Grosso's opening statement at hearing on the Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015

Thank you, Chairman Mendelson.  I would like to thank you for scheduling and holding this hearing today and for your thoughtful approach to constructing a witness list that will allow us to hear diverse perspectives on the “Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015.”

At this point, we are all aware that as introduced, Bill 21-415, “The Universal Paid Leave Act” will establish a fund that will enable workers in the District of Columbia to receive up to 16 weeks of paid leave for a major life event such as birth or adoption of a child, caring for a sick family member, or for self-care.  The fund will be supported by payments from employers, the self-employed, and certain individual employees.

Since I became a Councilmember, I have been exploring ways to support our working families.  In 2014, I introduced legislation that was later incorporated in the Budget Support Act that allowed for D.C. government employees to be eligible for 8 weeks paid leave.  At that time, I made the promise to continue the work started on paid leave and to study how we could expand this policy to all workers in the District of Columbia. 

As Chairperson of the Committee on Education, I believe that investing in our families will benefit the lives of all of our residents and our city’s children.  This bill will help workers take the time they need to support their families or themselves without having to make the hard choice between a pay check and their loved one’s immediate needs.  Study after study has shown that forms of paid leave are good for children, parents, and the elderly.

The long-term effects of this bill are good for our businesses.  It will increase a person’s likelihood to return to work after a qualifying event, therefore decreasing the costs associated with employee turnover.  It will make the District of Columbia a city where people want to work and live, and it will give all of our businesses a competitive edge for offering progressive benefits packages at a lower cost than they can now.

Prior to introduction and since, I have met or spoken directly with the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Hospital Association, the Restaurant Association, the Hotel Association, Georgetown University, Trinity College, small business owners, union leaders, and individuals to review all of the variables of the legislation.  In these meetings, the conversations have been thoughtful, and open from all parties to find ways that we can explore to make this legislation possible for as many employees as we can and with low cost burdens to our employers.  

During the drafting process, my staff and I worked to model the implications of such a robust program to provide for our families and residents.  We looked at tax numbers, employee numbers, and the preliminary findings of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research which has been studying our current paid leave policies in the D.C. Government.   I understand the desire of constituents and business leaders to have more sophisticated models and deeper sets of numbers, but the fact is that pulling, analyzing, and compiling this data is technical and complicated and it is not until legislation is introduced that we can set the wheels in motion for sound research.

As written, the bill has over ten variables that if adjusted would lower the cost of the bill or the burdens on employers or residents.  In our conversations about the proposed legislation, I have heard many of the concerns and believe there are shifts that can be made and we are analyzing all of them closely.   

As the bill moves through the hearing process at the Council, I am working closely with our Chief Financial Officer, the Council budget office, Chairman Mendelson, businesses, and advocates to fill out the details of what options we have for providing the best amount of paid family and medical leave for the maximum number of D.C residents, while ensuring that we are covering low income workers who are least likely to have access to any form of paid leave.

Today, we start the public conversation about the proposed bill and the variables that are problematic for some or are supported by others.  The hearing process is one that is essential for having an open and transparent conversation, so that we can speak frankly and have our positions placed on the record.  This is the beginning of an engaging process with all parties; it may take time and at times we may not agree, but I do believe that in the end, we will have a working program that our city can be proud of and D.C. can continue being a national policy leader. 

It is important to note that I am not naïve and have not taken up this proposal lightly.  It was not quickly drafted or without serious thought.  I knew two years ago that this process would not be easy.  With serious thought come reservations about the consequences – both intended and unintended – for everyone this bill will affect.  Frankly, the consequences that matter the most to me are the ones primarily affecting our residents: the infants who are born prematurely, the mothers forced back to work two weeks postpartum, and the sick or injured elderly parents with little to no access to quality care. 

I do not take the effects this bill will have on businesses lightly and that is why we are here today, asking you how we can be industry leaders and make systematic changes to the way we treat the people who work in the District of Columbia.

Yes, I have heard some of you say “we are moving fast and we are getting ahead of the rest of the nation on paid leave” and to that I ask: are we really moving that quickly or are we actually way behind?  Why should we not lead on policies that support businesses, expand industries and also allow working families to care for themselves and their loved ones?   

With that, I want to thank everyone who is here today or is submitting testimony for the record.  I appreciate the time that you have all taken, regardless of your position on the bill, to study it and provide us with your feedback.

I look forward to the testimony and engaging in a robust dialogue with the witnesses.    

Businesses Criticize D.C. Paid-Leave Bill, But Struggle To Offer Alternatives

By Martin Austermuhle, December 2, 2015, WAMU

Business groups representing just about every industry in the District — from hotels and restaurants to retailers and builders — strongly criticized a proposed paid-leave bill during a D.C. Council hearing on Wednesday, but struggled to offer alternatives or possible changes to the measure when pressed by legislators.

The groups said the bill — which would offer virtually all D.C. workers up to 16 weeks of paid family leave, with the costs covered by a per-employer tax on employers — would dramatically increase operating costs for local businesses, many of which would stop hiring or leave the city altogether.

"This bill would kill D.C. jobs," said Harry Wingo of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce. "This would revive D.C.’s reputation as a high-tax, business-unfriendly place," offered Charles Miller of the Federal City Council. “At the end of the day, you can’t take leave from a job you don’t have or doesn’t exist," warned Cailey Locklair Tolle of the Maryland Retailers Association.

Others worried about the potential for abuse, criticized the lack of specifics on how much the measure could cost different businesses and organizations, and said that D.C. would be jumping far ahead of the three states that currently offer paid leave — both in how much time is given and who would pay for it.

But the consistent drumbeat of criticisms drew pointed questions from Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who pressed the groups to offer alternatives to the bill — or outline specific changes they would want seen to make the bill more agreeable.

In one particularly animated exchange, he asked Wingo a series of questions about whether the business community could support the overall concept of paid leave for workers. "Do you agree that benefits are beneficial to employees? Is it best for employers if they pay no benefits to their employees?"

Changes likely

Mendelson's questioning seemed to reflect the political reality surrounding the bill, which was introduced in October. With a majority of the Council already supporting the measure — and polling showing it has drawn wide support from residents — he said earlier this week that whether the bill passes isn't the question, but rather what would be included in a final version.

As currently written, the bill would require all private employers to contribute to a fund from which leave benefits would be paid. Workers making up to $52,000 a year would have their full salary covered, while those making more would see a declining percentage of everything above the $52,000 covered. The top pay-out would be $3,000 per week.

"This bill is for people who have to make heartbreaking choices," said Council member Elissa Silverman (I-At Large). She said it would help people take time to care for newborns or ailing relatives, some of whom currently have no paid leave at all.

But in moving towards that goal, Council member David Grosso (I-At Large) — who with Silverman introduced the bill — said the sweeping measure wasn't set in stone. "As written, the bill has 10 variables that would lower the costs on businesses," he said, offering critics a chance to offer changes.

And some business leaders did. Jim Dinegar of the Greater Washington Board of Trade said he would want the issue addressed at the federal level, to avoid creating a regional imbalance where one jurisdiction would offer paid leave while others didn't.

Kathy Hollinger of the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington said leave should be limited to workers who have been on the job for at least one year, and asked that provisions requiring employers to notify their workers of paid-leave rights be simplified.

And Steve Hoffman, who owns a local insurance company that has operated in the city since 1906, asked that the leave be cut to eight weeks — and that it be paid for in part by the employee taking the leave. Without some changes, he worried the increased costs would force him to move — or close.

"We've always felt the need to stay and pay back a city that has given us so much," he said. "But if the [bill] passes in its present form, we will have to consider leaving the District because we compete against not only D.C. agents, but also agents across the country."

Containing costs

It was concerns like those that prompted Mendelson to ask proponents of the bill — who largely spoke in personal terms about the bill — to address the costs of implementing paid leave.

"There is a cost to this," he said to a panel of advocates for the bill. "There's no question [paid leave] would help children, families and low-income folks. It could change a whole lot of social problems we have. That's not the issue. I need you to speak to the cost."

"We have to wait until we get the actual calculations of what it would cost to provide this benefit," said Ed Lazere of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, speaking to a reality that hung over the hearing throughout the day — no final calculations on the bill's costs have been produced, nor has a study funded by the U.S. Labor Department on a number of paid-leave proposals for D.C. been finalized.

But even without those specifics in place, Lazere pushed back on the argument that it would drive businesses to close or into the surrounding states.

"After raising the minimum wage, they don't tend to lose employees, they don't tend to move. Businesses are flexible, they can respond to the added costs through a variety of means," he said.

Proponents also said that the bill could actually serve to help small businesses that can't currently afford to offer any leave, and pointed out that more and more large businesses are instituting paid-leave policies as a means to attract and retain top talent.

At one point, Silverman noted that Wingo of the Chamber of Commerce once worked for Google, which recently implemented an 18-week paid-leave policy. She also pointed out that Miller of the Federal City Council doubles as a senior attorney at Covington and Burling, a powerhouse legal firm that also offers 18 weeks of paid leave.

That raised another concern on the bill — what happens with businesses and organizations that already offer paid leave? John Cavanaugh, speaking on behalf of the Consortium of Universities, noted that the city's 10 universities were extremely concerned with how the measure would affect the leave they already offer.

"The consortium strongly supports the concept of paid leave, and has several types of paid leave in effect as evidence," he said. "The consortium opposes the unfunded mandate that will cost institutions in the District $15 million per year to implement a one-size-fits-all program that may not address the needs of our employees."

The diverse groups that could be affected by the paid-leave bill will have a chance to continue weighing in over the next few months, as Mendelson has said he will call at least two more hearings before any further action is taken on the proposal.

And despite uncertainty over what form the bill could ultimately take, Council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) — who supports the measure — said that even having the debate is a positive step forward.

"I doubt the legislation will emerge in same form, but it starts the conversation," she said. "It’s a conversation that’s long overdue."

Response from DHS Director Zeilinger to Grosso's letter on New York Ave shelter

D.C. Department of Human Services Director sent this response to Councilmember Grosso's letter outlining his long-standing concerns with the operations and conditions of the homeless shelter on New York Ave NE in Ivy City. 

Director Zeilinger response to Grosso on New York Avenue shelter

200 turn out for D.C. Trans Day of Remembrance

By Lou Chibarro, November 23, 2015, Washington Blade

More than 200 people packed the Metropolitan Community Church of Washington on Nov. 20 to commemorate the lives of transgender people who died at the hands of hate violence in the U.S. and abroad over the past year.

The event, the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance, included a ceremonial reading of the names of 22 transgender women who were murdered in the U.S. in 2015 as well as several dozen trans people also murdered this year in other countries.

“The Transgender Day of Remembrance occurs annually on Nov. 20 to honor those who have been murdered because of transphobia and those who have survived gender-based violence,” a statement released by organizers of the event says.

“The overarching goal is to bring attention to the continued violence endured by the transgender community with continued hope that together we can end such violence and intolerance,” the statement says.

Transgender activist Alexa Rodriquez read the names of trans people murdered in Latin American countries while three fellow Latina trans women held a 30-foot-long banner with photos of about a dozen of the victims along with Spanish language newspaper articles reporting on the killings.

Rodriquez said many of the killings took place in Brazil and El Salvador.

Among those speaking at the event were D.C. Council member David Grosso (I-At-Large); Marvin Bowser, brother of Mayor Muriel Bowser; and Sgt. Jessica Hawkins, supervisor of the D.C. police department’s Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit, who last year became the first transgender officer to be appointed to the position.

Veteran transgender activist Earline Budd, the lead organizer of the Trans Day of Remembrance event, said she was disappointed that Mayor Bowser and D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier did not attend the event. Bowser’s predecessor, Mayor Vincent Gray, and Lanier each attended and spoke at the event last year.

Marvin Bowser said Mayor Bowser, who had the event listed on her schedule one day earlier, had to cancel her appearance after feeling “exhausted” from the strain of her trip to China the previous week to promote business investment and tourism for the city.

D.C. Police spokesperson Lt. Sean Conboy said Lanier wasn’t able to attend due to a scheduling conflict. But Budd said Lanier initially told her she planned to attend.

“She had given her personal commitment to being here,” Budd told the Blade. “And we never got a notice that she was not going to be here.”

The Trans Day of Remembrance came two days after D.C. police arrested a transgender activist during a protest demonstration in the city’s Columbia Heights section in which protesters blocked traffic during evening rush hour.

The arrest of trans activist Jes Grobman on a charge of allegedly assaulting a police officer and disobeying a lawful order to stop blocking traffic was denounced by more than two dozen fellow protesters, who had assembled on the sidewalk next to the Columbia Heights Metro station at 14th and Irving Streets, N.W., to draw attention to abuse of trans people by law enforcement agencies throughout the country.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office dropped the charge of assaulting a police officer but left in place the charge of disobeying a police order. The National LGBTQ Task Force issued a statement “condemning” Grobman’s arrest, saying police could have exercised restraint in responding to the protest.

Budd said she did not think Lanier decided against attending the Trans Day of Remembrance event out of fear of being booed by the trans activists attending the event, some of whom also participated in the protest on Nov. 18.

“She would not have been booed,” said Budd. “She has the respect of the community,” Budd said, noting that Lanier was received warmly during her appearance at the event last year.

Grosso, a longtime supporter of the LGBT community, read a resolution unanimously approved by the City Council formally recognizing the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Marvin Bowser and Sheila Alexander Reid, director of the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs, presented an official proclamation from the mayor declaring Nov. 20 Transgender Day of Remembrance in the District of Columbia.

Marvin Bowser and Grosso noted that discrimination and violence targeting the D.C. trans community continues despite the fact that D.C. has in place the nation’s strongest legal protections for transgender people.

“It’s not so much because we haven’t tried, but because there needs to be a mindset change,” Grosso told the gathering. “You need to change the culture here entirely and begin to see people as human beings from day one and not this horrible stigma and these horrible prejudices that we send and let grow in our communities,” he said.

More than a dozen representatives of the local trans community, including several youths, spoke about their personal experiences of discrimination and violence.

“I’m a transgender woman,” said Kimora Green. “No matter if you’re Hispanic, black, Caucasian, no matter if you’re passable or not, we all go through the trials and tribulations of being told, ‘Oh faggot stay away from me,’ or being told ‘You’re a man,’ or being told, ‘You just need to die – kill yourself,’” she said. “I’ve been told that many a time.”

[Transgender Day of Remembrance, gay news, Washington Blade]

Kimora Green (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Green and others who told of similar experiences said they have emerged as survivors who have become stronger and more determined to fight for their rights and push for change in society’s perception of trans people.

Others who spoke and participated in the event were Ruby Corado, founder and director of Casa Ruby, the local LGBT community services center; Lourdes Ashley Hunter, the national transgender rights advocate and chief operating officer at Casa Ruby; and veteran D.C. trans activists Dee Curry, Jessica Xavier and Jeri Hughes.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign; and Lt. Cheryl Crawley, commander of the police Special Liaison Division, which oversees the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit, also attended the event but did not speak.

Hawkins told the gathering she is happy to be in a position on the police force where she can work with the LGBT community in which she is a part. After listening to her fellow trans brothers and sisters recount the difficulties they sometimes face, Hawkins said she, too, has encountered such hassles.

“Even though I’m a police officer, I still get the looks,” she said. “I still get the ridicule. I still get people saying stupid things to me.”

[Transgender Day of Remembrance, gay news, Washington Blade]

Sgt. Jessica Hawkins (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

But she said the department and the chief are committed to protecting the rights of the city’s diverse population, including the trans community.

“I know there’s a lot of distrust with the police,” she said. “If you hear of a bad outcome or a bad interaction between someone that’s my brother and sister and an officer, let me know. I promise we will take care of it.”

Rev. Dwayne Johnson, pastor of Metropolitan Community Church of Washington, which ministers to the LGBT community, delivered an opening prayer at the event. Rev. Abena McCray-Peters of D.C. Unity Fellowship Church, which also has a largely LGBT congregation, officiated over the reading of the names.

Curry, who received a standing ovation for the remarks she delivered at the event, told the Blade it would have a lasting impact on the community.

“I think this was one of the best Transgender Days of Remembrance since the inception of the whole program,” she said. “I think that the diversity and the unity – I can feel the spirit here and I was so overwhelmed by it.”

Grosso letter on conditions at men's shelter on New York Ave NE

Councilmember Grosso sent the following letter to City Administrator Young and DHS Director Zeilinger after the latest incident outside of the men's shelter located at 1355 New York Ave NE, which resulted in a death. Grosso had previously raised concerns about this shelter with both officials. The Mayor's office responded that a response is in the works. The shelter is run by Catholic Charities under a contract with DHS, and is located on D.C.-owned land.

Grosso letter on New York Ave NE shelter

Mayor expects to back ‘cultural competency’ bill

By Lou Chibarro, November 3, 2015, Washington Blade

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser on Monday said she expects to support the current version of a bill pending before the City Council that would require continuing education programs for licensed healthcare professionals that include LGBT-related “cultural competency” training.

Bowser’s comment follows testimony on Oct. 29 by her director of the city’s Department of Health, Dr. LaQuandra Nesbitt, calling for major changes to the bill – the LGBTQ Cultural Competency Continuing Education Amendment Act of 2015. LGBT advocates oppose her suggested changes.

Nesbitt told the Council’s Committee on Health and Human Services during a public hearing on the bill that she and Bowser support the general intent of the measure but believe it should be expanded to include cultural competency training “for all populations and sub-groups to whom healthcare professionals provide services.”

LGBT healthcare advocates joined more than a dozen representatives of healthcare organizations, including doctors and clinical social workers, in testifying at the hearing in favor of the version of the bill introduced in April by Council members David Grosso (I-At-Large) and Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7). Alexander chairs the Health and Human Services Committee.

“I expect that we’ll support the Council bill,” Bowser told the Washington Blade following a news conference on Monday. “We will probably go with how they wrote it and if there are ways to enhance it down the line that’s what we would do,” she said.

The mayor’s comment will likely generate a collective sigh of relief from LGBT activists who expressed concern that Nesbitt had been pushing for a broader bill that could decrease its effectiveness in addressing the need for cultural training on medical issues impacting LGBT people.

Grosso told the Washington Blade he has no objection to cultural competency training pertaining to other population groups. But he said adding other groups to the bill would dilute its ability to address what he and others have said is lack of understanding and cultural sensitivity by many doctors and other health care providers toward LGBT patients.

The current version of the bill would amend an existing health care licensing law to require health care professionals, including doctors and mental health practitioners, to receive two credits of instruction on LGBT subjects as part of their continuing education programs.

“Despite the District’s strong policies against discrimination, our community, which is more than 10 percent of the District’s population, remains at risk,” said Rick Rosendall, president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, in his testimony before the committee.

“[R]egarding the scope of this bill: Why is it limited to LGBTQ?” Rosendall asked. “For one thing, only so much can be covered meaningfully in two credits worth of training time. More crucially, our community faces the particular challenge of invisibility,” he continued. “If we are subsumed under a generic, all-encompassing category, we are effectively excluded.”

Alison Gill, senior legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, told the committee that a 2009 nationwide survey found that more than half of LGBT respondents reported being refused needed care or being treated in a “discriminatory, disrespectful manner” by health care providers.

“Culturally competent care is especially important for LGBT people, as they continue to face substantial disparities in health, resulting from the stress of pervasive stigma; substance abuse and other health-endangering coping strategies; a reluctance to seek medical care due to fear of and actual healthcare discrimination; and the disproportionate impact of sexually transmitted disease,” Gill told the committee.

With the exception of Nesbitt, all of the nearly 20 witnesses testifying at the Council hearing expressed strong support for the bill as introduced by Alexander and Grosso. However, the executive vice president of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, K. Edward Shanbacker, submitted a letter to the committee opposing the bill.

“The Medical Society believes strongly that the medical profession alone has the responsibility for setting standards and determining curricula in continuing medical education,” Shanbacker said in his letter. “In the District, the mechanism for that is the Board of Medicine, which has in the past opposed content-specific requirements surrounding continuing medical education,” he said.

Grosso said he has an answer to those, including the Medical Society, who say only doctors’ organizations and medical licensing boards should develop continuing education training on cultural competency matters.

“My answer to them is well you haven’t put this one in place and it would be important for us to put it on the books now,” he said, referring to LGBT cultural competence training.

He pointed to testimony by witnesses at last week’s Council hearing who told of LGBT patients who have been treated in a disrespectful manor and sometimes refused treatment by doctors unfamiliar with the special health needs of LGBT people, especially transgender people.

Dr. Raymond Martins, senior director of clinical education and training at D.C.’s Whitman-Walker Health, told the committee many of the mostly LGBT patients he has seen at Whitman-Walker have reported unpleasant experiences with other physicians and healthcare providers.

“Sadly, in this metropolitan area as well as throughout the country, physicians and other health providers do not receive adequate LGBT clinical and cultural competency training during medical school and their post graduate years,” he said. “This unfortunately leads to discrimination and poor health outcome for LGBT people,” Martins testified.

Grosso said he is hopeful that the bill will be finalized and brought up for a vote by the full Council before the end of the year. Eight other members of the 13-member Council signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.

Frequently Asked Questions: Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015

1. Why does D.C. need the Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015?

The Universal Paid Leave Act would allow workers to care for themselves and their loved ones when major life events arise. Paid family medical leave helps families and  workers to be healthier and happier. For businesses, the legislation allows them to retain talented and dedicated employees, while avoiding the high costs and lengthy processes associated with staff turnover and on-boarding. A robust paid family and medical leave program will give D.C. employers a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining highly qualified workers.

2. What would this legislation mean for employees?

The bill would cover up to 16 weeks of paid leave annually for a qualifying event (family bonding or personal/family medical issues).  100% of an employee’s wages will be replaced for the first $1,000 of her or his average weekly salary and then 50% thereafter up to $3,000 a week.

Example:  Your annual salary is $50,000.  You are a new father and want to take time off to be with your adopted child.  You elect to take off 8 weeks and qualify to take leave after applying and having your eligibility verified. Your average weekly salary is $961, so you will receive that full amount for the entire 8 weeks.

3.  Who is covered by the proposed legislation?

All District of Columbia employees are eligible for paid family medical leave if they are residents of the city or spend more than 50% of their time working for an employer in the city. Employees are eligible to receive payments from the family medical leave fund at the start of employment. However, employees are only eligible for job protection after six months or 500 hours of work in a 12-month period. 

4. What are the responsibilities of an employer?

An employer pays a percentage (estimated 1% or less) from payroll for each employee into the government managed family medical leave fund. The fund administrators will be required to verify and process claims and will then pay the employees directly. The fund administrators would also handle any related investigations or appeals.

5. How will the proposed legislation be funded?

The Universal Paid Leave Act creates a city-managed fund financed by an employer-based cost-sharing model. Similar to Unemployment Insurance, all D.C. employers (except the federal and local government) will pay up to 1% of payroll into the fund. This fund would be administered by the D.C. government—keeping the burden off of employers—and the fund size will have  a maximum limit.

6. What is the difference between paid sick days and paid family medical leave?

Paid family medical leave is different than paid sick days. It would be used only for birth or adoption of a child, or for a major medical event. The estimated average cost per employee paid by the employer will be $385 annually and that amount will cover the employee for up to 16 weeks of paid leave—far less than paying directly out of pocket which will give businesses the opportunity to offer competitive benefits packages.

7. Is the employer required to hold the employee’s job during leave?

Yes, the D.C. Family Medical Leave Act standards provide 16 weeks of job protection that is unpaid. The Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015 proposes to extend job protection to employees who have worked for 6 months or 500 hours in a 12 month period. 

8. What if all the staff at a small business take leave at the same time?

We do not underestimate the effects that long-term leave has on businesses, but this is unlikely to be a problem—nationally only 13% of workers take family medical leave annually. The bill aims to enable workers to take the time they need to care for themselves or family members when the situation arises and then return to work at full capacity. The ability to retain talented and dedicated employees, and avoid the high costs and lengthy processes associated with staff turnover, makes paid family medical leave good business, no matter a business’ size.

8. What if I reverse commute or my employer is not mandated to pay into this fund?

If your employer is not required to pay into the fund, then you, as a resident, will pay into the system on your own behalf thereby enabling you to receive benefits when you become a parent or personal or family medical situations arise.  If you are a self-employed individual then you are automatically enrolled in the system to pay into the fund and receive the benefit.

9. What other jurisdictions have paid leave?

New Jersey (2008), California (2002), and Rhode Island (2013) have income tax-based family leave and temporary disability insurance policies that cannot be implemented in D.C. because of federal Home Rule restrictions on taxing income. We have, however, learned from the strengths and challenges with these programs and have incorporated their best practices into the D.C. legislation.  Globally, the United States lags behind other countries that all offer some form of paid leave for their citizens.  

Supporting Sustainable Communities through Health Impact Assessments

By Katrina Forrest

Poor health is not only physically and emotionally taxing for individuals, but there are important economic implications—these include increased costs to the healthcare system associated with the diagnosis and treatment of chronic conditions and lost time and productivity in the workforce.  While access to quality healthcare is without question a necessity, prevention is key.

Research indicates that there are a myriad of factors outside of the traditional health scope that shape health-related behaviors.  If we are to promote health and prevent disease, we must carefully consider and analyze all of the factors that impact health outcomes.  Economic sectors such as housing, transportation and agriculture can have profound impacts on the health and well-being of individuals and communities and yet these impacts are often not sufficiently evaluated.

As the District of Columbia continues to grow, with new development projects emerging every day, it is imperative that we assess how these projects positively or negatively affect the health of our residents.  By utilizing health impact assessments, we are able to better understand and identify the potentially significant unknown, unrecognized or unexpected health effects of policies, plans and projects across diverse economic sectors.

Health impact assessments rely on quantitative, qualitative and participatory techniques, to determine health impacts, the distribution of those impacts within communities and identify mitigation strategies to address adverse effects.  For example, in Washington State, legislation was enacted in 2007 to require a health impact assessment to examine the impact of a bridge replacement project on air quality, carbon emissions and other public health issues.

Recognizing the value of this tool, Councilmember Grosso introduced the Health Impact Assessment Program Establishment Act of 2015 .  This legislation establishes a health impact assessment program within the Department of Health to ensure that we are properly evaluating the potential health effects of construction and development projects on our residents and the communities they call home.

Implementing this comprehensive approach here in D.C. would help to promote sustainable development, improve and reduce health inequities, encourage cross-sectoral collaboration, and inspire a greater appreciation for public health in the policymaking process.   Grosso is committed to improving the health and wellness of every D.C. resident and this legislation is a critical step to accomplish that goal.

*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.

Could DC’s ‘Nay’ on Pepco-Exelon Merger Kill It’s Future in Mid-Atlantic?

By Nicole Raz, WMAL, August 28, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Pepco-Exelon merger holds a murky future in the Mid-Atlantic after a DC regulator denied the power companies’ application Tuesday.

State regulators in Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia had already approved the $6.8 billion merger; now that the DC Public Service Commission unanimously denied it “the whole deal goes down,” says Montgomery County Councilman Roger Berliner.

Pepco and Exelon have 30 days to file an appeal. “We will review our options with respect to this decision and respond once that process is complete.,” they said in a statement.

DC Councilmember David Grosso said an appeal would mean lots of activity around the Wilson Building.

“There will be a bunch of lobbyists from Pepco and Exelon coming in trying to get us to support changing the decision,” Grosso said.

If the power companies don’t file an appeal, or if an appeal doesn’t work out, then DC pulled the plug on what would have been the Mid-Atlantic’s largest electric and gas utility.

“If they try to put a new deal on the table for everybody to look at, if they want to continue to pursue this option then that’s certainly an option–but [then] they play the tape all over again,” Berliner told WMAL.

If Pepco is still interested in finding a partner for a merger, then Grosso suggests finding a company that is committed to renewable energy.

“The only way I would support any kind of merger like this is if the merger clearly supports and demonstrates that they’re doing what’s in the best interest of the public. In this case Exelon didn’t come close to meeting their burden,” Grosso said.

The Pepco-Exelon merger had been in the works since April 2014.

D.C. Responds To Legislation Targeting Sanctuary Cities

D.C. Responds To Legislation Targeting Sanctuary Cities

by Matt Ramos, Huffington Post, July 21, 2015

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are making another attempt to meddle in the District of Columbia's affairs, this time in a way that immigration advocates and officials say could threaten public safety by ending the city's sanctuary policies for its estimated 25,000 undocumented immigrants.

Washington, like a number of other U.S. cities, is facing ire from Republicans for refusing to cooperate fully with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to detain and deport undocumented immigrants. GOP lawmakers have introduced multiple pieces of legislation this month after Francisco Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant, was charged with the murder of 32-year-old San Francisco resident Kathryn Steinle, months after Sanchez had been released from jail.

There are more than 300 jurisdictions that could be affected if various anti-sanctuary city bills become law. But D.C. is in a unique situation, because Congress has the power to interfere with the decisions of local voters and elected officials.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) specifically targets D.C. in a new bill, requiring local authorities to work with immigration enforcement or face fines of up to $10,000 for every case they do not cooperate with. Gohmert, who represents a district nearly 1,300 miles away from D.C., said in a July 23 press release that he drafted the Safer D.C. Act because “Congress must use our explicit Constitutional power to ensure that at least the District of Columbia is not a sanctuary city.”

District of Columbia officials disagree. For over 20 years, the city's Metropolitan Police Department has had an informal policy of not asking the legal status of people with whom it comes into contact. That policy was made public in 2007 after then-Chief Charles H. Ramsey released an internal memo that stated, “MPD is not in the business of inquiring about the residency status of the people we serve and it is not in the business of enforcing civil immigration laws.”

In 2011, then-Mayor Vincent Gray took the MPD memo even further by signing an executive order that prohibited D.C. public safety officials from asking about the immigration status of anyone they arrested or questioned. The following year, the city council passed a law saying that D.C. authorities would only detain undocumented immigrants if the federal government paid for it.

Supporters of the policies argue that involving police in immigration enforcement could discourage undocumented immigrants from calling the authorities when they have an emergency. According to a survey by the National Latin@ Network and the National Domestic Violence Hotline, of the 330 or so women who called the hotline during a six-week period in 2013 and who identified as a) foreign-born and b) Hispanic or Latina, 45 percent said they were afraid to call or seek help from the police or courts.

Current Metro PD policy allows officials to comply with federal immigration authorities at their own discretion. Most instances of cooperation involve cases where there is a violent offender.

“Women know that for survivors of domestic violence to get help, police cannot be working with immigration," said Sameera Hafiz, an activist with the We Belong Together Campaign, at a press conference Thursday. "Women know that to protect women who are being raped by their bosses, the police cannot be deporters.”

Hafiz and others at the press conference criticized politicians for, in her words, using Steinle's death "for political gains."

In the wake of the Steinle murder earlier this month, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) introduced the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, which would force local law enforcement in communities like D.C. to change their immigration policies or else lose funding. The bill passed the House in a 241-179 vote on July 24, but President Barack Obama has already said he will veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.

For bills that target D.C. directly, there is not much officials can do without statehood, city Councilmember-At-Large David Grosso (I) told The Huffington Post after the press conference.

Now that bills like Hunter’s are starting to affect other municipalities, there could be a nationwide push to address what Grosso described as the encroaching legislation.

“Somebody that is having an interaction with the police -- whether it's because of an act that they did themselves, or because of somebody else that they’re associated with, as with domestic violence cases -- they have to have the trust that the police aren’t going to then turn around and have them deported out of the country," he said.

Immigration advocates oppose laws like Gohmert's and Hunter's for reasons beyond safety. Mario Godoy, 18, an organizer with the Student Multiethnic Action Research Team (SMART), said that blurring the lines between policing and immigration enforcement could hurt people like him.

“I’m just a person with a dream of a better life and an education," said Godoy, who came to D.C. four years ago from Guatemala. "If any of these laws pass, every person that is detained, their dreams and safety will be lost."

Grosso said he just wants the District to be able to assert local control.

“In the long run, we have to stop these knuckleheads on the Hill from doing what they're doing -- tell them to butt out of our business, and leave the local municipalities alone and let us deal with our communities like we have been,” he said.

Key Pre-Home Rule Documents Unseen for Decades Now to Be Published

Council of the District of Columbia, July 29, 2015

Phil Mendelson, Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, today announced an historic agreement with the National Archives to scan and publish all the legislation of the presidentially-appointed District Council that preceded the current, Home Rule iteration of the same body. The project, initiated by Councilmember David Grosso, will return these documents to broad public view for the first time ever. They will be available on both the National Archives’, and the Council’s, websites.

“I am thrilled that our agreement with the National Archives will make these historic documents widely available.  This will fill in six years of DC’s legislative history.  The appointed Council represented the first time in almost 100 years that’s DC residents had a real say in their local government.  The appointed Council set many precedents for the Home Rule period, and these records are their legacy to us.”

For much of the District’s history, it was governed by three-member presidentially-appointed board whose members were knows as Commissioners.  As the civil rights era dawned,  and consistent with its spirit, local calls for expanded Home Rule grew louder and louder. In an effort to partially respond to such demands, President Lyndon Baines Johnson championed a hybrid structure featuring an appointed mayor and council. From November of 1967 to January of 1975, this structure was in place. Walter Washington was the appointed mayor throughout, and John Hechinger and Gilbert Hahn were notable Council Chairs.

The appointed Council did not have the same extent of authority that its elected successor gained under Home Rule. However, with the limited powers it was granted, the appointed Council did pass several hundred measures that are of both legal and historical importance. Although the appointed Council’s days came to an end when the Home Rule era dawned, the legislation enacted by this body (unless superseded by subsequent measures) remains in effect as DC law.

Among the measures enacted by the appointed Council:

• Transportation: Three Sisters Bridge and North Central Freeway decisions. Metrobus and Metrorail funding. DC’s Metro Stations names and designs. Bicycle regulations and accessible sidewalks.
• Human Services: Closed Junior Village, the District’s shameful orphanage. Ended demeaning welfare rules
• Police Department: Landmark use of deadly force rules. Integration of force and patrol practices
• Consumer Protection: Banned deceptive practices
• Environmental Polices: Enacted strong air and water pollution controls
• Gun Control: Mandated gun registration
• Insurance: Ratemaking and Policy Holder Protection

When the first post-Home Rule elected Council took office, there were firm plans to publish the appointed Council’s legislation, but that did not occur. The records were sent to the Archives for safekeeping. Over time, their existence there was nearly forgotten, until Councilmember Grosso initiated the research effort that led to their recent re-emergence.

While the documents in question have always been held by the Archives, and consistently available to the public during this time, it is fair to say that they languished in obscurity during this time.  The current project will make them easily available to the public at large.

The planned project, to be conducted by the Council Secretary’s staff, will involve the digital scanning of all of the available records at the Archives. When completed, the full body of research will be published on line as part of the District’s Legislative Statutes-at-Large. This will put these important documents back in the public view and will restore to the public a significant and important piece of DC law and history.

We are grateful to Councilmember Grosso and his staff for finding these important records and pursuing this project. We are equally indebted to the National Archives for their understanding, cooperation and diligence in bringing this agreement to fruition.

Grosso's Anti-Shackling Law Will Soon Come into Effect

In December of 2014, at the end of the D.C. Council's 20th legislative session, the Council passed Councilmember Grosso's bill to eliminate the use of shackles or restraints on pregnant inmates and detainees during and leading up to labor. Although the final version of the law did not go as far as Grosso had hoped it would in prohibiting the shackling or restraining of pregnant in almost any situation, nonetheless this is an important human rights victory. The legislation, the Limitations on the Use of restraints Amendment Act of 2014, is expected to become official law on July 25, 2015, at the conclusion of the mandated Congressional review period.

The final law states that no woman or girl in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) or the Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services (DYRS) shall be restrained during the third trimester of pregnancy, during labor, or during post-partum recovery, except in extraordinary circumstances. Any such uses of restraints in extraordinary circumstances are to be documented and justified. For women and girls in the first or second trimester of pregnancy, the law stipulates that when restraints are necessary, the least restrictive restraint possible shall be used, except in extraordinary circumstances--which also must be documented. It is the responsibility of DOC and DYRS to inform the women and girls in their custody of these rules.

In advance of the legislation coming into effect as law, Grosso sent letters to the Directors of the DOC and DYRS. The responses from DOC Director Thomas Faust and DYRS Director Clinton Lacey are below. Although the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was not included in the final version of the legislation, the Councilmember will seek to work with MPD to ensure that pregnant women and girls in the Department's custody are treated with the utmost respect for their health needs and human rights.

DYRS Director Lacey Response to Grosso on Anti-Shackling Law

DOC Director Faust Response to Grosso on Anti-Shackling Law

D.C. and New York City Could be Next in Giving the Vote to Noncitizens

By J. Weston Phippen, July 15, 2015, National Journal

In Washington, D.C., about 54,000 people pay taxes, send their kids to school and can join the military because they have green cards, making them legal U.S. residents. But because they're not citizens, they can't vote for who runs their children's' schools, what city hall does with their tax money, or who manages essential public services in their neighborhoods.

There are about 12 million immigrants in similar situations nationwide.

In D.C., about one in eight people are immigrants, but only 30 percent of them are citizens eligible to vote. Last week, local D.C. legislators heard mostly supportive testimony for a bill that would grant voting rights to noncitizen residents.

The Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2015, introduced by council member David Grosso, would allow legal residents to vote for, among other things, leaders on the education board, city council members, and the mayor.

Given today's heated immigration reform debates, the idea is extremely controversial. However, six towns in Maryland have similar laws allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, the oldest being Takoma Park. Chicago allows permanent residents who are parents of schoolchildren to vote in district elections. And in New York City, a council member is currently drafting a similar bill that would extend local voting rights to 1 million people. Two years ago, Queens council member Daniel Dromm had the city council's majority support, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out against it. The bill never saw a vote. But now there's a new mayor, and the proposed law is expected to gain wide support once more.

Critics of such legislation often say that allowing noncitizens to vote would tarnish what is supposed to be a sacred privilege.

Dorothy Brizill, a local D.C. activist, told WAMU that something like this is "particularly sensitive, and of concern to those individuals, both black and white, who are aware of the long historical struggle to secure the right to vote for all American citizens. For many, the right to vote is the essence of citizenship."

Grosso understands this concern, but he thinks that "when you're talking about these very local issues that impact you on a day-to-day basis, I don't think that requires being a citizen."

The history of noncitizen voters goes back several hundred years. From 1776 to 1926, the U.S. allowed some noncitizens to vote in more than 40 states and federal territories

It began, says Ron Hayduk, a professor of political science at Queens College in New York, with noncitizens demanding voting privileges. That turned into a battle cry: "No taxation without representation!"

Noncitizen voters helped expand the American West. They settled territories that later became states. Then, in the 1920s, anti-immigrant sentiment spread across the country. In response, the government set quotas for how many people could enter the United States, and from which countries.

Hayduk advocates for noncitizen voting rights in local elections, and he even wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. In it, he wrote that in some towns, noncitizens make up almost half of voting-age adults who have no say in their local government. Even in places like Los Angeles and New York City, they make up one-third to a quarter of the voting age of the population.

"Noncitizens suffer social and economic inequities, in part, because policymakers can ignore their interests," Hayduk wrote in the op-ed. "The vote is a proven mechanism to keep government responsive and accountable to all."

Opponents believe that noncitizens get a good deal from their tax money. They gain access to social services and public schools. They can serve in community organizations. And, some argue, blurring the line between citizens and noncitizens will only lead to confusion.

"Boy, is that a slippery slope," says Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.

Boehm says his wife immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua and spent years obtaining citizenship. Voting is a privilege for those who struggled through the process. Anything else would be "diluting the value" of citizenship, he says.

There's also, he believes, quite a bit of political pandering in a bill like this. "The people who advocate this clearly think they would get the votes of the noncitizens," Boehm says.

Yet there are a lot of people who live in this country for many years, hoping to become citizens, but can't because of how hard it has become. "We always encourage people to become full citizens," says Jaime Contreras, vice president of the D.C. division of the Service Employees International Union, called 32BJ. "This is a good first step to give them a local voice in their politics."

Most of the people Contreras advocates for in D.C. are Latino immigrants. Many come from El Salvador and work as security officers or in maintenance. They clean public schools, offices, and buildings where politicians meet. The majority would like to become citizens, Contreras says, but the average wait is about eight years. And it's expensive. So as they wait for citizenship, they live, work, and become part of communities in which they have no say.

D.C. residents can empathize with this, as they have no voting power in Congress. This despite paying federal taxes and having a population as large as the state of Wyoming. They are constantly reminded of this fact, because their license plates bare that revolutionary slogan, "No taxation without representation."

Grosso addresses concerns with Department on Disability Services

During the March Performance Oversight Hearing with the Department on Disability Services (DDS), a number of public witnesses raised concerns about how the agency was performing its duties. After the hearing, Councilmember Grosso heard from constituents and advocates with further concerns and complaints about DDS. On March 30th, Grosso sent a letter to DDS Director Laura Nuss, and received a short response a little over a week later, which the Councilmember found to be unresponsive to the issues that he sought to address. Grosso felt that these issues required close attention as they concern some of the most vulnerable residents of the city. 

After a Budget Oversight Hearing during which Grosso continued to feel unsatisfied with the agency's answers to his questions, the Councilmember asked the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Brenda Donald to look into what was happening at DDS. On July 2, Grosso received a memo from DDS Director Nuss to Deputy Mayor Donald, which went into much more detail regarding the many issues that constituents, employees of DDS, and advocates had shared with Grosso's office. You can view all three documents below. Councilmember Grosso will continue to monitor DDS and listen to complaints about the agency from constituents and advocates.

Grosso Letter to Dept on Disability Services, March 30, 2015

DDS Director Nuss response letter to Grosso, April 8, 2015

Dept on Disability Services to Deputy Mayor on Health and Human Services, July 2, 2015