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.

Safe Routes to Schools

In light of the recent rise in crime throughout the District, Councilmember David Grosso sent the following letter to Police Chief, Cathy Lanier, regarding MPD deployment as students return to school on Monday, August 24, 2015.

Safe Routes to Schools Letter

Grosso Applauds Amnesty International's Stance on Sex Workers' Human Rights

For Immediate Release: 
August 11, 2015
Contact: Darby Hickey
(202) 724-8105

 Grosso Applauds Amnesty International's Stance on Sex Workers' Human Rights

Washington, D.C.--Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) issued the following statement on the decision by human rights organization Amnesty International to support the decriminalization of sex work: 

"I applaud Amnesty International for taking a position in support of decriminalization of sex work as a means to prevent human rights violations against sex workers. Amnesty International joins the ranks of those calling for decriminalization of sex work which includes the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, Human Rights Watch and the medical journal The Lancet.
 
It is my hope that by having a well-respected human rights organization like Amnesty International support decriminalization, we can begin the conversation about reforming similar D.C. laws and policies.  For decades we have repeated the same practice over and over, trying to arrest our way to an end of sex work, but it has never worked. Instead criminalization has caused severe harm to communities.
 
My commitment to human rights predates my time in office and a human rights framework is interwoven into all of the work I do here on the D.C. Council. That commitment includes speaking out for the human rights of the most marginalized communities, including sex workers. I believe that we as a society are coming to realize that excessive criminalization is causing more harm than good, from school discipline to drug laws to homelessness. It is time for D.C. to reconsider the framework in which we handle commercial sex.
 
As Amnesty International suggests, we should look at changing from the framework of criminalization to a framework that emphasizes the health and human rights of everyone involved. This has been my stance for some time and it is why I pushed to repeal the "prostitution free zones"  law last year, sought to stop the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) from arresting young people accused of offering sex in exchange for money or a place to stay, and have encouraged MPD to consider new approaches in how it handles prostitution.
 
This a complex issue and there are real problems that we must address, from the trivial, like used condoms on the sidewalk, to the serious, like violence that sex workers face. A criminalization framework has not helped, but a human rights approach can. First, D.C. must fight stigma and discrimination, which are entwined with over-criminalization. Then, it is critical that we put the resources in place to allow people who trade sex for money to be as safe and healthy as possible, with their human rights respected--as well as to help anyone who does not want to engage in commercial sex to avoid or leave such a situation. Finally, we need to realize that only through a new approach to regulating commercial sex will we begin to see quality of life concerns abated. The bottom line is that D.C. is a human rights city and it is time for a change."

###

John Oliver on D.C.'s Taxation without Representation

On August 2, 2015, the HBO show "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" aired this excellent segment on the District of Columbia and our lack of voting rights, budget or legislative autonomy, and Congress' meddling in our local affairs. This is must-watch television!

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.

Grosso, Norton and Human Rights Groups Denounce Anti-Immigrant Proposals in Congress Aimed at D.C. and Other Localities

For Immediate Release
July 30, 2015

Contact: Darby Hickey
(202) 724-8105

Grosso, Norton and Human Rights Groups Denounce Anti-Immigrant Proposals in Congress Aimed at D.C. and Other Localities

Washington, D.C.—Today, D.C. Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) joins Rep.Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and community groups to denounce new anti-immigrant proposals in Congress. Bills in the House and Senate seek to mandate that so-called “Sanctuary Cities” must proactively enforce federal immigration laws. One bill, the Safer D.C. Act of 2015 introduced by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), would specifically target the District of Columbia, seeking to overturn local laws and policies that prevent racial profiling, ensure equal protection, and build trust between local immigrants and the government.

“Unfortunately, this is only the latest in a long history of Congressional meddling in local D.C. affairs,” said Grosso. “It is shameful that anti-immigrant politicians are exploiting a tragedy in San Francisco to push their agenda. The House and Senate need to focus on passing comprehensive immigration reform, and leave jurisdictions like D.C. to make their own decisions regarding local law enforcement.”

A D.C. mayoral order prohibits police from inquiring about immigration status during interactions with community members, and D.C. law limits the conditions under which inmates may be transferred to immigration detention. The Safer D.C. Act, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, and other Congressional proposals seek to force localities to participate in immigration law enforcement by cutting their share of Department of Justice funding.

“In D.C., we stand for human rights--for immigrants, for women, for LGBT folks, for everyone,” said Grosso. “We are proud of our 20 year tradition of inclusion of our immigrant residents. Our policies save tax dollars, keep families together, uphold basic principles of fairness, and build public trust between local government and the immigrant community.”

###

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