. There was also a widespread perception among residents that possessing more than three condoms would result in a prostitution charge. In 2009, MPD clarified that this was not the case, issued a policy statement to officers, and distributed informational materials throughout the community.
Unfortunately, this important step by MPD had two exceptions—in cases involving human trafficking or minors. Yet individuals in situations of coercion, including young people under the age of 18, are especially in need of access to condoms. Ensuring access to condoms helps reduce the harms they are facing, and the philosophy of harm reduction is based in a human rights framework.
As Councilmember Grosso has consistently stated, MPD needs to think outside the box on this and other issues and change policies and practices accordingly. A great start would be for MPD to shift from a stance that “people experiencing police misconduct should come forward” to one where leadership proactively seeks to identify patterns of mistreatment and abuse. Another step would be engaging with the community, rather than dismissing concerns about how police are interacting with residents. It is also the responsibility of the Council, the Mayor, and residents of the city to do a better job of understanding the human rights issues involved in commercial sex. We have come to recognize and reduce the harms of criminalization in many policy areas from drugs to schools to immigration. The time is now to reconsider the framework in which we handle commercial sex.
*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.
Today Councilmember David Grosso sent the following letter to Mayor Muriel Bowser regarding the contracting process for healthcare services at D.C. jail facilities. The letter outlines his concerns with the contracting process and the bidder selected by the Office of Contracting and Procurements, Corizon.
Councilmember Grosso (I-At Large) released the following statement in advance of the "Justice for Ralphael Briscoe and Tamir Rice" Rally on Sunday, February 22, 2015:
As has been demonstrated through the evidence revealed during the Ralphael Briscoe case, “jump outs” are still happening and must stop immediately. The Metropolitan Police Department’s (MPD) denial about the continuing existence of jump-outs is disturbing. The fact is, if you live east of 16th Street NW, chances are you have witnessed a jump-out or the aftermath of such in a neighborhood. This practice is one that is taking place now, and we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to its use and its detrimental impact on our communities.
The jump-out tactic is the antithesis to the community policing model that MPD promotes. Not only does it immediately escalate the tension between an individual and the police, but it makes our residents fearful of doing everyday things like walking down the street or sitting on the stoop to talk with friends.
Between the field hearing the Committee on the Judiciary hosted last year, advocacy group reports and ongoing communication with residents, it is clear that there is a disconnect between how MPD views itself and the perception communities have of MPD's policing practices. As I consistently state, MPD should shift its approach from the use of violent tactics to community-based efforts and trust building. Ending the use of jump outs would be a great start towards creating a more non-violent approach to policing in D.C.. I will continue to work with my colleagues to find the best way to accomplish this change.
By Pamela Constable February 9, 2015, Washington Post
David Nolan and Helen Searls are a professional couple in the District, active in their children’s school and local civic associations. As taxpayers and longtime residents, they feel they have a duty to be involved in public life. But as legal immigrants who have not become U.S. citizens, they have no right to vote — even in local elections.
“It’s frustrating at election time to have no say in what’s happening,” said the British-born Searls, 54, who works at a media company. “Washington has people from all over the world. If they are engaged and participating in public issues, it benefits the city.”
Searls and Nolan are among 54,000 immigrants in the District — and about 12 million nationwide — who have been granted green cards that allow them to remain in the United States permanently. Most are sponsored by relatives or employers. They pay taxes and serve in the armed forces. Yet in all but a handful of localities, they have no voting rights.
Last month, for the third time in a decade, a bill was introduced in the D.C. Council to allow legal immigrants to vote locally. The measure has little chance of passage, but it is illustrative of a growing movement to expand local voting rights to noncitizens that has spawned similar proposals in several dozen communities across the country.
Most immigrant groups focus on promoting citizenship as the path to political influence, and the effort to enfranchise noncitizens remains controversial. It has succeeded in only a handful of places, including Chicago and Takoma Park, Md., but has been gaining traction recently in others, including New York City and Burlington, Vt., as the population of settled legal immigrants grows.
Student Maria Ferreira goes over her study book, which has questions about American history that she will need to know for a citizenship test. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
Proponents point out that noncitizen voting was the norm early in American history, when new regions needed people to populate them. It was abandoned only after spates of anti-foreign sentiment in the 1860s and 1920s. Proponents have not urged that immigrants be allowed to vote for president, which is against federal law; they want them to be permitted a political role in their communities.
But opponents assert that the right to vote at any level is a defining quality of citizenship. They say it should not be easily granted to the foreign-born, who might have divided loyalties and insufficient knowledge of American democracy. And they point out that any legal permanent resident can apply to become a U.S. citizen with full voting rights after a five-year wait.
“To be a voter is to signify that you have cleared hurdles and that you understand what it means to be an American, with responsibilities as well as rights,” said Carl Horowitz, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Falls Church, Va. Allowing noncitizens to vote, he said, “renders the idea of citizenship meaningless.”
Some opponents also think the campaign is part of a political scheme to create more Latino voters, who polls show tend to prefer Democrats — a concern that has spread with the protracted debate over illegal immigration. The largest numbers of green-card holders are from Mexico, followed by China, India and the Philippines.
D.C. Council member David Grosso (I-At Large), who introduced the immigrant voting bill last month, said his attempt in 2013 met with a “huge backlash,” and he acknowledged that the new proposal is unlikely to go far. A similar bill in 2004 also died.
“This is the right thing to do, but a lot of people still have a misguided understanding of what it’s about,” Grosso said. “I get e-mails and tweets from around the country saying I want to give the vote to people who snuck over the border.”
Despite such fears, advocates said the political impact of the noncitizen vote has often been marginal. In many cases, the impetus has come from liberal or civic groups, while the beneficiaries may be less enthusiastic or aware of the benefits.
Washingtonians David J. Nolan and his wife, Helen Searls, say they hope to become U.S. citizens so they can vote. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
The pioneering community was Takoma Park, which gave legal immigrants voting rights in a 1991 referendum. Sean Whittaker, 46, a Canadian-born engineer who lives there, said that being able to vote made him feel as if he truly belonged in the community. In the town’s most recent election, the district candidate he supported won by six votes. “Maybe I made a difference,” Whittaker said.
Since then, four other Maryland towns have approved similar policies, although noncitizens cannot vote in state elections. In 2012, Del. Patrick L. McDonough (R-Baltimore County) sponsored a bill to ban noncitizens from voting in any Maryland locality, warning hyperbolically that even Osama bin Laden would have been allowed to vote in Takoma Park.
But the repercussions from Maryland’s experiment have been far from dire. Takoma Park officials say no more than a handful of immigrants have voted in any local election, where turnout is also generally low among citizens, too.
“This has not fulfilled either the worst predictions of critics nor the great hopes of supporters,” said state Sen. Jamin Raskin (D-Montgomery), a law professor who helped pave the legal path for the initiative. Still, he said, “it has remained an important statement of welcome, a way to give people a taste for the democratic process.”
Elsewhere in the United States, efforts to enfranchise foreign-born residents have spread to scattered municipalities, including liberal college towns such as Madison, Wis., and Amherst, Mass., and cities with large immigrant populations.
But such proposals have also encountered an array of hurdles, including conflicts with state laws, public antipathy and lack of awareness among immigrant groups. In 2010, voters in Portland, Maine, narrowly rejected a proposal for noncitizen voting in local elections, and a ballot measure in San Francisco to allow noncitizen parents to vote for school board members lost by 55 to 45 percent.
In Amherst, activist Vladimir Morales, who has spent a decade promoting the cause, said the idea has wide local support but continues to meet resistance from state legislators, who would have to amend home-rule laws to allow it.
“There is fear. The subject is immigration, and the representatives don’t want to touch it. It just keeps dying in committee,” said Morales, a U.S. citizen from Puerto Rico and a retired Amherst school board member.
In New York, home to about 1.3 million legal permanent residents, noncitizens were allowed to vote in school board elections from 1969 to 2003, when the board system was abolished. In recent years, a coalition of academic, political and immigrant groups has been trying to revive noncitizen voting rights and expand them to all local offices. Advocates said they are close to securing enough city council support to pass legislation this spring, but they lamented that the area’s major immigrant groups have not gotten involved.
“It’s hard to sell,” said David Andersson, the coalition coordinator. “Most voters don’t understand what legal immigrants are, and a lot of immigrant groups are focused on issues like deportation and wages. Sadly, voting is just not a priority.”
In the Washington area, few people know about Grosso’s proposal and few groups have expressed support, except the Service Employees International Union. But many of its members are not legal residents, and the union is strongly identified with illegal-immigrant causes.
Still, a variety of legal immigrants in the District said they would welcome being able to vote for city council and Board of Education members. Some said they wanted to become citizens but had difficulty passing the required tests in English.
At the Central American Resource Center in Northwest Washington, a half-dozen middle-aged Latinos bent over citizenship test workbooks one night last week, struggling with questions that ranged from “What is your current occupation?” to “Why did the colonists come to America?” and “What rights are in the Declaration of Independence?”
Maria Carpio, 57, a retired office cleaner from El Salvador, has been a legal resident since 1987. She said she had failed the citizenship test because of her limited eyesight and poor English, but that she volunteered to pass out fliers for a Latino school board candidate in November.
“I have worked hard here all my life,” Carpio said. “I should have the right to express my opinion.”
Councilmember Grosso sent this letter to Director Zeilinger with questions about homeless services budget, homeless students and youth homelessness as a follow-up to the Committee of the Whole and Committee on Health and Human Services oversight hearing on January 30.
By Aaron C. Davis January 30, 2015, Washington Post
Dozens of attorneys, advocates and shelter operators on Friday cast the District’s $124 million homeless operation as a system in disarray, failing to help the city’s most vulnerable and wasting money — and the administration of new Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) largely agreed.