One License For One D.C. Amendment Act of 2017

One License For One D.C. Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: February 21, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmembers Jack Evans and Brianne Nadeau

Summary: To amend the District of Columbia Traffic Act, 1925 to eliminate the distinguishing features of the limited purpose driver’s license.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you Chairman Mendelson.

Today, along with Councilmembers Nadeau, and Evans, I am introducing the One License for One D.C. Amendment Act of 2017.

During my first year on this Council, we passed important legislation to allow residents of our city who do not have legal immigration status to get driver’s licenses and identity cards.

We passed that bill both to improve safety on our roads and to ensure more equitable access to IDs, which have become so critical to daily life in our day and age.

While I supported the goal of that legislation, unfortunately I could not agree with the provision that required all licenses and non-driver’s ID cards issued to undocumented immigrants be marked differently than the credentials issued to everyone else in the city.

I argued at the time against having a different license or ID for undocumented immigrants because it would make them an easy target for federal authorities.

We have seen the indiscriminate disregard for human dignity and due process in immigration enforcement, most recently last week when federal agents in Texas arrested a domestic violence victim while at court seeking a protection order, and ICE officers rounded up men at a church homeless shelter in Virginia.

The Washington Post reported this weekend on draft versions of new executive orders being prepared at the White House to dramatically expand raids, deportations and other enforcement actions.

Based on the aggressive stance this administration has taken against human rights, we can expect federal officials will take advantage of the fact that undocumented immigrants in our community can be identified by a phrase on their licenses.

A document issued by our local government will be used by federal officials to arrest, detain and deport our residents, tearing apart families and wrecking communities.

The One License for One D.C. Amendment Act seeks to prevent this scenario from playing out by removing the distinguishing phrase “not valid for official federal purposes” from the limited purpose driver’s license and ensuring that licenses and ID cards issued by the D.C. government look the same no matter your immigration status.

It is a very simple change that will have far-reaching effects, strengthening our stance as a sanctuary city and depriving the federal government of a method for targeting undocumented immigrants.

It will likely mean that D.C. will need to no longer comply with the REAL ID law, or seek an extension on compliance from the federal government, as about half of other states and territories have done.

As a sanctuary city, we should be doing everything we can to protect the human rights of our community members, not put them at greatest risk of harm.

I hope to count on my colleagues support for this and invite co-sponsors.

One License for One DC Amendment Act of 2017 by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Local Business Support Amendment Act of 2017

Local Business Support Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: February 7, 2017

Co-introducer: Chairman Phil Mendelson

Summary: To amend the District of Columbia Code to create a local business ombudsman; establish roles and responsibilities of the Ombudsman’s office and to designate agency-wide Officers for Small and Local Business Inclusion; to remove endorsement fees for the issuance and renewal of basic business licenses; to allow a basic business license to be issued without a certificate of occupancy; to allow for the same registered trade name to be used for multiple business locations; to amend the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations to decrease the percentage of funds owed each quarter by supply schedule vendors for doing business with the government; to amend the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations for trade name renewal and requirement for an expiration notice.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you, Chairman Mendelson.  Today, along with you, I am introducing the “Local Business Support Amendment Act of 2017.”

During my first term in office, I served as an active member of the Committee on Business, Consumer, and Regulatory Affairs and was an active member of the Workforce Investment Council.  During that time, I became deeply familiar with the agencies that govern business operations in District of Columbia.

I consistently heard from local businesses of all sizes that D.C. government regulations are not business friendly and there are very few incentives for businesses to locate here.

After meeting with businesses and associations of all sizes, we devised a few relatively simple ways the D.C. Council can act to alleviate the government imposed burdens on our city’s businesses. 

First, this bill creates a Local Business Ombudsman who will act as an independent business navigator and will work on behalf of businesses to trouble shoot and act as the point of contact during permitting, licensing and taxation process.

Second the bill will separate the Certificate of Occupancy from the Basic Business License process.  It will allow for a Basic Business License to be issued without the requirement of a Certificate of Occupancy.  Currently, businesses throughout the city lose start-up capital waiting for the approval of their Basic Business License because they had to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy first, with no exceptions.   Others do not need a Certificate of Occupancy at all, but are forced to obtain one regardless of their business model.

Third, the bill will allow for the transfer of a Basic Business License to a new location without any additional fees and it will also remove the additional endorsement fees when a business license is issued or renewed.  I understand that this is revenue for the city, but I believe we need to closely analyze what these seemingly small fees on businesses are really worth if they are ultimately driving industry and jobs out of the city.      

Lastly, the bill will allow for a registrant to apply for, and use, only one trade name for a business under the same Basic Business License.  It will extend the trade name issuance from two years to five years to remove the burden of costly biennial reporting.  It will also decrease the percentage of funds owed each quarter by D.C. supply schedule vendors for doing business with the D.C. government. 

These are impactful changes that can be made to make us better aligned with how neighboring jurisdictions treat trade name registration and reporting. 

I believe this bill can be the catalyst for a necessary conversation about how we can pass responsible laws and regulations that do not hinder the greatest drivers of our local economy. 

I yield the remainder of my time to the Chairman for any remarks and we welcome any co-sponsors.

Thank you.

B22 0101 Local Business Support Amendment Act of 2017 by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Reserve Fund Improvement Amendment Act of 2017

Reserve Fund Improvement Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: February 7, 2017

Summary: To amend section 47-392.02 of the District of Columbia Official Code to align the locally mandated cash reserve funding formula with the federally mandated cash reserve funding formula.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you Chairman Mendelson.

The recently released FY16 CAFR report illustrates that the financial health of our city is strong. 

We are enjoying a General Fund balance of $2.4 million and our federally and locally mandated reserves have increased from $985 million to $1.165 billion, amounting to 56 days of cash on hand.

These are extraordinary achievements, and I want to thank the Mayor, the Chairman and the Chief Financial Officer for their hard work to get us to this point. 

While we are in a good financial position, the city is still 4 days shy of achieving our goal of 60 days cash on hand.

Based on testimony received by the Chief Financial Officer during last week’s CAFR Briefing, the District’s emergency, contingency, fiscal stabilization and cash flow reserves are approximately $95M short of being fully funded.

After working closely with the Council Budget Office and analyzing the numbers, I believe this shortfall could be turned into a surplus of millions if the requirements for our federally and locally mandated reserves were calculated using the same expenditure budget assumptions.

That is why today, I am introducing the Reserve Fund Improvement Amendment Act of 2017.

Currently, we use three different methodologies to calculate the federal and local reserve requirements.

Pursuant to the Home Rule Act, the federal reserve mandate (emergency and contingency cash reserve) is calculated using the actual operating expenditure from local funds reported in the CAFR for the fiscal year immediately preceding the current fiscal year, less debt service payments.

The locally mandated fiscal stabilization reserve fund is calculated using the General Fund operating expenditures for each fiscal year and the cash flow reserve fund, also locally mandated, is calculated using the General Fund operating budget for each fiscal year. 

My legislation will align the locally mandated cash reserve funding formula with the federally mandated reserve funding formula. 

I believe standardizing the reserve calculations across all reserve funds would allow the District to meet its reserve requirements this year, and allow a portion of the CAFR surplus to be used for other investments, such as affordable housing and PayGo capital projects. 

Given the uncertainty that pervades as the Trump Administration and a Republican Congress continue to undermine all that we’ve worked to accomplish in the city, hitting the 60 days is more important than ever.

Additionally, once we reach 60 days, 50% of all additional uncommitted amounts in the unrestricted fund balance will be deposited in the Housing Production Trust Fund and 50% will be reserved for PayGo funding, provided that these funds will be used to supplement the existing capital budget for school construction.

If we were to change the method of calculating our locally mandated reserve requirements, both of these funds could receive millions now.

Thank you Chairman Mendelson and I welcome any co-sponsors.

02062017 Reserve Fund Improvement Amendment Act of 2017--Signed by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Secure A Fair & Equitable Trial Act of 2017

Secure A Fair & Equitable (SAFE) Trial Act of 2017

Introduced: February 7, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmembers Jack Evans, Robert White Brianne Nadeau, and Mary Cheh

Summary: To amend Chapter 1 of Title 23 to curtail the availability and effectiveness of defenses that seek to partially or completely excuse crimes such as murder and assault on the grounds that the victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or other inherent identity, is to blame for the defendant’s violent action and to require an anti-bias jury instruction in criminal trials if requested by the prosecutor or the defendant.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you Chairman Mendelson. Today, along with my colleagues Brianne Nadeau, Jack Evans, and Robert White, I am introducing the “Secure A Fair & Equitable Trial Act of 2017”, which we are calling the SAFE Trial Act.

This legislation would curtail the use of defenses that seek to excuse crimes such as murder and assault on the grounds that the victim’s identity is to blame for the defendant’s violent action.

You may remember in 2008 when Tony Hunter died after being attacked in Shaw while on his way to a gay bar.

According to court records, the man arrested for the attack told police that he punched Hunter in self-defense after Hunter touched his crotch and buttocks in a sexually suggestive way.

There were many other factors in the case that made it complex, and could have resulted in a similar outcome, but the fact that the assailant blamed the victim’s sexual orientation for his violence was disturbing and inappropriate.

This argument is known as the “gay panic” defense and it seeks to blame a victim of a violent attack for provoking the violence by making a sexual comment, action, or simply by expressing their identity.

It is used around the country and throughout D.C.’s history.

The same argument has been used by individuals accused of attacking or murdering transgender women, arguing that the victim’s transgender identity amounted to deception and therefor justified a violent response.

That is essentially the argument that the killer of Bella Evangelista made after he killed her in 2003, also in D.C..

The SAFE Trial Act would end the use of such arguments in the District of Columbia.

The American Bar Association has carefully considered this topic and has voted in support of this type of legislation—in fact the SAFE Trial Act is based on the model language put forward by the ABA.

Anyone who knows me knows that I argue passionately for the human rights of criminal defendants, a fair and swift trial, and for alternatives to incarceration.

All of that is possible without resorting to a defense that is premised on bias against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals

A defense that exploits bias simply should not be acceptable.

The SAFE Trial Act is not limited to LGBT victims, but also covers any situation where an individual might seek to excuse their violent actions on the basis of another person’s identity.

The bill also requires that a jury be instructed to not let bias play a role in their deliberations during a criminal trial if requested by the prosecutor or the defendant.

In this time of heightened rhetoric of hate and violence, it is incredibly important that we act to eliminate bias whenever we can.

I welcome any co-sponsors.

Thank you.

02072017 SAFE Trial Act of 2017 by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Washington Area Professional Football Team Franchise Facility Interstate Compact Establishment Act of 2017

Washington Area Professional Football Team Franchise Facility Interstate Compact Establishment Act of 2017

Introduced: February 6, 2017

Summary: To establish an Interstate Compact prohibiting a party state or a local jurisdiction from providing certain public incentives or financing for the construction or maintenance of facilities for a professional football team franchise in the Washington, D.C. area.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Good morning. Thank you all for joining Delegate Moon and me here today.

As the Washington Football Team begins to explore options for relocating their football facilities, I believe it is important that D.C. clarify where we stand on how such a project would be financed.

So today I am introducing an interstate compact which prohibits the District from providing or offering special public incentives or financing for the construction of facilities for the Washington Football team.

More simply put, I don’t believe we should be offering special financial treatment in order to bring the Washington Football team back into the District of Columbia.

A football team worth over $1 billion should not need to rely on special government assistance to fund their facilities.

I especially do not public financing to go to a team with such a racist and derogatory name.

The city’s economy is thriving and our chief financial officer reports that the District’s financial health is strong.

Living in very uncertain times requires us to think more critically about how we financially plan for the future.

The events of the past two weeks have demonstrated that President Trump and the Republican Congress present a threat to that status. 

They are not above pulling federal funding over our determination to protect our immigrant communities and maintain our sanctuary status. 

Their plan to repeal Obamacare and leave tens of millions without health insurance across the country will be felt in all eight wards.

And the president’s nominee to be secretary of education makes it clear that funding for our schools could be undermined by misguided voucher policies.

We must be able protect the well-being of our residents, the education of our students, and the integrity of communities as these confrontations arise.

Regardless of our financial circumstances or the threat of federal overreach, research shows that NFL stadiums do not generate the significant local economic growth promised and cities tend to not recoup their significant financial contributions through increased tax revenue.

Funding a new stadium is just not in our city’s best interest at this time.

Furthermore, District tax payers’ money should not be used to further the commercial use of racist and derogatory terms that dishonors indigenous peoples.

Working across state lines on this issue is vital to ensure one state does not secure a competitive advantage over another in negotiations with the Washington Football Team.

We are still reaching out to Virginia legislators to find a champion for this issue in the General Assembly.

I want to thank Delegate Moon for his work on this interstate compact.  He will be introducing the companion to it in the Maryland House of Delegates.

He brought this idea to me and I was more than happy to be the sponsor of this legislation in D.C.

Interstate Compact Establishment Act--signed by Team_Grosso on Scribd

D.C. Child Development Facilities Expansion Amendment Act of 2017

D.C. Child Development Facilities Expansion Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: January 24, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmembers Brianne Nadeau, Mary Cheh, Elissa Silverman, Charles Allen, Robert White

Summary: To amend the Child Development Facilities Regulation Act of 1998 to direct the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to determine the eligibility of child development facilities seeking to occupy space designated for childcare in buildings and adjacent areas for the purpose of meeting the childcare needs of employees and residents; to require the Office of State Superintendent of Education to market the childcare program and provide technical assistance to the public' to establish a preference system for employees and residents eligible to receive childcare in buildings and adjacent areas; to authorize the Mayor to designate, build out, competitively award and manage at least 10, 300 square feet of space in new, renovated, and existing buildings and leased space; and to repeal the District of Columbia Employees Child Care Facilities Act of 1986.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you, Chairman Mendelson.  Today, along with my colleagues Councilmembers Brianne Nadeau, Elissa Silverman, and Mary Cheh, I am introducing the District of Columbia Child Development Facilities Expansion Amendment Act of 2017.

It is no secret that Washington, D.C. has the highest childcare costs in the country. The Economic Policy Institute reports that the average cost of infant care is $22,631 a year.

Further, children under the age of 3 are the fastest-growing age group in the District of Columbia. Between 2010 and 2014, the number of infants and toddlers increased by 26 percent.

One of the problems that we are facing with these growing costs and population increase is that licensed early learning providers only have space for one-third of the population of infants and toddlers in D.C.

During my time as Chairperson of the Education Committee, I have often heard from families, child care providers, and the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (or OSSE) that finding an early learning provider in this city that is affordable, high-quality, and has open childcare slots is a rarity for many.

That is why I am introducing a bill that would require the Mayor to provide early learning providers with free childcare space, utilities, equipment, furnishings, and security in certain new, existing, and renovated D.C. owned buildings and leased space. 

It directs OSSE to determine the eligibility of existing early learning providers seeking to occupy space in buildings, to market the program, and to provide technical assistance to the providers.

It also establishes a priority system for D.C. government employees and residents seeking childcare in these buildings.

By eliminating facility costs for early learning providers, this bill ensures that cost savings are passed on to families. It also guarantees that early learning providers will no longer have to compete with more established businesses for space on the first floor of buildings.

If D.C. is to become a world-class city for education, we must plan ahead and invest more money in the zero to three years.

I look forward to working with OSSE and the Mayor to ensure that our youngest residents are put in the best possible position to succeed in school and later in life by starting as early as we can.

At this time, I will reserve my remaining time for co-introducers.

Thank you.

DC Child Development Facilities Expansion Amendment Act of 2017 by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Language Access for Education Amendment Act of 2017

Language Access for Education Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: January 24, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmembers Grosso, Nadeau, Gray, Allen, R. White, Silverman, and McDuffie

Summary: To amend the Language Access Act of 2004 to add the Mayor's Office of Community Affairs, the Secretary to the Council of the District of Columbia, and other entities to the list of covered entities with major public contact; require each public school and public charter school to provide translations of essential information to students, parents, and guardians; require the language access coordinators of certain covered entities with major public contact to have language access coordination as their primary role; require the Office of Human Rights to publish an annual summary of all decisions, orders, corrective actions, and fines issued in the prior year; require public schools and public charter schools to designate a culturally competent language access liaison and each local education agency to designate a language access coordinator if the percentage of students who are of limited or no-English proficiency is more than 5 percent, or less, or 500 individuals, whichever is fewer, of the population being served by the public school or public charter school; clarify the complaint filing and appeals procedures; establish monetary penalties for violations of the act; and establish the Language Access Education Awareness Fund. 

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you, Chairman Mendelson. 

Today, along with Councilmembers Allen, Robert White, Brianne Nadeau, Elissa Silverman, and Vincent Gray,  I and introducing the “Language Access for Education Amendment Act of 2017.”

Since the D.C. Language Access Act of 2004 was passed over ten years ago, the immigrant population has grown rapidly in the District of Columbia. Our diverse immigrant communities, who come from all over the world, account for more than one third of the city’s population growth since 2007.  There are approximately 85,000 immigrants in D.C., and they have a need for government services. 

I introduced this legislation with the intent of strengthening existing law by increasing the standards of the Language Access Act for government services for all of our non-English proficient residents. This is an issue that is important in both government agencies and in our schools. 

Originally, this bill was introduced in Council Period 21 and assigned Bill 21-66 and was jointly referred to the Committee on Education, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee of the Whole.  A joint hearing with over 80 witnesses was held in July 2015 and the Committee on Education marked it up in September 2015 and the Committee on Judiciary marked it up in September 2016.  Therefore, I am re-introducing the version that is substantially similar to the one passed out of the Judiciary Committee to preserve the hearing that took place and the work already accomplished.

The bill requires that each public school and public charter school shall provide translations of essential information.  Essential information is defined as data relating to a student's well-being and educational progress, including special education matters; academic performance and attendance; behavioral and discipline; activities for which notice is needed or parental permission; public health and safety notifications; and the student handbook.

The bill also requires that each public and public charter school with a 5 percent or more non-English proficient population, must designate a culturally competent language access liaison at each school and designate a language access coordinator for each local education agency. 

Finally, the bill addresses violations made by other government agencies and imposes corrective actions and penalties for violations of this act and establishes a non-lapsing Language Access Education Awareness fund to help cover the costs of agency awareness and implementation.

I want to thank my colleagues who for co-introduced this legislation with me and welcome any other co-sponsors at this time.

Thank you.

Language Access for Education Amendment Act of 2017 by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2017

Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: January 24, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmembers Grosso, Silverman, Allen, Nadeau, R. White, Evans, and Bonds

Summary: To amend the District of Columbia Election Code of 1955 to expand the definition of "qualified elector" to include permanent residents for the purpose of local elections.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today, along with Councilmembers Jack Evans, Brianne Nadeau, Elissa Silverman, and Robert White, I am introducing the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2017. 

This bill allows permanent residents in the District of Columbia, who are not yet U.S. citizens, the right to vote in our local municipal elections. These residents are well on their path to citizenship.  This bill will allow them to legally participation in our elections for the Mayor, Council, State Board of Education, ANC’s and the Attorney General.  

“All politics is local” is a common phrase in the U.S. political system.  What most D.C. residents care about are the local issues of city life that affect them day-to-day.  This includes our public schools, paying their taxes, having access to quality health care, crime rates in neighborhoods, and so much more.  All of these issues are important to voters in the District of Columbia but unfortunately, not all of our residents have a say in choosing the officials who make the policy decisions that will directly impact them.  In my opinion, that is unjust.

Since 1970, the District of Columbia has seen a steady increase in the number of foreign-born residents and according to the U.S. Census Bureau report in 2012, 54,000 residents in the District were foreign born, but not naturalized U.S. citizens and this number is growing.  Over 90% of legal permanent residents are 18 years of age or older. These are law-abiding taxpayers and they should have the opportunity to have their voices heard in local elections.

I recognize that this is a very political and polarizing issue further agitated by the incoming Presidential Administration and current Congressional make-up.  I strongly believe that the result of the national election reverberated in our city perhaps more than anywhere else in the nation.

Many are scared and anxious as our future and the future of our laws are at the whim of a Congress where we have no voting representation from our city, and many of its members have never set foot in our diverse neighborhoods. 

For most of American history, noncitizens were permitted to vote in 22 states and federal territories. It was not until the 1920s that, amidst anti-immigrant hysteria, lawmakers began to bar non-citizens from voting in local and statewide elections.  Unfortunately, this hysteria continues across the United States, but it does not need to be perpetuated in the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia is a leader in how we relate to immigrants and we are a sanctuary city – to me that means we will protect families and communities from being torn apart by immigration policies rooted in fear and bigotry. 

I want to thank my colleagues who for co-introduced this legislation with me and welcome any other co-sponsors at this time.

Thank you.

Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2017 by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Fair Wage Amendment Act of 2017

Fair Wage Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: January 9, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmembers Jack Evans, Brianne Nadeau, Mary Cheh, Elissa Silverman, Charles Allen, Robert White

Summary: To amend the Wage Transparency Act of 2014 to prohibit an employer from screening prospective employees based on their wage history or seeking the wage history of a prospective employee.

Fact Sheet

01092017 Fair Wage Amendment Act of 2017 by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Child Development Facilities Regulations Amendment Act of 2017

Child Development Facilities Regulations Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: January 10, 2017

Summary: To amend the Child Development Facilities Regulation Act of 1998 to allow the Council to review child development facilities regulations.

01102017 Child Development Facilities Regulations Review by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Early Learning Equity in Funding Amendment Act of 2017

Early Learning Equity in Funding Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: January 10, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmember Trayon White

Summary: To amend the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula for Public Schools and Public Charter Schools Act of 1998 to amend the definition of at-risk to include a Pre-k age student receiving education services at a community based organization; and to amend the State Education Office Establishment Act of 2000 to establish a pilot program to provide a facility allowance to high quality child development centers and child development homes that meet certain criteria.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you Chairman Mendelson.

This morning, along with Councilmember Trayon White, I am introducing the “Early Learning Equity in Funding Amendment Act of 2017.”

When D.C. began its movement toward universal Pre-K, it was in response to a significant body of research that found that investments in early childhood development pays huge dividends in closing and preventing achievement gaps between minority and low-income students and their white and middle-class peers. The District was and is a national leader in the expansion and success of our Pre-K3 and Pre-K4 programs in our public and public charter schools.

What is not often discussed, however, are the thousands of three and four year olds who are receiving Pre-K3 and Pre-K4 educational services from community-based child development centers and homes. Although these organizations, like are local education agencies (LEAs), are being asked teach a quality comprehensive curriculum to ensure kindergarten readiness and meet the District’s early learning and development standards, the District has not provided them with the same financial resources that we provide DCPS and public charter schools.

Did you know that while child development centers are serving Pre-K3 and Pre-K4 students, they are not all receiving the per pupil allocation under the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula? While DCPS and public charter schools receive $12,719 to educate a 3-year old, a gold-level child development centers receives a mere $42 a day for full time care. If you multiply that by the 180 days in a school year, that amounts to $7,560 – which is over $5,000 difference.

They also do not have access to additional allocations such as at-risk funding, which provides an additional $2100 per kid to schools recognizing that children who are homeless, in the foster care system, or qualify for TANF or SNAP are in need of more. 

It is no wonder many of our child development centers and homes who serve the subsidy program have trouble staying in the positive in terms of finances while also trying to compete with LEAs in terms of recruiting and retaining high quality teachers and staff.

The “Early Learning Equity in Funding Amendment Act” attempts to infuse more equity into our early learning funding. First, the legislation amends the definition of “at-risk” to include a Pre-k age student receiving education services at a community-based organization. Second, the bill establishes a pilot program within the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to provide a facility allowance to high quality child development centers and child development homes that meet certain criteria. The facility allowance would be administered in a similar manner that the District follows for public charter schools.

Access to high-quality and affordable early care and learning is a growing concern for families in the District of Columbia, especially as the number of residents with young children continues to rise. If the government is able to better support our child development centers and homes with more equitable funding, it is my hope that we are able to increase the number of slots available. Given the vast research about child brain development and the importance of what happens ages 0-3 to setup a child for academic and life-long success, I do believe early care and early learning is in fact an education matter.

I want to yield my remaining time to my co-introducer. And I welcome any and all co-cosponsors.

Early Learning Equity in Funding Amendment Act of 2017 by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Childhood Protection Against Sexual Abuse Amendment Act of 2017

Childhood Protection Against Sexual Abuse Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: January 10, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmembers Mary Cheh, Brandon Todd, and Robert White

Summary: To amend Title 12 of the District of Columbia Official Code to eliminate the civil statute of limitations for recovery of damages arising out of child sex abuse claims and to provide a 2-year period for people whose claims were barred by a previous statute of limitations to bring those claims.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you Chairman Mendelson.

There are few actions more depraved than sexual violence against children. Full of boundless curiosity, bold imagination, and care-free spirits, the unique innocence of childhood is something to marvel.

Unfortunately 1 in 10 children will be stripped of this innocence before their 18th birthday.  Alarmingly, children are most vulnerable to sexual abuse between the ages of 7 and 13.

Because children have no comprehension of adult sexual behaviors and activity, any exposure to these aspects of adult life can and often does result in mental and emotional trauma.

The experience of sexual violence as a child is one that endures for the ages.  Most survivors do not come forward until, on average age 42, suffering for years with depression, feelings of guilt and sometimes difficulty forming intimate relationships. 

That is why today, along with Councilmembers Brandon Todd, Robert White and Mary Cheh, I am introducing the Childhood Protection Against Sexual Abuse Amendment Act of 2017.

This legislation eliminates the civil statute of limitations for recovery of damages arising out of child sex abuse claims. 

Additionally, the bill creates a two-year window for individuals whose claims of child sex abuse were previously time-barred, enabling victims to go back in time and begin working to heal.

Currently, there are 8 states and one U.S. territory that have no civil statute of limitations in cases involving the sexual violence or abuse of children. (Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Utah and Guam).

Across the country, this issue is being revisited.  Just last year California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania all introduced child sex abuse statutes of limitations reform bills.  Similarly, Tennessee and Utah enacted child sex abuse statutes of limitations reform measures.

Further, other states have enacted statute of limitations revival measures to include California (2003), which allowed for a 1-year look back window and Connecticut (2010), which revived expired claims up to age 48. 

Child safety depends on legislators holding institutions, not just individual perpetrators, accountable for their actions.  We cannot continue to allow individuals or institutions to maintain their depraved secrets. We must instead encourage and empower victims to come forward and know that a fair and just system is in place to help them right unspeakable wrongs.

I yield the remainder of my time to my co-introducers and I welcome any co-sponsors. 

Childhood Protection Amendment Act of 2017-SIGNED by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Public School Health Services Amendment Act of 2017

Public School Health Services Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced: January 10, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmembers Brianne Nadeau, Jack Evans, Charles Allen, Mary Cheh, Vincent Gray, Elissa Silverman, Trayon White, Anita Bonds

Summary: To amend the District of Columbia Public School Nurse Assignment Act of 1987 to increase the minimum hours per week of registered public school nurse services at elementary and secondary public and public charter schools to 40 hours per week.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Thank you Chairman Mendelson.

This morning along with Councilmembers Nadeau, Evans, Allen, Cheh, Gray, Silverman, T. White, and Bonds, I am introducing the “Public School Health Services Amendment Act of 2017.”

This legislation amends the District of Columbia Public School Nurse Assignment Act of 1987 to increase the minimum hours per week of registered public school nurse services at public and public charter schools to 40 hours per week.

As most of you know, last year, the Deputy Mayor for Education sent a letter to LEA leaders announcing the Department of Health’s new model for the school health services program. Under the new program, registered nurses will continue to provide clinical care for all children with special health care needs who require daily medications or treatment. Additional health professionals and community navigators will work with families, schools, and students’ primary care providers to make sure students receive well-child exams and the preventive services they need to be healthy. 

However, the school nurse service levels were to be reset for all schools at a minimum of 20 hours each week. Schools may receive more nursing coverage depending on the medical needs of student population based on a risk-based health needs assessment.

While families and the public were supportive of adding more allied health professionals to schools to help with care coordination, including community navigators to connect families with local assets, parents were alarmed at the idea that there would not always be a qualified health professional on site to assess and triage sick and injured children or provide emergency care as needed. Simply calling 911 or working parents anytime a child presents with a potential health problem should not be our schools default.

Due to these concerns, the Council was successful in delaying in reduction in nurse services to school year 2017-2018. However, there still needs to be a public conversation about whether the District should be reducing school nursing hours or rather aligning itself with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which both recommend having at least one full-time nurse in every school.

During a public roundtable on school health services last year, witnesses testified for five and a half hours about their concerns regarding the new program, particularly fear of losing full-time school nurses services. Many asked the Council to introduce legislation to increase the statutory minimum school nursing service level to 40 hours per week. To those constituents I say, we heard you. For me, this is about giving our families a piece of mind. Ensuring that there is always a qualified health professional at our public schools is a safety net.

I welcome any and all co-sponsors.

Public School Health Services Amendment Act of 2017 (as introduced) by Team_Grosso on Scribd

Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Act of 2017

Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Act of 2017

Introduced: January 10, 2017

Co-introducers: Councilmember Robert White, Councilmember Brianne Nadeau

Summary: To legalize the possession, consumption, display, purchasing, or transporting of marijuana and marijuana-infused products for personal use, not in public, for persons over the age of 21;  to establish that possession, consumption, display, purchasing, or transporting of marijuana and marijuana-infused products shall not constitute a civil or criminal offense under District law or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under District laws, for persons under the age of 21; to amend the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981 to decriminalize certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana-infused products for personal use; to amend the Drug Paraphernalia Act of 1982 to strike certain paraphernalia related to marijuana use from the provision; to amend Title 25 of the District of Columbia Official Code to establish the licensing and regulation infrastructure for the production, sale, consumption, and testing of retail marijuana and retail marijuana-infused products in the District of Columbia; to establish a dedicated marijuana fund, which shall consist of all sales tax and excise tax revenue from retail marijuana; to direct all retail marijuana license fees, penalties, forfeitures, and all other monies, income, or revenue received by the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration from retail marijuana-related activities; to establish a tax on the gross receipts of retail marijuana sales and on the first sale or transfer of unprocessed retail marijuana in the District of Columbia; to clarify the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment Act of 2010 maintaining each regulation, standard, rule, notice, order and guidance promulgated or issued by the Mayor, except where inconsistent with this act, and the rights of any person holding a license pursuant to that legislation; and to amend Title 18 of D.C. Municipal Regulation to adjust allowances of THC concentration while operating a motor vehicle.

Councilmember Grosso's Introduction Statement:

Today I am also introducing the Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Act of 2017, along with Councilmembers Brianne Nadeau and Robert White.

When I introduced the first version of this bill in September 2013 none of my colleagues were willing to be co-introducers or co-sponsors.

At the time it was unclear whether or not decriminalization of marijuana would pass. 

But the numbers and the racial disparities were simply too compelling for us not to act. 

In the years since, I am proud that this Council did pass decriminalization and that voters approved Initiative 71 with almost 70% of the vote.

In that time we have seen marijuana-related arrests plummet, representing thousands of District residents who were spared that needless involvement in the judicial system.

Based off the data from before and after these policy changes, we know that the War on Drugs was a failure—it was increasing our mass incarceration problem, and not helping with our drug dependency problem.

The data also has consistently shown that the War on Drugs is racist in its implementation, so we also understand that changing these policies is a racial justice issue.

The logical next step, to continue to reduce arrests and to bring marijuana totally out of the shadows is to set up a strong tax and regulate system.

The legislation I’m introducing today would do just that, and it incorporates lessons from other jurisdictions that have moved forward with the regulation of recreational marijuana over the past few years.

Colorado, Washington state, Oregon, Alaska, California, Nevada, the list goes on--all these states have legal sales of marijuana, but we in D.C. do not, because in late 2014 Congress prohibited us from spending any of our local tax dollars to set up such a taxation and regulation system.

So this is a home rule question as well as a question of human rights, racial justice, and wise use of criminal justice resources.

The Harris Rider is a reminder of our second-class status—Congress cannot prohibit any of the fifty states from legalizing marijuana as they see fit, but Representative Harris and the leadership on the Hill has no problem undermining the work of this Council.

Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Act of 2017 (as introduced) by Team_Grosso on Scribd