I am calling to order this meeting this is an additional meeting of the committee of the whole of the Council of the District of Columbia I am fendon chair of the council and chair of the committee the whole today is Tuesday February 6 2024 the time is 125 56 in the afternoon and this meeting is being held in the council chambers room 500 of the Johnny Wilson building this is an additional meeting that is it's not a regularly scheduled meeting of the committee the whole this meeting will be followed by a regular monthly legislative meeting uh there are uh at least a couple of members who are participating virtually but other members are here present on the day uh we always begin our committee of the whole meetings uh determining whether we have a quorum Mr Cash would you call the role chairman Mendon pres council member Allen here council member bonds here council member fruman present council member gray here council member Henderson here council member leis George here Council McDuffy here council member noo council member noo council member Parker here council member Pinto presid council member Robert M pres council member Tre pres Mr chairman you have the quum thank you Mr Cash uh we have one item for markup in the committee of the whole and then we have I believe it's five measures of that are being reported out of the Judiciary Committee for uh what we call agendize to the legislative meeting the item for markup in the committee the whole is PR 25-57 entitled the District of Columbia sentencing commission Joel Caston appointment resolution of 2024 purpose of this resolution is to appoint Mr Caston as a member of the District of Columbia sentencing commission for three-year term to end July 2nd 2026 he would be uh filling the seat replacing Molly Gil Mr Caston is a ward seven resident he is a formerly incarcerated native Washingtonian who has been directly impacted by The District's Criminal Justice System he is a licensed health and life insurance agent and also serves as a mentor writer and activist Mr custon was a founding member of the young men emerging Mentor program with the District of Columbia Department of Corrections partic participating from 2018 to 2023 most notably in 2021 Mr Caston was elected advisory neighbored commissioner ofc 7f becoming the first incarcerated person elected to public office in the history of the district government the single member district included the DC jail the Harriet Tubman women shelter and a luxury apartment complex Mr Caston held office for two years completing his term in 2023 while in office he served as treasurer of thec and as co-chair of the ward 7 and redistricting task force the origin of the sentencing commission was the creation of a pilot program by the council in 1998 tasking the then named advisory Commission on sentencing with the development of sentencing guidelines the resulting product a set of voluntary sentencing guidelines was then monitored by the commission which collected reviewed and analyzed data from judges and criminal justice practitioners the purpose of the guidelines is to promote consistency in sentencing to avoid uh wide disparities in sentences when the crime and criminal history are very similar the role of the sentencing commission is to revise and Implement a system of voluntary sentence guidelines for use in the District of Columbia Superior Court designed to achieve the goals of consistency and adequacy of punishment with due regard for first the seriousness of the offense second the dangerousness of the offender third the need to protect the safety of the community fourth the offender's potential for rehabilitation and fifth the use of alternatives to prison in addition on an annual basis the sentencing commission is required to file a report with the council that contains an analysis of the sentences imposed and describes how it ranked a new felony offense or reranked any existing felony offense and the resulting guideline sentencing options the sentencing commission does not decide sentences maximums and minimums are prescribed in the statute and as um as for the guidelines judges are free to depart from the guid lines and sometimes do currently the sentencing commission has 12 voting members plus five non- voting members I'll note that the uh secur DC legislation will make some changes increasing the size of the commission but at the moment there are 12 voting plus five non- voting members virtually all of the work is done by consensus I believe we were told recently there was one vote in the last five years it was not by consensus voting membership includes three judges two prosecutors two former prosecutors and the Sosa director the non- voting members currently are metral and police department the Department of Corrections the Federal Bureau of Prisons the US parole commission and the council chair our Council chair of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee because of his personal experience with the criminal justice system demonstrated interest in the advocacy interest in and advocacy related to criminal justice policy and because of the commission's expressed desire to in include the voice and perspective of a returning citizen on the commission uh I'm recommending and I if the council approves this as committee approves this the committee would be recommending the appointment of Mr Caston to the District of Columbia sentencing commission for a term to expire what did I say on um July 2nd 2026 uh I move the print with leave for staff to make Technical and conforming changes is there discussion uh I'm GNA take council member pinto and then council member crayon white thank you very much Mr chairman um as I articulated last time we debated this issue I think that the perspective of returning citizen can be really valuable on the sentencing commission um I included a provision in my secur DC legislation requiring one of the council's nominees to be a person with lived experience as a returning citizen um we're also increasing representation to give the council one additional appointee as well as to give the mayor one additional appointee um and to require that two of the appointees of the courts one would have have to have prosecutorial experience one would have to have defense experience um as well make MPD of voting member I continue to believe that the commission needs this additional representation um from a wide array of perspectives from people with lived experience as returning citizens from police from prosecutors and from defense attorneys um and that's why security C increases that representation these perspectives are also very important as our sentencing commission really does play a crucial role in guiding the courts with the sentencing of crimes committed in our communities um as we know over 98% of sentences are aligned with sentencing commission guidelines so I am supporting this nomination today I believe a diversity of perspectives is very important um and appreciate you working together on this um and Mr castone commitment to the city thank you councilor council member TR mik yes thank you chairman I had the opportunity of meeting Mr castone where he was incarcerated DC jail at our father's matters program years ago um I want to say that uh he is a very intelligent man uh with a renewed perspective um there was some push back about his nomination um but I want to say that uh he's paid his debt to society in fact he's probably uh great created a number of Rel relationships learned experiences uh they give him the information on how to give guidance to this commission I think he also has a unique perspective um Mr castone served 27 years being incarcerated and I believe that uh in speaking with him he would give fair and just uh recommendations and a unique perspective to the citizen commission and so today I'm I'm proud of him you not was not only advisory neighborhood for 7 F7 but also a strong advocate and community support worker while returning to the community so I look forward uh to supporting Mr mastone nomination to the Ci's commission today thank you thank you council member is there any further discussion council member bons um thank you very much um chairman um I just want to uh reiterate my position from the last um opportunity to speak on this nomination and to say that you know it I feel it's certainly the right dire direction for us to move in um we say as a society that giving individuals a second chance is um tantamount to being and having the American Experience well here we go we're given this great opportunity to do just that and to hear from an individual who has had experiences that many of us have not had and I think these experiences are very very important particularly in our community where we find so many um black men um incarcerated and so I I applaud the chairman for his boldness um to move in this direction and I support it wholeheartly now to Mr castone you got to do the right thing and that is to help us to understand the sentencing process and why it is and can work for the District of colia thank you chairman thank you council member council member Robert White uh thank you Mr chairman I I appreciate you moving this nomination forward um I I had the privilege of of meeting Mr castone when he first came back to DC jail and um have had the opportunity to to work with him since then but also to see his work uh this is somebody who served his time to society and has come back to make a difference uh when I reached out to Mr has Stone among the debate over his nomination a couple of weeks ago uh it was hard not to feel bad that he and his family were casted into a difficult light because of assumptions General assumptions made about returning citizens for a position that he didn't ask for this is something the city requested of him the idea of having a returning citizen on the sentencing commission among the judges lawyers law enforc is a benefit to the city it rounds out the perspective because we're not trying to be harsh we're trying to get it right uh Mr castone will help us get it right I want to thank him for continuing to be willing to serve in this capacity and I think again it will be to the benefit of the District of Colombia to have him there so I look forward to voting in favor of his nomination thank you council member uh I just want to reiterate what I said what oh Council Parker yeah I there is not much more to add here I do look forward to supporting uh Mr caston's appointment uh but I think it is worth elevating that when uh judge Lee came to share with the council who chairs the sentencing commission and he was asked about this nomination he spoke very favorably of Mr castone and emphasized the importance of perspectives like his and so it's not just that members of the council think this is important in a worthwhile perspective in nomination but someone from the sentencing commission thank you chairman thank you I do want to emphasize even even though five of the members are non- voting and even though it looks like we're going to increase the size of the 17 members this would be one of 17 the commission asked for this perspective uh looking at sentencing Commissions in other states they have been broadening the perspective they have on the sentencing commission and as I said when I was presenting this the sentencing commission doesn't sit around and say gosh what should the sentence be for pick a crime uh homicide the statute says what the set range of sentence can be what the commission does is it looks at what judges have actually been sentencing and tries to find that midpoint and that midpoint is actually fairly wide it's not the bottom 25% it's not the 205 top 25% it's what's in the middle and those are the guidelines and then the question is whether that continues to reflect what judges are doing because they're not bound by the guidelines so judges can depart and the commission looks at where their departures whether they should the guidelines it's really about ensuring that there is consistency in sentencing so that we don't take similar individuals with similar backgrounds and similar offenses and their sentences are widely disparate that's what we want to avoid because that's not really justice so with that um we will have a roll call vote on the print Mr Cash council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George yes Council Le George votes yes Council McDuffy yes Council McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman mendleson votes yes council member Nido present council member Nido votes present council member Parker yes Council Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes Council Robert White votes yes council member Tron white yes Council TR white votes yes council member Allan yes Council Allen votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses uh thank you Mr Cash the uh print is approved unanimously with Council noo marked as present uh I will move the uh Report with Le for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is a discussion regarding the report hearing none by Voice vote all those in favor of the report say I I I a little weak sounding but we'll go with it are there any no votes don't see or hear any no votes the report is approved unanimously U Madam General council is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is mam secretary's the record complete once the report and hearing record are filed Madam Madam Secretary is the record complete Madam Secretary I didn't hear you is the record complete sure once the report and hearing record are filed thank you madam budget director does the measure as fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does uh this measure will be placed on the non-consent agenda for today's legislative meeting if there's no objection we'll take the next two items in Block they're both uh nominations by the mayor to the corrections information Council reported out of the committee on Judiciary and Public Safety pr25 d489 District of Columbia Corrections information Council governing board Charles Thornton confirmation resolution of 2024 n PR 25-49 District of Columbia Corrections information Council governing board prelle Shannon confirmation resolution of 20124 council member Pinto thank you Mr chairman PR 25-49 would reconfirm Carles Thorton as a member of the cic governing board Charles Thorton is the current chair of the board and he currently Ser works as a special assistant at the office of Human Rights where he focuses on ban the Box initiatives he has served in this capacity since 2016 prior to his tenure at Ohr Mr Thorton served as the Director of the mayor's office of returning citizens Affairs which assists over 5,000 returning citizens annually wallet Mora he oversaw the creation of training programs and resources for men and women who need assistance and marketable skills to successfully re-enter our communities the nominees confirmation resolution was unanimously approved by my committee at markup held on January 25th 2024 PR 25-49 District of Columbia Corrections information Council governing board Pelle Shannon confirmation resolution of 2024 would confirm Pelle Shannon as a member of the cic governing board Pelle Shannon is the current CEO and co-founder of for truth a registered for-profit which provides trauma informed Consulting to private nonprofit and government entities for truth has provided Services the Department of Youth rehabilitative Services during the 2021 and 202 22 fiscal Years miss Shannon has over 16 years of experience working with incarcerated citizens in jails prisons re-entry and therapeutic Residential Treatment communities she has served the population in many roles most notably as a un uniformed officer substance abuse counselor mental health therapist management and program analyst Pria coordinator commu Community Corrections senior institutional administrator and former doj certified priia auditor the nominee's confirmation resolution was unanimously approved by my committee at a markup held on January 25th 2024 I ask that both of these items be placed on today's consent agenda for the legislative meeting thank you Mr chairman thank you council member are there questions from members of these measures we can only ask questions are there questions from Members I have three and federal councils to measure are the measures legally technically sufficient for our consideration yes they are M secretary is the record complete for each yes mam budget director do the measures fiscal impact statements comply with Council requirements yes they do and I believe there's never a fiscal impact statement on a nomination however I'm asked to ask the question so without objection these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting there's no objection we'll take the next three measures in Block they are also reported out of the committee on Judiciary and Public Safety and they concern nominations by the mayor to the police complaints board pr25 d510 police complaints board Paul Ashton confirmation resolution of 2024 pr25 d512 police complaints board Derek coar confirmation resolution of 2024 and pr25 d519 police complaints board Bobby string confirmation resolution of 2024 council member rento thank you Mr chairman PR 25510 would reconfirm Paul Ashton as a member of the police complaints board Mr Ashton currently works for the Justice policy Institute a nonprofit organization that works to reform the criminal justice system and reduce incarceration he has served three terms as a member of the police complaints board since December 2014 and has served as chair of the board since October 2016 Mr Ashton received his bachelor's degree in criminology with a minor in political science from Ohio State University he later obtained a master's degree in criminology from the University of Delaware where he also served as a graduate teaching assistant in the department of sociology and criminal justice he is a w five resident the Nomine confirmation resolution was unanimously approved by my committee at a markup held on January 25th 2024 PR 2-51 12 would reconfirm Bobby Strang as a member of the police complaints board Mr string currently works for the district government in the Department of Employment Services as a claims examiner she administers informal conferences on workers compensation claim disputes issues memorandum and final orders regarding these disputes and assists pray claimants Bobby string has served three terms as a member of the police complaints board since November 2015 during her tenure she has reviewed dismissals and participated in First Amendment assembly monitoring she's award seven resident the nominee's confirmation resolution was unanimously approved by my committee to Mark upheld on January 25th 2024 pr25 d511 would confirm Derek Colbert as a member of the police complaints board Mr Colbert currently works for the DC Workforce investment Council where he supports the expansion of the council's Partnerships prior to that position he worked as the director of operations for the executive office of the mayor and the office of attorne citizens Affairs in that role he managed an 11 member team evaluated operations and developed community outreach programs Mr Colbert has also served as associate director of the District of Columbia of the deputy mayor for greater economic opportunities analyzing agency operations and recommending corrective actions to the agency director to improve customer service this work included program Audits and additional oversight Mr Colbert previously served as an AMC commissioner for ANC hc04 from 2013 to 2015 he is a w 8 resident Mr chairman I ask that all three of these items be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting thank you council member Pinto are there questions from Members M General Council are these three measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes they are Madam Secretary is the record complete for each yes M budget director do the measures fiscal impact statements comply with Council requirements yes without objection these meals will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting under other business we have consideration of a schedule for the budget but that uh schedule has actually not been uh finalized by the budget office so it was not circulated that explains why I didn't see it uh so we will um consider that at our next meeting the whole meeting which is on February 20th uh since there's no further business uh I would we will start the legislative meeting at 1:30 that's 12 minutes from now the time is 1:18 this meeting is adjured e think I'm calling to order this meeting this is a regular meeting of the Council of the District of Columbia I'm Phil Mendelson chairman of the council today is Tuesday February 6 2024 the time is 1557 in the afternoon this meeting is being held in room 500 the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building this is the 20th legislative meeting of council period 25 and it's our regular meeting for the month month of February um we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence I would ask if members on the de and everyone in the chamber would please respect a moment of silence for reflection Madame secretary would you please call the role Council M Allan here council member bonds here council member Freeman here council member gray here council member Henderson here council member leis George here council member McDuffy here chairman mson president council member NAD here council member Parker here council member Pentel present council member Robert White presid council member crayon white president Mr chairman you have AUM uh thank you Madam Secretary um I want to say at the beginning of this meeting we have a lot of people in the chamber which is great uh we've all been through the pandemic there were times when there was nobody in the chamber it was kind of a bit sad so I want to thank everyone for being here there are a couple of issues that I know folks feel very passion about we do have a rule about the Quorum so if folks would please um you can react however you want to but do it quietly that's what I want to say um now we have and we're going to get to that fairly quickly uh we have the filing of committee reports and special reports uh we have the secretary's report on committees uh Mr McDuffy chair Pro Tim thank you chairman I moved to away the reading of the secretary's report to a motion the way of the reading of the report is there discussion on the motion all those in favor say I I I no votes guys have it unanimously we have the secretary's log of introductions and referrals again I'll recognize the chair protm Mr McDuffy and I will move to raave the reading of the secretary's report of introductions turn a motion to wave the reading of the report is there discussion all those in favor say I I I opposed yeah I have it unanimously we have the consent agenda are there any changes to the consent agendas I do not hear any changes to the consent agenda uh we'll have a roll call vote on the consent agenda Madam Secretary council member Parker I council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fman votes yes council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George yes council member Lewis George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendon yes chairman Mendon votes yes and council member nadell yes council member noo votes yes Mr chairman there there 13 yeses thank you Madam Secretary the consent agenda is approved unanimously turn to the non-consent agenda on page five uh the first measure is final reading uh Bill 25- 350 MacArthur High School designation Act of 2024 uh that came out of the committee of the whole I am moving to recommit the bill to the committee that is a motion to recommit uh we can have a Voice vote all those in favor of the motion to recommit say I I opposed uh the eyes have it unanimously uh the next measure we're on first reading and vote on proposed bills is Bill 2556 restaurant revitalization and dram shop clarification Amendment Act of 2024 this was reported out of the committee on business and economic development shared by councilor McDuffy Mr McDuffy the floor is yours thank you Mr chairman Bill 25- 56 would clarify and codify into statute District's dram shop legal liability laws which according to Independent ratings organizations are uh impos of the highest risk to restaurants bars and other establishments that serve alcohol in the country here in the District of Columbia our laws are in stock contrast to Maryland and Virginia Which do not permit civil dram shop liability claims against establishments this bill aims to address the high insurance premiums which many establishments cannot afford and creates risk for both uninsured establishments and potential future claimants seeking to recover monetary damages the committee print incorporates broad stakeholder feedback to clarify the scope of liability ensure that those seriously harmed have access to Justice and bring down liquor liability insurance rates hurting the district's restaurants bars and night life establishments this bill incorporates additional relief for restaurants which council member Allan and I have been working on it streamlines managers licensing and expands online workplace training it regulates thirdparty meal delivery platform search algorithms it excludes service charges from sales for the purpose of calculating rent pursuant to a commercial tendency and narrowly defined service charges for the purpose of this new section and it also requires executive to conduct a public education campaign regarding the District of Columbia tip credit elimination Act of 2022 which is necessary given the complaints and confusion we have heard from consumers workers and restaurants about the tip credit I'm moving in ANS today to align the provisions regarding delivery platforms to the emergency and temporary bills passed earlier this Council period and to incorporate changes suggested by advocacy groups to the public education campaign regarding the tip credit so moves chairman we have the amendment nature of a substitute before us um I circulated two amendments last night uh they were recirculated today uh with joined by council member bonds and council member Pinto uh the First Amendment would uh establish a safe harbor in the law uh several restaurant or restaurant groups have recently been sued over the um over the service fee and our service charge uh even though they are are say that they are complying with guidance issued by the Attorney General uh we think that this situation is very unfair to those businesses uh that they're complying with guidance and yet they're then getting sued and so this is meant to uh help uh at the breakfast there was some discussion about trying to be a little bit more um informative with regard to the disclosure which the amendment I circulated has not yet uh accomplished and the Second Amendment would uh change the um implementation implementation dates for the phasing in of the phasing out of the tipped wage and phasing to a full minimum wage without there being two wages a minimum wage and Tipp wage I'm sure members understand what I mean by that um the initiative when it was adopted and I said at the time that I would not be supportive of any efforts to try to repeal that initiative um the initiative set that uh a gradual increasing of uh the tipped wage which is driving our restaurants crazy with regard to the year after year having to adjust their wage models and what this amendment does is it advances by two years the date uh and I so instead of the tipped wage going away in 2027 it would go away in 2025 with this amendment that actually means that for restaurant workers who've worked work for the next three years they would receive an additional $112,000 in additional base wages um the catches that as members know we talked about briefly there are some folks who think that this is actually a plot to uh delay the next step and then just repeal the initiative which I am very clear and on record and I don't know how many times I can say this I will not support and I am reasonably certain that members on the council would not support that uh nonetheless these were circulated last night I appreciate that council member pinto and bonds join me on this uh what I'm going to do is I'm going to hold off on these until second reading uh so that there's a little bit more comfort with the attorney general and his guidance and with the schedule and maybe we can find a way to what's uh with a hot Branding Iron brand that there will not be any um subterfuge with regard to the initiative uh so those amendments are withdrawn um Council M Lewis George you had an amendment you circulated do you still want to move those uh yes the floor is I only have one yeah uh thank you Mr chairman I I also circulate an amendment um I first want to thank my colleague Council McDuffy for his and his for his and his team's hard work and collaboration on the legislation um which will deliver important support to the restaurants that support our economy and communities um while I support the provisions of this this bill that correct in expensive insurance requirements for restaurant and bar owners um there is one issue that I have regarding uh the service fee language that I think hurts both restaurant workers and customers alike uh I think DC residents have spoken consistently and clearly they want livable wages for DC restaurant workers in DC um and they want transparent prices when they dine out in DC um while embracing those goal this bill uh provides uh unfortunately a financial incentive for restaurants to adopt service charges and to use those service charges to B to pay their workers base pay uh this is the wrong policy choice for multiple reasons first uh service charges are at best very controversial they can cause confusion and frustration among customers and are often not disclosed properly in fact it's so confusing that DC residents started a crowdsource Google sheet to keep track of which restaurants have service fees how they are advertised and what they are used for based on this data from more than 250 res restaurants one District resident even built a Google Chrome browser extension that generates a popup alert when you visit the website of a restaurant with the service fee uh it shouldn't be this difficult to go to a restaurant and and order a hamburger uh second servant charges service charges when appli correctly are supposed to um take place of tip but if we let restaurants use service charges to cover workers based wages then customers who are charged of service we will be less likely to tip and restaurant workers will make less in pay these service fees are also a way for restaurant owners to increase their profits while reducing wages for their workers we should be encouraging restaurants not to use service charges not providing a financial incentive for even and not providing a financial incentive for even more restaurants to use service charges um third the FTC is preparing to prohibit restaurant service charges through new rule it is drafting that bans junk fees uh we should not be doubling down on a service charge model that the Biden Administration is about to render illegal um and it's not just the Biden Administration the Office of the Attorney General also issued Guidance just last year to address conf confusing service fees when they may violate um The District's consumer protection procedures act and several dist DC restaurants who were sued by consumer Advocate groups over service fees immediately eliminated those fees the bill did not invent service charges but it provides a financial in incentive only available to restaurants who adopt service charges um and have a specific type of lease uh if I I know you have heard from restaurant owners saying that tips are not counted in rent calculations so for service V should either chairman I'm going to ask for additional minute uh can it be 30 seconds and without objection um I know yeah I know you have heard from restaurant owners saying that tips are not counted in calculations so service fee shouldn't either that makes sense and I agree when a service charge operates like a tip on top of base wages Brian on A Street North Northwest is a perfect example they have a 20% service charge that goes to workers on top of Base Pages P wages they deserve a break on their rent for that and my Amendment would give them one but when a service charge is not like a tip when it covers base expenses the restaurant shouldn't get the rent break if this amendment fails more restaurants will create service charges that simply cover base wages as you heard today from over a dozen tip workers that puts their tips and livelihoods at risks I know I also know you're concerned about server charges in general and you have a good reason to be concerned the tip workers who visit your offices have many horror stories to tell and the underlying bill will expand the number of restaurants using service charges that are bad for workers my Amendment will not contribute to the expansion of service charges and it starts a conversation about the right way to limit service charges so that customers and workers are protected the bottom line is these fees are not transparent and anyone who sees a service fee uh of 20% that that's a tip um if restaurant uses a service fee for base wages they are member you ask for an additional minute you're over your time oh I didn't see McDuffy did you want to respond I have four seconds left if I could chairman and I know there there some other folks who are interested uh in this measure and frankly and rightly so have concerns about uh service charges as do I I would ask my colleagues not to support this amendment uh it was my hope that council member Lewis George might uh withdraw her amendment in order to try to work through some of the challenges that get to the heart of what it sounds like her issue is with service fees I know other members uh similarly have concerns around those fees but this amendment the way it's presented today and the provision uh to which it would attach itself would entirely reverse the help that this provision will provide uh some District restaurants uh it takes money out of the pocket of our local restaurants and the employ employees and actually puts it into the hands of mostly large commercial landlords that aren't our constituents uh many if not most restaurant leases provide for rent to have a base rent plus a percentage of grow sales the lease nearly always allows the tenant to exclude certain things from their calculation of grow sales for example sales taxes tips amounts received for sale equipment and things like that with many leases having been signed before the passage of initial V two those leases are ambiguous about how service charges that go to employees are treated this would uh control where that ambiguity exists or it doesn't speak to what's supposed to happen under this bill the landlord and the potential tenant can still barain for whatever they like as it relates to how service charges are used in a rent calculation this only speaks to the presumption when the lease is silent on the matter it allows restaurants and landlords to avoid potentially costly litigation over the meaning of the lease it also prevents an unattended windfall to landlords from The increased labor costs associated with initiative 82 um and so my my ass given how much time we've put into this and and and how we arrived at this point it's been a give and take process as you all remember this bill looks a lot different than what it did uh as it was originally introduced um and it's it's really gained a lot of support and traction amongst Advocates amongst people in the industry restaurants workers and my colleagues so I would ask that you not support this amendment and that we give some thought between first and second reading as to how we better address the issue around service fees that I think are at the heart of what this amendment is trying to solve for uh further on the amendment council member Parker or council member Lewis George I appreciate uh your concern for workers and this idea that incentivizing more restaurants to adopt service fees at any amount uh will could ultimately hurt workers I do have a question and that is around enforcement so assuming your amendment is adopted how do you foresee the district enforcing or managing um that restaurants are not including base wages in their service fees and I would also say before you respond sorry um that I think what is also at the root of the problem here is that we ought to weigh in on uh capping service fees I know I've uh engaged with the Restaurant Association I've had conversations with council member McDuffy that is something I am looking to work with the committee on ahead of second read and I would invite you to join me on that because I think that could get at some of your concern around how do we not incentivize more workers or restaurants of adopting service fees at exorbitant amounts that ultimately hurt workers but I would love to hear your thoughts on how we enforce your Amendment yeah um my thoughts is the attorney general office is already doing enforcement around wage the um it's already talking about the issues around consumer protection and due Consumer Protection claims so uh from an enforcement oeg has issued guidance um and I think we need to listen to The Experts um on that piece so as a far as enforcement I would say o the Attorney General's office has the ability and has been doing so actively um through consumer protection claims as well as wage theft um in that regard um and I you know I'm I'm happy to work with you all on second reading in that regard I think my only large question here is um sort of how is the language regarding service fees not an incentive for restro workers to charge service fees and raise them as high as they can get away with and I guess what you're saying is you're looking at possibly capping that so that wouldn't be a possibility if I'm understanding what you're thinking about for Amendment um and so yes that that is what I'm interested in I am sympathetic to what you're getting at in your amendment I just keep coming to the question of how do we know how do we like who's overseeing this who's managing this I know you're speaking to the attorney general it's worth in my last 30 seconds also pointing to the fact that there are or were amendments uh seeking to adjust consumer prot protection laws for our restaurants I also think we should be skeptical of any uh efforts to uh shift dates whether it's backwards or forwards uh but you know um I appreciate your effort and for taking time to answer my question but I still am left with the how do we enforce this thank you council member I want to interject at this point uh I think there's some misunderstanding the amendment applies to a section in the bill the deal deals with leases and I'm hearing a lot of discussion about service charges and whether service charges are appropriate and whether service charges should be used for tips or for base operations or whatever that's just not what this section's about the section has to do with leases between the restaurant and the landlord council member alen chairman if I could no okay make the day it was going to make the day shorter but go ahead oh if you're GNA withdraw it are you withdrawing no she should withdraw it after I speak um I'm gonna say thank uh sorry Charles uh yeah chairman I'm I'm willing to withdraw my Amendment right now and work with council member Parker and council member McDuffy um to see if additional language can can fix this and so um I move so the amendment is withdrawn um thank you the um we have the amendment a substitute before us uh let me just say that if I'm sounding a little tight with the time I am a little tight with the time and I'm going to try not to get distracted and keep my and let my eyes wander away from the clock everyone needs to pay attention to the clock we got a long meeting a lot of amendments um if 10 people speak for three minutes on one Amendment that's 30 minutes just on one Amendment Al so I'm going to try to stick to the clock and uh with that we have the amendment nature of a substitute I think there was oh there is still further discussion council member Allen sounds like democracy I love it um thank you Mr chairman um I want to just speak in support of this amendment in in the nature of a substitute I want to thank my colleague councelor Lewis George uh even though she's already withdrawn it uh that she was going to come back and work on it for a second reading um I felt like you were maybe reading from my notes when you when you spoke Mr chairman um but I want to Note One Thing uh that I want want to thank Mr McDuffy for that's in this ANS in particular is uh as we included a lot of elements of several bills one of which I had authored uh one of those is around the the Outreach and education campaign and one of the things that we heard from uh a lot of our workers was to ensure that that was going to include workers as part of that component U I know Mr McDuffy you added that in and we talked about that before so I just wanted to note uh my appreciation for making sure that that language uh was changed up a little bit uh to be included there so uh with that I definitely encourage my colleagues to support this ANS and it sounds like there'll be more collaborative conversations moving towards a second and final reading as well thank you thank you council member council member fuman thank you very much chairman mson and I very much want to thank uh council member McDuffy for coming forward with this bill one of the pieces that's uh very important is the changes around liability um and bringing the trial lawyers and the Restaurant Association together around a shared U approach is really something to be lauded on this service charge issue I hear you chairman Mendelson that this is about a very narrow piece of the the whole calculation and it's just about the rent but what it is is a blessing of using service charges both for base costs and for tips and that creates a lot of Confusion And I think you need to I was going to support council member Lewis George's Amendment because it would be clear the service charge is just about tips but the key thing is whatever it is it needs to be clear to the consumers what their service charges for we hear that from the FTC we hear it from the guidance from The Office of the Attorney General so I'm going to support this ANS but I really think it's important that on all of these pieces between this first reading and the second reading we come to an approach that provides for clarity not just it could be this it could be that but clarity about what it's for and to what extent it's for certain things we can do it it's not that complicated it's not that hard to enforce restaurants keep their books they will know exactly how much they had gotten from service charges they will know how they spent that money we can th this is not like rocket science this can be achieved we can get to Clarity and if we don't get to Clarity then I don't think you should kid yourself about lawsuits going away because without Clarity That's the basis for lawsuits and they'll happen so let's get to Clarity for everyone's sake between the first and the second reading thank you council member council member Pinto thank you Mr chairman and thank you so much councelor McDuffy to you and your team for advancing this bill our restaurant and nightlife Industries is a critical piece of the district's economy with over 2,000 restaurants and 45 Performing Arts venues employing tens of thousands of employees and serving millions of residents and visitors every year in the district our restaurants reflect the diversity and creativity of our residents they're a key part of what makes the district such a vibrant culturally Rich place that attracts residents and tourists from around the world we all know that the pandemic was especially devastating for so many of our local and beloved restaurants and as they continue to rebound we must consider how to ensure the district supports our existing restaurants and provides a competitive environment for new restaurants to locate here liquor liability insurance in the district is prohibitively expensive leaving many businesses to go without coverage without coverage businesses are vulnerable and potential victims may be left without limit with limited Financial recourse when they have injuries stemming from violation of our liquor license laws I introduced the dram shop clarification Amendment act to clar verify and tailor liability so that we can reduce insurance premium costs and increase uptake of coverage by our local businesses the bill will bring us more in line with other states dram shop laws while ensuring that potential victims have substantive recourse when violation of the law does occur this bill also advances several other Provisions from bills introduced by our colleagues council member McDuffy and council member Allen that will clarify laws around Food Service delivery platforms and clarify treatment of service fees specifically for the purpose of determining lease payment rates and educate the public on the phase out of the tipped minimum wage it will also improve protections for Food Service delivery workers and stud additional support that may be needed for these workers also want to thank council member Henderson for introducing the dram shop bill with me and her continued partnership this bill will provide meaningful relief for our restaurant and nightlife industry while protecting our workers and residents and I look forward to supporting this bill today and urge my colleagues to do the same thank you councilman rinto if there's no further discussion the vter is on the amendment nature with substitute and then on the bill as amended on the amendment nature of a substitute all those in favor say I I are there any opposed I do not hear any no votes the ANS the amendment nature of a substitute is approved we have the bill as amended Is there further discussion uh we'll have a a roll call vote on the bill as amended council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member tryan white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allan yes council member Allen votes yes council member Bond yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George yes council member L George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes council member noo yes council member noo votes yes and council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes Mr chairman there are 13 yeses uh thank you Madam Secretary the bill is approved as amended first reading uh we'll turn to Bill 25345 secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024 council member Pinto thank you very much Mr chairman today I am moving secur DC Omnibus and I'm moving this bill along with an amendment in the nature of a substitute in 2023 we saw a devastating 39% increase in violent crime and 26% increase in crime overall in the district 274 people lost their lives to homicide residents are in fear of carjacking thefts and falling victim to Crime across our city this is unacceptable today by approving my secure DC Omnibus the council has the opportunity to take decisive and comprehensive action to make the district safer and more secure our residents deserve to feel and be safe in all of our communities every day I along with my colleagues hear resounding calls from residents government partners and Advocates to urgently address this crisis in an urgent comprehensive and sustainable manner secur DC includes over 100 targeted interventions to answer these calls and fill critical gaps in our Public Safety ecosystem to prevent crime and end cycles of violence to increase accountability when crime does does occur and to enhance government coordination and oversight throughout last year I heard from and met with literally thousands of residents and Advocates through over a dozen public hearings on each of the bills included in today's Omnibus Community meetings and forums Public Safety walks in all eight Wards and dozens and dozens of meetings these discussions all informed the legislative process and affirmed that secure DC will help turn the tide on the crime trends that have overwhelmed our communities I also worked closely with each and every one of my colleagues thank you all to make technical clarifying and Subs substantive revisions to the legislation to ensure the efficacy and implementation of secure DC will make the greatest and most sustainable impact on the livelihood of District residents I deeply appreciate the input and Partnership of Mayor Bowser as well um including MPD or usao the courts PDS and many of our district agencies in ensuring that these ideas are responsive and are implementable many residents and Advocates have offered passionate and well-reasoned arguments in favor of our city doing much more to address the root causes of crime I strongly agree that addressing the root causes of crime is critical in reducing violence this bill addresses what the committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety has oversight over and I look forward to continued partnership to address additional needs with the chairs of other committees and all of our colleagues with that said the robust public engagement process the committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety convened throughout the last year makes me confident that secure DC will make District residents safer and more secure a number of Provisions Mr chairman may I have some more time one minute well he is the Mover of the bill 90 seconds I need to uh speak about some of the ANS components so two minutes without objection thank you Mr chairman a number of Provisions focus on preventing crime including providing grants to non-governmental organizations investing re-entry for and training for our returning citizens other Provisions focus on greater enforcement and accountability without Swift and certain consequences we will continue to see the lack of sense of accountability that has contributed to the current circumstances in the district these proposals focus on deterring the small number number of individuals who are repeatedly engaging in violent crime and temporarily and securely holding the most dangerous individuals to prevent more harm from our communities I also want to note that along with the many residents and Advocates who engage with the committee I remain concerned about the impacts of incarceration on the most affected communities and I'm concerned that black and brown residents are disproportionately represented in our incarcerated population I'm also concerned about the disproportionate impacts of crime on black and brown residents and on neighborhoods that are lowincome and underserved I believe that greater enforcement and accountability along with greater prevention and coordination efforts are necessary to make the district safer and more secure with all of our residents so let me move on to the ANS briefly today I'm moving an amendment in the nature of a substitute which will make several changes to the bill I'm not going to go through all of them but just to highlight a number of them on policing the ANS returns to allowing employer requests for unsustained allegations to officer misconduct on DNA the ANS moves analysis of DNA to after charging or a probable cause finding on drug free zones we made a number of changes around the notice requirements um and Reporting structures as well as additional changes to other Provisions in the bill uh with that I move the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024 um and thank you again to all of my colleagues and to my entire team for the humongous effort um and involvement and engagement in this Bill thank you council member Pinto so we have the amendment nature of a substitute before us we have a number of amendments that have been circulated uh and um we we're going to turn to the Amendments which would be amendments to the amendment nature of a substitute once we're done with all the Amendments we will then vote on the amendment nature of a substitute um so I'm going to call on council member no first thank you chairman in our pursuit of Public Safety it's imperative that we adopt a balanced approach one that comprehensively addresses the intricate challenges inherent in law enforcement Endeavors among these challenges lie The crucial task of closing cases particularly homicide cases which demand our utmost attention in November I introduced the case closure and witness support Amendment Act of 2023 a more robust version of an amendment the amendment I'm offering today today's amendment is aimed at giving MPD the tools it needs to close more homicide cases successfully the core of this amendment involves a significant increase in the reward for Witnesses in homicide cases ensuring they receive at least $50,000 right now the most they're paid is $25,000 this adjustment is crucial because law enforcement and prosecutors often encounter challenges in building cases due to the reluctance of witnesses to come forward with a DC homicide closure rate only 45% we need to encourage more witnesses to come forward nationally the average clearance rate tends to hover between 50 and 60% a low rate of solving cases especially homicides can make police feel demoralized and make people in the Community Trust the police less this loss of trust can make it harder for police to work with public to solve crimes The increased reward not only encourages them to share crucial information but also provides the means to safeguard themselves whether it be relocating to a safer rep place or taking other necessary precautions some of the co my colleagues have asked me does this even work among several studies the Bureau of Justice at doj published a multi-year study in 2018 which found the successful homicide units use a reward system and these systems must be appropriately funded in order for people to come forward the study found that many successful homicide units who have Incorporated such systems have witnessed a positive impact on their efforts to solve for the cases my Amendment also calls for a study on the extent and effectiveness of the district's programs and policies for witness protection and assistance while there are already witness protection and support programs in the district coordinated by the US attorney's office there's no law whatsoever that establishes the program or its goals and responsibilities and as a result we have no way of knowing whether this critical Public Safety need is adequately resourced the amendment includes a provision which allows the cjcc to prioritize the Safety and Security of those individuals by restricting the sharing of information in the study that could put any one at risk confidentiality is a top priority and the study doesn't focus on individual cases but examines broader outcomes to understand the effectiveness of witness protection programs more comprehensively money alone is not the solution of course but through the bolstering of witness cooperation and through evaluation of witness protection programs we can Propel forward Public Safety initiatives and cultivate heightened trust in our justice system I am actually um interested in working together with council member pinto and members of the council to get this amendment in a place um that everyone feels comfortable with and so I intend to do that work between first and second reading so today I will withdraw this amendment thank you thank you council member so the amendment is withdrawn I'm GNA turn to council member Henderson next do you have an amendment um yes Mr chairman sorry I didn't think I was next um thank you uh I'm moving an amendment today that was circulated earlier and then um including the legal sufficiency and the fist um to address some concerns about the potential consequences of halfhazard enforcement of the anti-mass provisions that were included this amendment strikes um the language that causing a person to fear for their personal safety as coupable intent of a person wearing a mask or face covering um so if you think about it if I'm outliving my life in public and I'm wearing a mask and I walk past a person who for some reason fears me um I could be arrested under those Provisions even if that was not the intent um I have done nothing nefarious or anything threatening but how could I prove that that wasn't my intent to cause you fear what's the standard um so I think logically that um uh paragraph four which includes intimidation threatening abuse or harass another person as culpable intent clearly captures specific behaviors that would actually cause someone to fear for their personal safety and so I hope that this amendment can be accepted as a common sense clarification for our intent here uh council member Pinto thank you Mr chairman thank you so much council member Henderson um for for this amendment um I want to make sure it is very clear to all those in the public that wearing a mask wearing any sort of facial covering for whatever purpose on its own is absolutely not prohibited never was prohibited never was the intention of security C never was the intention of any ANS or in the language um so that has always been consistent um and is really important that everybody in the public is aware of that I do think what council member Henderson is introducing clarifies around the intention for causing fear um and I will accept this amendment as friendly um it could be accepted without objection so if there's no objection the amendment will be accepted hearing no objection the amendment is accepted accepted um councilor McDuffy you had an amendment although um give me just a moment councilor McDuffy thank you uh chairman and um I will reiterate my thanks to council member pentor her te for all the hard work that went into this bill um you know even in instances where members don't agree on every single aspect I think it's important to recognize how much work goes into this process uh and I think it's fitting that we do that now I do have an amendment it was circulated in my amendment to this ANS would eliminate the expansion of DNA collection and restor to current law uh under the ANS law enforcement would be allowed to collect DNA samples from individuals upon arrests currently over half of arrestes are never charged with a crime by the United States attorney's office for the District of Columbia therefore such collections subjects thousands of individuals to intrusive and unnecessary collections of their private biomedical material and the expungement provisions of the ANS will not adequately protect arrestes because once their DNA has been entered into cotus other jurisdictions will have access to their data proponents have said that over 30 States collect DNA at arrest that's not quite the full story very few States collect DNA at arrest for all felony and other crimes as this bill proposes this provision puts us in a company of amongst states that do it Louisiana Alabama and South Carolina in 2009 when the Committee on Public Safety and J last considered changes to expand DNA collection the committee report said and I'm quoting here expanding the government's net of DNA collection may lead to low stringency or familiar searching of DNA data banks the committee believes that privacy rights of the innocent should be preserved and I think that BS repeating the Privacy rights of the innocent should be preserved and let us not forget we are all innocent until proven guilty so members of the audience please refrain from Applause nothing has fundamentally changed in the 15 years since that conclusion is written crime has gone up and crime has gone down in the time uh since that's been considered finally just this past week a law suit alleged that hackers hacked the DNA database of 23 and me to specifically Target people people of certain Heritage The Wall Street Journal wrote extensively about the company's uncertain future despite its stockpile of 10 million DNA samples we should be uneasy about collecting and storing DNA without probable cause because once it is collected it'll be used in ways that we do not Envision or necessarily intend but we are asking uh but we are being asked to effectively sanction those future uses today so I I I appreciate the opportunity to move this amendment um and I would like request um actually you know what I move the amendment thank you Council McDuffy council member Pinto thank you Mr chairman um thank you very much Council McDuffy for moving this amendment and raising the concerns um that you have raised I think as we seek to prevent crime from happening it is very important that we think about about the tools that we have before US 31 States collect DNA evidence in this way I know you listed some Republican states so does Maryland um so does Colorado so I I don't think listing other states that that do these this testing um is necessarily persuasive um there are a number of examples where somebody was arrested um for an offense was not ultim convicted for an offense years later was arrested charged with another offense was not convicted for that offense and then in the third instance was arrested charged and convicted and turned out they had committed all three of the offenses because we didn't have their DNA until the third time that would have prevented crime and as we think about the balance that is important to all of us as we move forward we cannot forget the balance of victims rights victims are being harmed greatly and we can prevent crimes much more effectively if we have access to this information this is not a novel concept this is done by over half of the states in the United States um there was a study in Denmark um that had a similar DNA database they found DNA registration reduces recidivism within the following year up to 40 2% and increases the probability that offenders are identified if they re if they recidivate the bottom line is expanding government DNA databases to add more criminal offenders is a big deterrent effect which reduces the number of crimes that will be committed um there's also a practicality concern here of making sure there's a practicality concern here of ensuring that the swabs can be taken at arrest um when we have access to somebody who is being arrest for booking for their fingerprinting and to take this swap um I think this is a really important provision to move forward I ask colleagues not to support this amendment today uh I'm gonna ask we can uh clear the chamber which I really don't want to do but this is this is not a public meeting I'm sorry but this is a meeting of the council that's open to the public and it's unfair to the speaker in this case council member Pinto that there's all this noise in the chamber it's just not fair so again I ask that there be deorum council member Pinto were you done with your statement I do want to note I didn't uh complete this list but there far more than three states that uh take DNA at booking for all felonies and in alphabetical order but I didn't finish the list here it's Alabama Arizona Arkansas Colorado Florida Indiana Kansas Louisiana Maryland Michigan Missouri Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Texas uh Utah so that's many more than three states uh does anybody else want to speak on this uh Amendment that's not uh council member Lewis council member L George did you want to speak yes I want yes I wanted to speak in support of councilor mcduffy's Amendment um uh he has made most of the arguments I think these changes are necessary not only to protect privacy and due process rights um which he has already noted but also to ensure that our forensic resources are focused on helping us solve the crimes in which DNA evidence is most useful uh the district does not possess unlimited resources to process DNA samples the interm director for DFS testified at the agency performance ey hearing just last week week that it currently takes an average of 69 days to process sexual assault kits which is already nine days longer than the 60-day period required by the law we had more than 1,700 charged felonies last year five years ago we had more than 4,000 charged felonies if DFS were to process DNA for all charge felonies there would be a massive increase to its existing backlog and it would take even longer to process the DNA evidence we are already collecting the district's limited resources to analyze DNA samples should be targeted to the cases in which DNA DNA evidence is most likely to be valuable uh which are our sexual assault cases in these cases DNA sample collection should be required and not optional um I think it's important uh that as we do this work for all the reasons that Council duy already reiterated um that it is important for us as we move forward to understand uh the shest way to protect our constitutional privacy and due process rights will be continue will be to continue requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before collecting the person DNA if they have not yet been convicted of a crime um and so I uh just joined my colleague uh council member McDuffy not only for uh the Practical reasons um but also uh the real constitutional privacy and due process concerns thank you oh thank you further on the amendment council member Allen thank you Mr chairman um I'm supporting this amendment um and I appreciate my colleagues comments on it um to kind of pick up where councilor Lewis George was we're currently Department of fic Sciences has a close to 1,200 case backlog of uploading DNA into our codus system um so the sheer magnitude of what it would take I don't think would deliver the promises that this amendment perhaps or the the underlying language is is perhaps promoting um what I think could make a difference is helping preserve the rape kits that we have already stored at the Washington Hospital Center that are tossed out after two years um that type of work can help make sure that that DNA evidence can be preserved and be able to be used for future prosecutions of someone who commits sexual violence um but I I think that this amendment is both um the right thing to do from just a practical standpoint of what our department of forensic Sciences as it tries to regain its footing and get its accreditation back can do um in addition to I think kind of our underlying philosophical arguments that have been laid out about why it is that we don't take DNA at the point of arrest um and instead at the point of conviction thank you Mr chairman uh thank you council member Allen uh if there's nothing further council member Pinto second round thank you um so a couple things first no analysis will be done under how we have it in Secure DC until after a probable cause hearing the swab in is just a practical necessity to happen at booking um and the analysis the analysis of the DNA sample doesn't happen until after the probable cause hearing um second to council Allen's concerns about DFS um DFS was just approved to upload to codus and so we're expecting that the backlog will be significantly reduced um and they're hiring more staff to do this as well um to have additional Machinery to make it move forward with that said I sense some consternation among colleagues I want folks to have a chance to have their answers their questions answered about this to work together um I would ask you councelor McDuffy to withdraw this amendment and we can work together between first and second reading on um components of both the category of cases um and as we discussed at the breakfast our around probable cause hearings versus probable cause determinations um but I think that this is very very important um and as we think again about our tools to prevent crime and be responsive to what we're seeing which also is Progressive crimes happening we need to be able to prove crimes um earlier so that the more serious crimes don't happen later I think this is really important um so I ask you to withdraw this amendment so we can work together between first and second reading and see if we can come to a compromise I appreciate that c Mendo I do sinc B I think we should we should allow this vote to take place on this matter right now um as you as you know well aware and we've had a number of conversations and I perhaps didn't credit you enough you know both you and I but also our teams have have talked extensively and there are some things that you have accepted in your ANS uh in terms of modifications that I suggested and so I I appreciate that but for this purpose for this amendment I I would like us to I go to a vote I would ask the chairman for a roll call uh if there's nothing further uh Madame secretary will you call the role the vote is on the amendment that counc M McDuffy circulated with Council leis George council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member trayon white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman no council member fuman votes no council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson no council member Henderson votes no council member Lewis George yes council member Lewis George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson no chairman Mendelson votes no council member nadoo yes council member nadoo votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pino no council member Pinto votes no Mr chairman there are nine yeses and four NOS again I appreciate the passion these are important matters but we really need uh order in the chamber uh the amendment is approved the next um give me just a second here um Council Bond you were next thank you very much um chairman um today I had um several um amendments that I wanted to present to the body as it relates to the secure DC um Bill and all but all the four one I want to uh move forward with and that is the uh bill that will speak to adding in I think it's number sorry my P ERS are little confused here par copy here it is the amendment number number two and this amendment seeks to expand the crimes covered in this section by including crimes of ceron and unlawful entry these crimes are among those most often committed against seniors and adults of declining capacity it's important to ensure that these crimes are included in any penalty enhancement that concerns our senior citizens as people reach Advanced age individuals with bad intentions may attempt to gain access and use of their property by designating these three crimes as those that are covered by this provision we will provide greater protection to our senior community um Mr chairman I have to ask to do an oral amendment to strike the inclusion of trespassing as trespassing in itself is a nonviolent misdemeanor and it's in the original um amendment that I was attempting to move today and with that I'm asking for my um colleague support um asking that that um colleague uh Pento accept this as a friendly Amendment Council morban so you're moving your amendment number two and you're striking from it the word trespassing correct uh we have the amendment before us council member pintto thank you Mr chairman thank you so much Council bonds I share your passion and desire to protect our seniors um unfortunately I don't I can't accept this amendment as friendly today and don't think we should move forward on it um for a number of reasons first secure DC adds penalty enhancements when a senior is a victim of a crime of violence um this went through a public hearing process we worked with lots of stakeholders to make sure that it was balanced throughout the code and I worry about tacking on penalty enhancements um at this hour without that full public process and without an understanding of how it's going to affect everything else in the criminal code and so while I remain committed to working with you on protecting our seniors in a number of ways um I I can't support penalty enhancements that we haven't been thorough and thoughtful about all of their consequences um and so unfortunately I I can't support this amendment today uh I'm going to join with councilman rinto on this um and the reason I'm speaking up is because uh and I appreciate council member bonds that you struck trespassing but coercion is also not an offense that's recognized in our criminal code so to add coercion is essentially meaningless and then unlawful entry is in our criminal code but my understanding is it's a misdemeanor and the chances of there ever being a sentencing enhancement on a misdemeanor is Slim um now it may be that there's some way that you can get to what you want coun Bond between now and second reading but I think this amendment before us um is problematic simply because coercion is not recognized in unlawful entry is a misdemeanor is there any further on this amendment oh Mr chairman council member Robert White thank you Mr chair I just I want to U understand this amendment um council member bonso is this amendment to increase penalties for various crimes against seniors or is it to address an issue of People squatting in the homes of seniors and them not being able to feeling like they can't do anything uh about him being prisoners in in their homes to um council member um white um as we dis as we have discussed it really is to address both situations one of the conditions in our community today is that seniors are easy prey and as a result um it was very strong feeling in talking with many of the senior groups that there needs to be more done to protect them and the idea of trying to put additional Protections in this current Omnibus Bill is why we have included this language today uh coercion May in fact not be in our criminal code maybe that speaks to why our criminal code needs to be updated but it is certainly a situation that people are constantly faced with particularly when we talk about their property there are situations where individuals have been helpful to a senior and then they don't know how to leave after they drop the bag of groceries they continue to be there and there have been incidents where seniors have been forced to just sort of leave the situation as it is and have to put up with even drug trafficking from their home and so I'm trying to address that and perhaps you know the language may not be as exact or precise as we are trying to make it today but I'm here to say for the senior community that something has to be done and we have to give respect to this process and if this is the law that we are examining today I am saying why not include senior concerns in the law so that's where I'm coming from so thank you and thank you chairman thank you council member fuman um thank you very much and council member bonds thank you for all of your work on behalf of seniors um I do share some of the concerns that have been expressed about what what does this actually mean as implemented as I read the language it's not limited to seniors it happens to be a set of crimes to which seniors more typically fall prey but it it applies to everyone and crimes of violence as I recall we made changes about presumptions of pre-trial detention in the setting of crimes of violence and so this this is I think broader your goal of protecting seniors I share this is broader than that taking a whole new category of offenses putting it into a world of enhanced penalties presumptions of pre-trial detention I would want to think about that more than I've had the opportunity to do today so um I think this is a thing we could look at ways to enhance protections for seniors but I'm not sure this does it today and so I I won't be supporting the amendment Mr chairman no uh no I recognize respond to him no let me call other members and then I'll recognize you council member Alan thank you Miss Bond I'm gonna ask a question so that'll give you a chance to to respond um I I appreciate the intent here what I was gonna do is kind of make sure I understand the intent behind it um so I know in w six for example I've had to work with constituents where a senior um is for all intense purposes feels trapped in their home and uh fears for their safety or uh whatever the family Dynamics are at play or other household members at play that vulnerable senior is feeling threatened and unsafe if I understand and I think I am the intent behind what you're trying to do here is to try to create new tools to help be able to remedy that situation be able to help make sure that senior is safe I think that's what I'm hearing I and I do think I hear a little bit of trepidation just about exactly how to uh get the phrasing exactly quite right and I know since we have second reading coming up uh perhaps this is an area where we can keep working on for second reading but if I understand the intent correct I understand it um and I think a lot of folks share a goal of trying to help protect that vulnerable senior so I'll give you my a little bit of my time if you want to help talk a little bit more about the intent behind it and then whether maybe uh there's some work to be done for second reading as well if that'll help allay some of the concerns from folks um thank you um council member um Allan you are um right on the the dial the intent is to utilize as I said at the beginning to utilize this Omnibus legislation to really put in place a tool that will begin to address this issue um and so I am very willing to to pull it today um but I am insisting and I think the community is insisting that we have something in place to handle what happens in our senior community and so I will not stop on that point I will press on and I'm willing to work with the chairman obviously and with um uh council member uh Pento to make it right for the second reading and so that's where I'll I'll land so I will withdraw it but I wanted it to be aired today so people understand that this is in fact a real issue we give very little attention to it we know it happens in neighborhood after neighborhood and so I'm not going to let go of the issue one way or the other so thank you so are you withdrawing this today yes all right uh do you have anything further coun vs uh then um chairman next would be council member Lewis George J Mr council member Lewis George are you ready you uh I'm ready thank you you circulated three amendments that are linked on the agenda correct OB uh Amendment one um I will like to withdraw this amendment I um as it is now mute given the amendment council member McDuffy and I were able to move and pass so on to Amendment two um M chair chairman at this time um I would like to uh move Amendment two that I circulated um colleagues you know our residents are scared frankly so are we we are charged with passing laws that are supposed to keep them safe and right now uh most people don't feel safe uh we are here today to try to pass a bill that is supposed to put us on a better path um my amendment to Simply Implement a record sealing law faster does nothing to endanger our res residents or our families in fact um it creates a much better path for residents who desperately need our help uh two years ago the council passed the second chance act a compromise bill that expands four type expands the types of criminal records that are eligible for sealing or expungement that's already the law all my Amendment does is allow the district government to implement the bill in the next fiscal year rather than waiting until 2027 that's it record sealing is a crucial component of Public Safety but DC has one of the most complex and restrictive record relief laws in the country this impacts people's ability to access opportunities to secure jobs to find housing and to rehabilitate back into our communities long after they have served their sentence one in seven adults in DC has a publicly available criminal record and only half of those record include an actual conviction this amendment will not change the content of the second chance act in any way but it will bring much needed relief to DC res residents on a faster timeline people would be able to file motions with the court to clean up their record starting October one of this year as opposed to three years from now in 2027 the process for sealing Rec records by motion is already in place and neither the court nor MPD would have to change the way that they handle the motions and subsequent ceilings the automatic parts of the law requiring the court and agencies to create automatic record sealing and sponging process will require time and funding to prepare to implement so the parts of the law would that those parts of the law would not go into effect until fiscal year 2028 the secure DC legislation leans heavily on policing and prosecution and on punishment to address crime in DC those are all things that we have that we must address but if we truly want to address Public Safety comprehensively let's act with the same urgency to open doors of opportunities for people who serve their time and want to do right by our community earlier today we voted to confirm a returning citizen Mr Casten to a position of leadership in our city I'm confident Mr Casten other and others like him have many many things to offer our community allowing people the chance to seal their records will help us create more leaders like him we call DC a city of Second Chances but thousands of DC residents who truly need a second chance aren't getting it right now for thousands of DC residents whose access to jobs and housing are defined by their past offenses we can help change that today I ask my colleagues to support this amendment thank you thank you council member Lewis George council member Pinto um thank you so much Council Louis George so I uh support record ceiling and I think that there have been a lot of great steps that this Council has taken in previous years to change the law around both record sealing and expungement um I'm worried about something that you said that I've heard from a couple of our colleagues which is that we're moving this big Omnibus today so so kind of why not this additional piece there are a lot of great important ideas for Public Safety that are important this bill is not not a um tack on of of everything contemplated this is a bill that we every piece had a hearing that we went through a very deliberative process um there are questions that I have that I ask for every single provision of this bill for example what is the cost how is it going to be implemented are the courts Do the courts have the capacity to implement this in an earlier year than initially expected have we resolved the concerns about automatic expungement versus record cealing and applications do we have the right breakdown of which crimes are eligible for which um and so I think that what I would prefer to do is work with you between now and the budget and see if this is something that we can Fund in the budget if it's just an applicability date issue as opposed to include it in a different piece of legislation that did not address and and touch these issues um as you know we have significant vacancies in our courts right now um and we we don't have information about the fist we have we we heard back from the fist that there was insufficient time to determine if moving up the time frame will pres present additional cost to MPD every single decision we made in Secure DC had very consequential impacts on the fist um and it's a it's a balancing act and so I ask that we continue working on this important provision that I agree with that I support um but this is not the place to do it further on Amendment chairman council member TR M um yes I want to thank you uh council member leis George for this I think that um uh this is the time I think there are a lot of Provisions in this bill that's Heavenly um law enforcement um and it has to strike a well Bolan approach and you I've introduced a bill bill 24 25- 655 similar to this and we as legislators uh would like to uh create a balance when we present stuff to the public and so today I'm going to be supporting this measure um because uh there are Provisions in to build to hands penalties that uh you know Target people um that's some good some bad um but this gives a balance to if we're talking about secure DC like you said those individuals come home deserve a chance to have whole lives and so uh the bill I introduced it haven't got mocked up yet we're hoping to get that council member Pinto uh was eight organizations 152 people and which we had four Zoom meetings about that and I think it's time for the council to look back at those codes and get them up to date because people are coming home and want a chance to get a job want a chance to get equity and housing uh and they they're simply uh facing too many barriers to be returned to Citizens after they've already uh done their time in the prison system so I look forward to supporting this today thank you uh council member uh fruman thank you very much chairman medon I'm trying to understand the practicalities here because there is no Fist and so if we pass this and the mayor doesn't fund it then that's then we need to revisit it in the budget in any case and could shape it in the budget I would think if we were doing it so there is if it was a thing that the administ ation embraced then we could achieve it and if it was a thing that the administration didn't Embrace we could be back in that place where you're working on it in the budget process am I understanding it correctly I think that's fair but I would say that it's important that the administration embraced this package so that we can get it funded and implemented we have to be strategic and realistic about what is actually going to be funded and implement imped and I think not thinking about it in those terms is going to set our goals backwards as a council um because there are other ways we can accomplish those goals and tacking things on to a bill that didn't contemplate those issues um is not the appropriate way to do it otherwise we could do that with dozens of other topics here but in the meantime if this does not pass you are making a pledge that you would work together to try to figure out how to do it in the budget yes I support record ceiling I think that the budget is the appropriate place to work on it and I ask my colleagues not to oppose the idea of this but to trust my judgment on this in accomplishing what we're actually trying to accomplish with secure DC um in working so closely with all of these provisions and the very complicated Matrix of making sure that our implementing partners are actually going to do what we want them to do thank you very much thank you council member fuman further on the amendment council member Lewis George does that mean you want to be recognized again second round correct just quickly I just want to say I think this is what we're accomplishing trying to accomplish I thought I think and I think when we hear remarks people are going to say along the same lines we're trying to make our city safer um people who can't get a job are more likely to look for other ways to make money not all of them will be legal people who can't get housing are unsafe on the streets um and so in this same legislation we are uh especially around pre-trial going to be you know putting incarcerating more people for more different crimes um so we're going to be increasing the amount of returning CI citizens we have and so I think as we talk about striking a balance here and about the overall goal of this legislation which is for us to have a safer City we're doing that uh this is already law it's deemed funded so we move up a date it becomes applicable you know in in in in our position um and so and with every legislation including this one we'll have to find you know we'll go through the budget process but I think if we're talking about what secure DC is and sort of all of the things people are saying we want to do and balance it out uh this is a direct way to do that um and this bill went through the full legislative process over several Council periods um and uh is is and I think we should move forward on it so I ask my colleague support and I would ask for a call V if there's no F oh there is further com from Robert White uh thank you chairman I I'll keep it brief at this point I just I just want to remind us that this is uh post sentencing post people having uh served their their time this is about helping people reintegrate which I think ultimately makes us safer and so there there will be things we have to take up in the budget to make sure this becomes real to the concern of of of members and I think it's a it's a legitimate concern passing the bill doesn't make it real uh the being able to process these does um and when we think about what makes us safer as a city people being able to to work to apply for housing those are the things that are going to help us stabilize uh so so I think this is a good provision uh I think it it speaks to exactly what we're trying to do here make the city uh safer but uh to to some of the concerns raised earlier I I do think they are right we have to make sure this becomes a focus in the budget as well thank you chairman uh thank you council member C this would be second round for you if there's no one else council member Pinto I'm gonna say something that's going to not have a great reaction by my colleagues last year when we tried to reform the criminal code we were reminded that we are not in the legislating business alone because we are not a state so I need everybody to remember that we have some friends and opponents a couple blocks away who are very interested in getting involved in District affairs and so it is not a theory or a out there concern when I say that there is strategy behind every provision in here to protect District interests not just for this bill to protect home rule okay we have very very real threats when it comes to home rule and people wanting to take away our local government so it's not just up to us with all of the policy preferences that we want to make this is this is what I'm talking about when I say it's a complicated Matrix that we're dealing with and I worry deeply about us being shortsighted and thinking that it is just the 13 of us and making these decisions when the reality is a lot is at risk for all of our district residents so um you know I'm going to ask again for order in the chamber let me be clear I think there's without exception everyone in this room is concerned about public safety and Justice and Justice Means fairness and equality and that the system treats everyone correctly there still are differences of opinion on how to approach that but really we should be respectful that the intent is the same even if one disagrees with the particular substance let's just be respectful of that please it's a bit hard for us to have our discussion when there's a lot of I'll put it nicely noise in the chamber council member Robert White uh thank you chairman uh we won't up here always agree on on every issue and every approach uh but I do want us to be grounded in reality council member Pento is correct uh Congress intervened in our uh Public Safety legislation and overturned it um and they will do it again this issue with Congress is getting worse and and not better we do have to be strategic because not being strategic puts us on the opposite end of where we hope to be I I come out differently on this issue than uh than you council member Pinto but I think that that underlying notion that we have to be strategic and remember that Congress is looking uh for an opportunity to jump in and reverse all of our laws is is real um I hope that the mayor stands with us this time uh because that that hurt us in this uh Congressional issue but uh but we do have to be strategic and I think all of us who want to see progress in this city uh we have to remember that because we got to play the long game if we don't do that uh it's going to hurt our folks thank you chairman uh thank you and um I'll take a little prerogative here so the house committee on oversight uh and accountability is meeting today I think the vote is this afternoon to overturn part of our police accountability bill from last year uh all of the members uh 12 of the members signed a letter yesterday urging them not to uh on the basis that um this has to do with Provisions that uh allow uh bad cops to remain on the force um give me just a second did you call them dirty cops Congressman Rasin referred to them as dirty cops and arguing against the uh Bill uh the vot is this afternoon but it does reinforce what you just said council member white uh that uh there is we have to be mindful of what's going on with the hill as well was there anyone else who wanted to speak on this council member fuman thank you very much chairman M your second round um I just do want to say Ian that I we started in this morning in the breakfast and to and here in the hearing I think all of us have gone out of our way to say to to acknowledge the remarkable work that you have done chairman chairperson pinto and there's you pulled together an enormous amount of material there's lots of things there are things in the ultimate product that folks in this room deeply oppose but there's also a lot of things that were in some of those other bills that folks in this room would be really glad that they're gone and so this is a very tricky terrain that you have navigated I think masterfully and so I you know where I am is when you say this is my judgment about the way to do it I think you're way closer to it than I and all the different pieces that have been moving around and so I I am prepared to defer to your judgment on this and I think even as folks disagree I hope we all share that admiration for the work that you've done so thank you is there uh any further on this we have this amendment before us yes chairman I'm asking for a roll call then uh this is um this is um Lewis George's amendment number two Madam Secretary would you call the role councilor M Tran white yes council member trayon white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman no council member freman votes no council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member LS George yes council member LS George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson no chairman Mendelson votes no council member nadoo yes council member noo votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto no council member Pinto votes no council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes Mr chairman there are 10 yeses and three NOS uh the amendment is approved further council member Lewis George thank you chairman at this time I would like to move Amendment Three that I circulated this amendment would maintain the thresh threshold for first-degree theft that is currently in the law at $1,000 it would also make $1,000 a threshold for the cumulative value of multiple deaths within the six months uh I want to note that even during my uh January 18th War for strategic safety meeting Chief Smith stated that MPD had requested that the cumulative threshold for theft be set to 1,000 uh so this amendment is actually in line with mpd's requests uh second Pew conducted an analysis of 37 states that have actually increased the value of of a death that would trigger felony charge Pew found that changes to felony theft thresholds had no impact on property crime or Larsen rates as a report States the amount of a state's felony theft threshold whether it is $500 $1,000 $2,000 or more is not correlated with its property crime and larsy rates third lowering the felony uh theft threshold would also put DC way out of step with other jurisdictions only three states have felon that threshold of $500 or less the threshold for Most states is currently between 1,000 and, 1500 but some including Texas have a threshold as high as 2500 the trend Nationwide has been to raise the threshold not to lower it not only would lowering the threshold not lower crime rates uh and leave us moving in the opposite direction as other states but it would leave significantly more people with a f felony criminal record and 2022 there were 856 incidents reported by MBD in 2022 and involving theft of $500 to $999 a lower threshold would make hundreds of more DC residents liable for felony prosecution under the lower threshold every theft is bad plain and simple no one likes that at all but if an 18-year-old student takes another student's phone from their backpack should they be saddled with a felony record that will make it hard for them to obtain housing employment and higher education so they should be facing the possibility of 10 years in prison that would be the real life impact of lowering the felony threshold to $500 retail theft is a problem in the district and there are effective ways to address it from strategic enforcement from MPD that has already begun to investing and cracking down on coordinated retail theft ranks but making this low-level nonviolent offense of felony with one of the lowest thresholds in the nation and subjecting hundreds of more black DC residents to lengthy prison sentence sentences makes little sense especially given that we know the provisions like these like these fail to reduce retail theft so I ask my colleagues to support this amendment for the F those following reasons thank you thank you council member leis B council member Pinto uh thank you chairman and thank you councilor Lewis George so we have also looked at a number of other states namely California which used to have felony theft Threshold at $495 they raised it to $950 and saw a dramatic increase in retail theft similarly in the district we have raised our threshold to $1,000 and have seen a dramatic increase in Theft we hear every single day about retail theft about people's bikes being stolen um items that are just under $1,000 that there is effectively zero consequence for so yes you can pull out the maximum allowable penalty for a felony theft in practice that's not what happening um we are seeing cases over and over and over again where MPD is perhaps making an arrest bringing booking somebody and there is either a charge or no charge and sometimes the charge leads to literally zero consequence or an entire probation period um this is leading in practice to people saying to the police what are you going to do about it and I quote and I hear this all the time uh following thefts and so again we are not starting our society over in a vacuum we are responding to the trends that we're seeing right now which are victims being left without recourse when items are being stolen from them from their person um when our businesses are having their shelves cleared out um and closing up shop and leaving the district this is a very real challenge that we have to respond to we have an obligation to respond to it and make sure that our police and prosecutors have sufficient tools to bring these cases and to address the retail theft I know I am not alone I know all of you are hearing from residents every single day about this um like all Provisions this is not going to solve all theft overnight but it is an important tool to lower the threshold to $500 to make sure that we have some basis to pursue these cases and so I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment um and to keep us on track to what we need to do today which is turn the district on a safer course and this is one way that we have to do it and that's an important part of security C thank you council member on this amendment council member fruman uh thank you chairman Merson um uh council member Pinto one of the things that uh council member Lewis George raised was the idea that MPD had asked for a th000 and what is MPD saying about the change from 1,000 to 500 what what's your response to that argument that council member Le George offered well before this law the cumulative impact was not being met so I assume that that's what MPD was referring to in their conversation with councilor Lewis George to make sure that when there repeat offenses if somebody is stealing $200 worth of items or merchandise multiple times within a month that needs to be able to be aggregated but MPD is fully supportive of the $500 threshold as is as us attorney um and they both believe that it's going to help bring these cases down and give their officers the tools they need to actually pursue them um and so that're they're fully behind this change further on the amendment gonna pause for just a second from McDuffy did you have a question I do um I I raised this question during the the breakfast and I love for council member Pinto to speak to this um uh a little while ago I started a retail crime working group with a number of retailers across District of Columbia both large and small uh based on some of the things that I'm sure folks have seen play out uh in the television media the social media and other places around retail theft and I I'll be I'll be quite candid I have my own personal experiences where I have observed how Brazen individuals are with theft in the District of Columbia I won't name the stores uh but there have been multiple instances where one out share I was in line paying for an item and watched a security guard um struggle female security guard with a guy who wasn't stilling food he wasn't stilling Pampers he wasn't still in water trying to steal a bike a whole bike and he left after he lost the struggle then he came back and tried to steal the bike again and this security guy was actually armed I'm I'm just trying to illustrate the challenges that I think retailers are facing we've seen stores Clos for multiple reasons um I don't think in every instance it is specific to Crime but I think in a lot of instances crime is the issue that they're challenged by right now um I know the threshold used to be 500 I know when it was increased to 1,000 but I'm curious as to whether or not your conversations with the Metropol Police Department suggest that they are going to take matters in these instances more seriously in working with retailers to address this issue I have heard and I'm not trying to imply that they they don't are all officers let me be clear there are some instances that I've heard and I've seen videos where crimes have occurred we retail has ever reported it and then officers responded without doing anything so they're using their discretion to determine when they should pursue these CRI crimes and I'm I think that has an impact on what we're seeing right now and I'm curious as whether or not your experience is that MPD is saying they're going to be working with retailers or doing something differently than what's doing on right now in terms of how to solve for this issue that retail is are experiencing yes thank you for that and and I think you're right it's it's a little bit of all of it and the truth is is that it is already a crime to steal and we need those cases to be taken seriously what I'm talking about with the Practical effects is that we're seeing even in the event that an arrest is made and even in the event that a charging decision is made and the US attorney is moving forward there is so often no consequence tied to that successful prosecution that it's creating a cycle of apathy um of officers to intervene in these cases and so I have had dozens of conversations with the police chief with our commanders with Rank and file officers with the US attorney's office line attorneys and the US attorney deputy mayor for planning and economic development deputy mayor for planning uh Public Safety and Justice mayor Bowser about sending a very clear message that once we pass this everybody knows what the threshold is and theft in the District of Columbia is no longer acceptable um and and that's an important piece of this in my conversations and work on this I appreciate that and I want to make sure we get this right because you know the the the consequen that we're seeing in terms of some of these closures the impact that is having on some of these communities where you know seniors can't you know get to the pharmacy to get their medications where you know the The Limited healthy food options that exist in some of these places will no longer exist when these places Clos we've all heard the threats with certain grocery stores we've seen Beyond threats of leaving where actual closures with CVS and other places um I I want to make sure we get this provision right and I appreciate Council Louis George in moving this but I would love to work with you on this to make sure we we we strike the right balance on this because I I I completely identify with the concerns you have raised but I also identify with the concerns that council member Pinto has raised um and so i' love to get a little bit more comfortable with this amendment if you could work with me on this maybe coun M Louis George and withdraw it until second reading uh as long as we're going to get it done for second reading I appreciate it so that means you're going to withdraw and uh you're going to work you're going to come back on second reading and hopefully things will get worked out yes chairman I have another member thank you uh yeah I know but council member Tran white is next and then you uh Council m right uh thank you chairman um while we're in a season where we know that crime has historically risen in the district um I'm been tooting this horn for quite some time and I believe that we don't address the problem we can't get to a solution and for at least 10 nine or 10 years the narrative that crime was down where crime was historically going up and so I think we have to create what I call a comprehensive approach to addressing crime and I think that uh our role is one of many roles doing just that uh this bill speaks to a number of measures uh that some are good some are bad and some we just don't know yet until we've till it happens uh what I do want to overemphasize in this first amendment is the ability to uh address wraparound services in these drug- free zones uh because just arresting or uh enhancing arresting powers will be particularly cumbersome and maybe unconstitutional especially for Brown black people in the district let's just say what it is um this particular measurement uh and I'll read it the drug free zone means public space or public property in an area not to exceed a square a th000 feet of each side that is established pursuant to section three in which the district government has previously Target for intervention by providing I added outreaching information to government to individuals uh in an area that needs employment skill trainings offered also Department of Employment Services giving information and job opportunities Mental Health Services Behavior Health Services and addiction treatment services offered to the residents by the district agencies and information regarding District homelessness and housing assistance this is real reform and this this makes DC more secure um and I think that we've started some of that I want to give some kudos to Brook Pinto because she named some of the things we were thinking about especially around our nonprofit communities actually focusing and getting grants for these communities I live in these communities each and every day and been here for 39 years and we have not done enough to address the underlying social ills affecting our people in the district but I see what're coming back and again this this legislation is Heavenly law enforcement heavy from you can just look at it in detail but I'm trying to in invoke a balance and make sure we are utilizing not just the Metropolitan Police Department but also our other government agencies to Target I don't want to use the word Target to provide resources to these areas as well and I look forward to your support on this and I have other M chairman before I recognize councilman rinto uh council member white you or your staff circulated an amendment this one was at 1228 I'm sorry well I have one that's circulated at 1115 and one that was circulated 8:37 so this particular one I'm on now and is at 12:28 so the one that circulated 115 doesn't count uh let me check real quick because it says please see updated Amendment memo removes the same I stand corrected chairman that's the correct one is the one at 115 let me check my email real quick one of these days we'll get back to circulating paper on the day secretary I saw some don't have it at 115 I we have a larger dat so we could fit the laptops up here and get a printer for yeah yeah but I'm here I can't can't go to the back uh no chairman you're speaking to another amendment you're speaking to the amendment that require police officer reason establish that a crime has been committed that's a that's that's not this chairman no the amendment that was circulated at 115 uh as amendatory section 5B in section 38 of the bill is amended to read as follows in making a determination that a person is congregating in a drug-free zone for the purpose of committing an offense etc etc it's not this bill chair cir did you find it Chim I'm I'm a paper person so I have amendment that was circulated 115 and an amendment that was circulated 837 you're saying the 837 doesn't count I'm not on that Amendment right now council member Pinto do you have the correct [Music] Amendment all right so let me table this amendment and go to the next amendment of that works for you chairman um all right I don't have any other amendments from you um this should been your [Music] email which is pretty normal chair we don't circulate paper like that anymore which we should since we're back in we do know well paper always helps but I understand that some folks are stuck in the next century and they prefer not having paper um I I have 456 emails since we started today can you say what time the email came around the challenge here is that um there have been these all came in today not that that's out of order but they came in today they're not linked on the agenda that makes it harder for members and then there multiple versions that have circulated so I'm happy to any no hold on second chairman let me move to next Amendment yeah if we can get paper copies it help because we is is the timing of the amendment being sent Mr chairman Mr chairman if m MERS don't object in council member white if you don't object council member McDuffy says he has one more Amendment which also wasn't circulated but he says it's oral um why don't we do that and then come back to you um and in the meantime council member white uh if we can all sort out what it is exactly that we have from you thank you counc McDuffy thank you thank you Mr chairman I have an oral Amendment um that concerns section 19 with regard to prech child detention and this amendment would amend section 19 by adding a clause to subsection C that simply says the provision expires 225 days after the implementation date of this bill section 29 is amended by adding a subsection that states that the criminal justice coordinating Council shall submit a report to the mayor and Council on the efficacy of the pre-trial detention Provisions in this act no later than 180 days after the implementation of the bill in section 31 is amended by adding a clause that adds the provision expires 225 days to subsections FG and H let me just briefly mention the rationale and I think they might clarify any questions that folks have based on what I just stated the pre-child detention provisions of this bill make permanent what the council previously Did Last Summer sum with regard to pre-child detention I supported that measure last summer as did I think all of my colleagues or at least most of the colleagues I would like to get to a point where I can support it today and I think this would get me there if we had some data that we can analyze to ensure the efficacy of this pre-trial detention law this does not stop the pre-child detention that is currently going on based on the emergency and temporary measures that we approved last summer what it would do is extend it an additional 225 days for a total of 550 days but require that the criminal justice cordinating Council collect data and analyze that data and and submit a report before the provision expires so that we could be armed with the information that I think we want in order to make this policy permanent I am uncomfortable making this policy permanent without having that information I think as most people um who I work with on the day with respect to these types of laws want the laws to be evidence-based and data driven and I think this Amendment U makes for better policy um before we make this provision permanent to be clear I supported it then I support it now I want to put this clause in that allows us to get the data before we make it permanent and I'd ask hopefully that council member Pinto my colleagues would support this amendment um so members don't have this however Council McDuffy provided a copy to me and to General councel and I've shared it with council member Pinto um to be clear what this does is in section 19 it adds a time limit in section 29 it has a time limit section 31 it has a time limit and what you read Council M McDuffy said uh like 225 days after the implementation date that should say effective date of the bill yes and similarly with 29 section 2 9 where it says implementation it should say effective yes there only two places where you use the word I don't know if counc counc Mar just asked me a good question I don't know if you want to ask it on record um I'm gonna ask maybe because I'm getting a little Punchy is there a reason why we can't do this on second reading the goal here is that you want to have a time limit to the changes to the law regarding PE child detention we could vote on that time limit at second reading or we could do it today members I'm feeling a little Punchy maybe nobody else is maybe everybody else is feeling bright and fresh um nobody has a copy of this except me you and general counsel and council member Pinto seems to me like this would be a good thing for second reading I I appreciate that chairman but I think I think the or amendment is is in order and I and I it's okay I'd love to hear what council morala has to say on this matter before you decide to wait till second reading yes Council Allen wow that's no pressure at all um I actually had a clarifying question I hope um you you spoke about the changes we made previously this Council supported uh in the summer which made changes to our pre-trial policies um and then we have this legislation I think the having a study of efficacy is a very uh wise thing to do no matter where all of the shakes out um this is I know when I spoke previously with pre-trial Services um they talked about to be able to really evaluate you would need months worth of data and experience is your intent as Amendment would speak to beginning to evaluate that as of last July when we made several changes to our pre-trial detention policies or from the effective date of this act obviously when it passes I I think it's a great question question it would be the effective date of when it was passed last July so cumulatively you have the effective date um plus the 225 days that we're put in in this that gives us somewhere around a year and a half uh worth of data to analyze uh before we make this permanent thank you very much I appreciate that clarification uh Mr chairman council member Pinto councilor McDuffy what would you propose happens after day 225 should everybody be released if we don't extend this now council member Pinto I would hope you know that's not my intent it wasn't my intent when I talked to you last night it's not my intent right now my my intention is to do what is in the best interest of District of Columbia residents and to keep people safe but to understand that the policies we are implementing actually do that and I think this and I'm not trying to be with you but I think this actually arms us with the data and the evidence that we would need in order to make this permanent so it is not my intention to have everybody be released I appreciate and believe you that that's not your intention but if if we are removing the ability of the presumption then I am unclear what the law would be on all of those who've committed the most violent crimes who are being held on what that would mean in practice which is why I don't want to do these changes in an oral fashion with looking at the language two minutes before we vote on it without an opportunity to be thorough and thoughtful as we have with every other provision but I will I will say some additional reasons why I don't want to do this one last summer when we we voted on this the council not only did we vote on changes to pre-trial detention we required for the first time that the criminal justice coordinating Council produce a public dashboard so all of us all of our colleagues and everyone in the public can be on the same page about who's being arrested who is being charged what is the pre-trial Services Agency doing how effective are their um conditions are people meeting their conditions of release are there re offenses all of that information is now available so to require an additional report I I think is just an added layer of bureaucracy that's not going to help us some of the pieces of data that we looked at were one a reduction in violent crime in the 30-day period following the passage of the emergency bill which was quite notable given it was the warmest month of the summer when normally in every other year we see crime go up we've seen um judges be able to hold people who but for the presumption wouldn't have been able to hold them in two cases of homicides um we have continued to see people getting released and reoffending even under this presumption because it was so narrow to the most violent crimes so I think that this body made um very conscientious and thoughtful steps this summer to be narrow and focused about this we now have six months worth of data that we have been tracking very closely and do so in partnership with cjcc and all of our Public Safety partners and it's now time to make those changes permanent so we can continue to track it moving forward and give some consistency and again some hope to victims who are continuing to be left out of this conversation to know that if they are harmed with the most violent offenses that the perpetrator is not going to be back in their Community the next day I think it is a fair balance it's a narrow balance and I I oppose this amendment Mr chairman um second round Mr McDuff second round where's the clock please the um I think the simplest way to put this is to say that and I think I have a record that demonstrates I care about victims I care about Justice and I think what I'm putting forth in this amendment demonstrates that this Council if supported cares about those things deeply it wouldn't change this amendment does not change what we're already doing what it says is we're going to be armed with additional information about the impact of what we're doing before we make it permanent that's all it does right we started this back in July you said we have six months of data if we do in somebody's analyzing I love to see the results of it uh I know that we have dashboards I think that's a good thing I think it's positive I don't think this takes away from what you intend to do in your measure all I'm trying to do is say that upon the expiration uh of this amendment we will be armed with additional information to inform whether or not this should be made permanent that's all it says and it also ures that the report the cjcc would do around this information and data that they collect would get to us before the expiration in order for us to make the determination about whether to make this permanent we we did this in the context of uh the summer months where again we're experiencing a crime crisis we got a cultural gun violence in the city we need to do a lot more to combat it I'm I'll talk more about that when we get to the online measure but I think this is a very reasonable amendment that allows us to continue to do what we did in July except we will be on with more information so that we're making an evidence-based datadriven decision which we are not making today if we improve this numbers time has expired um council member fan so I I do have some sympathy with the idea of sunsetting things and and look having the opportunity to look back to have a presumption of it going away unless it's proven itself to be effective so I'm sympathetic to the amendment council member McDuffy is coming forward with I am curious 225 days from the effective date what when what's the anticipated effective date of this bill where how does this mechanically work why is it 225 days how does that fit in terms of our legislative calendar how does it fit in terms of the summer months which are such a challenge being able to evaluate the data from the summer months I I I'm not opposed in principle to what's being talked about but I do think that taking the time between now and second reading to figure out all the details makes sense but help me understand the calendar of 225 days when that when that starts when that ends how those mechanics work so right now now and I'm General counselor should be corit this this somehow doesn't sound accurate the Omnibus that we ultimately pass will go into effect it will have an effect of BL it at some points the provision that we're speaking not yet um the provision and maybe somebody can guesstimate what what the effective law date will be if it's passed today the Omnibus well actually we still have second reading so it will be after we pass it there's an effective law date and then there 25 days after that date I'm sorry 225 days after that dat so if we have a second reading in 28 days and four weeks then that takes us into March and then you're going 200 then the mayor signs it so it's like every other Bill we have that passed on a permanent basis there's an effective date of the bill right I'm trying to figure out when that's likely to be well I guess but let me let me try to get make sure I'm understanding the heart of your question because ultimately though nothing changes right so you're calculating the days but we're we're continuing to do this no well I mean what I'm trying to understand is 225 days after an effective date or or 190 days before an effective date we would be thinking about do we maintain it yes so I'm trying to understand how that calendar works that's what I'm trying to get so the the point of the amendment around section 29 that speaks to the cjc's report um 180 days after the effective dat of the bill gives us the lag that we would need right 180 days after the effective date we would have the cjcc report that analyzes all this which is before the expiration of this provision but I mean I thought you were somebody time has expired um we are struggling here with this amendment partly because it's an oral Amendment part motion to end debate what's that well I'm going to ask again that this be withdrawn and that we consider it on second reading or uh otherwise I would join with the chair of the committee and ask the members not approve this Mr chairman there is a motion on the floor what's the motion to in debate all right I think it was made while I was speaking so that was not in order Mr McDuffy are you going to keep the um Council McDuffy I've asked you a question I didn't hear your question my question was are you uh willing to withdraw this and hold off for second reading I I would love to to have us vote on this uh measure right now chairman and I would ask for roll call right if there's no further discussion well uh Council M Henderson willon be annoyed with me if I recognize you because she tried to close debate but I haven't spoken yet on the amendment all right I hope folks are feeling that this is getting a little disorganized here so uh council member Allen and then we'll have a vote I'll try to have very well organized thoughts Mr chair um I think it's important that we recognize that laws and legislation don't have a Finish Line um we always make changes we always amend we always have new information that comes in and that's how we edit we change we try to evaluate um the spirit of this amendment I think aligns with that which is um to be able to measure the effectiveness what works and what doesn't and I would hope that as a legislative body we're very willing as I think we are with a measure we're about to pass a little bit we're going to make changes based on what we're hearing what we're seeing and how that how that works from the standpoint of a rough calculation of when would pass second reading when it would be signed when it would be transmitted to Congress and it would go through its review we're we're talking about December of of this year maybe January of 2025 um so that that gives a long amount of time to be able to to both let cjcc through pre-trial services and their Partners be able to get back with an evaluation um and I believe that this Council will continue to make this a priority and I know the chair of the committee will continue to put push and make things a priority um so I I think that the amendment um whether it's today or whether it's a second reading I think has Merit to allow us to take evidence-based approaches to say what works and what doesn't we're passing an expanded pre-trial detention today um so having the ability to evaluate it I think is a is a good thing um so thank you Mr chairman mam secretary would you call the role the V is on um Mr McDuff probably needs to be restated because it's oral the amendment is to amend section 19 by adding a clause a new subsection C that adds this is not actually legislative language that adds that the provision expires 225 days after the effective date of this bill Mr chairman may I just ask one more time that councelor McDuffy consider withdrawing this amendment not putting our colleagues in this position working together with us between first and second reading we've been working on these Provisions for months and months for a reason we've required cjcc publish data for a reason and duplicating those efforts with an additional report without more context and giving us a chance to work together I think is premature and I think puts our colleagues in an uncomfortable position so I ask you again to withdraw this for now so we can try to work together between first and second reading the amendment also amends section 29 by adding a subsection that states that cjcc shall submit a report to the mayor and councel on the efficacy of the pre-trial detention Provisions in this act no later than 180 days after the effective date of this bill and again this is not legislative language is this good enough for you madam General councel on section 31 is amended by adding a clause that adds a sunset Clause of 225 days to subsections FG and H I'm not sure whether that's 225 days after the effective date or what uh so that is before us Madam Secretary would you call the role Council Allan yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman present council member Kuman will be recorded as present council member Gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George yes council member Lewis George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson no chairman Mendelson votes no council member noo yes council member noo votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto no council member Pinto votes no council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes and council member Tron white yes council member Tron white votes yes Mr chairman there are 10 yeses two Nos and one present the amendment is approved council member TR white uh thank you chairman I'm going to drop down to amendment number two um which addresses section 26 um and this speaks in reference to wearing of masks so I do want to get some clarity on this there was some misinformation about this and I believe that my colleague did not intent to discriminate in any way against anybody of any faith uh and so for clarity I do support uh uh one of the amendments to this by council member um Christina Henderson but I always this amendment adds the word ski mask to the language to be specific um so that's the only amendment I have to this particular part number two is to add the word ski Mas to this amendment and this was circulate at 2:48 p.m. um and if we and I want to speak to the bill uh I Meed that section because as we know uh we see and hear and feel and experience a lot of uh crimes in the district uh we want to ensure that we don't Mist Target people regardless of what they have on their faces um but if this is to pass I want to make sure that we are protecting individuals I was concerned in this bill about the the section that said uh in fear of life um and that uh it says intimidated threatened or abuse or harassed by any other persons or cause any person to fear for his personal safety I do want to say that uh focusing on ski Mas specifically is not unique with the district other states like California Connecticut Delaware Florida Massachusetts Michigan New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota and Ohio um focus on that and there was uh there's a notion um in this bill that talks about uh demonstrations and I don't want uh we are in a diverse City where people come from all over to protest here and I don't want Muslim women in demonstration to feel attacked or abused at all and I know that's not my colleagues intention at all and so I wanted to give Clarity with that by adding this provision and I'm asking uh that this uh Amendment be accepted chairman uh we have the amendment before council member white you said that the only thing this amendment does is to add the word ski mask y actually the word ski to the word mask um um Mr chairman can I has a question yeah yes okay I just want to be clear councilor member white because the I I hear you that the majority of um or we're we're seeing a lot of crimes committed in ski masks but then the language as you know goes on to say or other article whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden concealed or covered as to conceal the identity of the wear or enter upon or be within public property so one of the other things we're seeing is um bandanas covering an entire face um or another garment kind of being wrapped around someone's face in in furtherance of a crime um so I just want to make sure I'm clear on your intention here with adding the word ski but keeping in the OR language thank you I I do agree with that um historically prior to the pandemic there were other crimes committed or other forms of face coverings um that kept people from seeing on camera who the perpetrators were um and so we thought not to take some of those out but we specifically wanted to focus on the ski Mass provision that's that's unanimous uh in a lot of these uh crimes especially robberies uh shootings uh that this bill attempted to address but didn't specify what um so we wanted to clarify that without uh targeting without uh eliminating the other types of mass coverings so we added the revision to add the word schem uh I'm I'm a little bit confused um the amendment says section 26 and I'm looking at the amendment nature of a substitute in section 26 which starts on page 52 which is line 1596 concerns the taxi cab driers protection act um further um this amendment instead of just saying add the word ski um I guess rewrites the whole section and so I don't know whether in fact that's the only change and that's not to but you know to how do I put this it's not to throw shade but when the entire text is reprinted is that really the only change I don't know um and I start with trying to find in the amendment nature of a substitute and I can't find the section of him Council Pinto do you agree with that uh so maybe we had this been so many revisions to this bill let me do this chairman for the strength of clarity let me with section four yeah page 57 section four page 57 still got to get it right can I can I speak to this uh briefly just on the the language piece so the this version of the amendment puts back in the language that we voted to remove from council member Henderson's Amendment of the intent to cause another person to fear for his or her personal safety so we want to amend that so that can be accepted because when you introduce bills at the same time you don't necessarily what I guess I'm I'm I'm trying to just think through this which is what what another thing that worries me about doing these amendments on the fly in this way is that masks Were Meant to Encompass the the broad range of what we're seeing which are face coverings that are covering an entire mask yes often ski masks sometimes bandanas sometimes a you know sweatshirt wrapped around someone's head to conceal their um their identity and so I I worry about adding a word even though it it it doesn't feel like it makes a huge difference without understanding the consequences um and looking through the cases and seeing if that would be harmful to mpd's ability to um make a stop in these cases so I'm I'm apprehensive just to add the word ski without a fuller understanding I I also don't really know what it would do because we're still keeping in the OR language so I I'm happy to work with you between first and second reading but I'm a little hesitant to accept this word is friendly without a fuller understanding but chairman what I'll do is Chairman I'll withdraw this amendment right now for the sake of bringing it up in second reading so we can get some clarity on this uh language and it's pretty simple really um okay um so the amendment is withdrawn it is I finally found it by the way it's section 25 on page 51 line 1567 so many line 1567 of the amendment nature of a substitute I have the amend substitute right so that's with it's withdrawn for the moment anything further council member white um no but I do have some concern chairman in reference to um well let me ask council member penil this if you may chairman um in in the bill in section 15 uh I believe you removed uh you put language in it that to remove the officer's name and badge number uh until sustain allegations that pertain to the officers commissioner crime offic interaction with a member of the public or the receipt of a Judicial officer's adverse credibility findings and the criminal proceedings is concluded um in that place and I'm I'm just concerned that uh officers are are sworn in officers of the District of Columbia we we know I mean I've seen the the articles in 2022 where we let back 37 officers who got suspended and fired back onto the police force and PID them over $500,000 that we don't know if those where those officers are they improve their behavior and that's just that cohort of people I'm concerned that we are hiding the officers uh from the public I think that the public has the right to know and in most cases these particular officers who may not have been convicted yet may take two three five years to go to court um and I think that I'm just trying to get your understanding of that particular revision to this bill if you can speak to that can I jump in before you answer because this was actually an issue that I negotiated with council member Pinto uh many members know that there were a number of issues concerning uh police accountability uh that were raised as concerns the committee of the whole I sat down with council member Pinto went over all of those uh this was one where I raised this with her but when I looked at the section um it does strike the uh phrase of um the um it does strike the phrase about a police officer's name and badge number however it still requires that there has be the notice of the hearing uh these hearings adverse action hearings are public hearings uh but until the police accountability bill that council member Allen moved when he was chair of the committee the MPD didn't notice the hearing so these are or yes hearings so they were public hearings but nobody knew about so in the police accountabil bill it requires that there has to be notice that continues and there has to be um a explanation of what the issues are what the allegation of um ad you know what what the what the issue is that's still there and my view in working with council member Pinto was that well if you strike the name and badge number it's still going to be a public notice it's still going to tell you what it is in the chances are is that MPD still going to say who the officer is maybe not but it's going to be a public hearing and the facts around that hearing will be included in the notice so the public is still aware and they still know what the allegations are you want to add to that council member Pinto sure um I I appreciate that chairman and and kind of the reminder that there are a number of things in here and on balance we we sought to make the appropriate judgment calls that to police accountability um and basic employment rights and so when it comes to adverse action hearings um these are for allegations that have not yet been sustained um that the public has a right to watch to participate in they will be posted publicly um but to share an officer's name before a determination has been made that any violation has actually occurred um I don't think is the appropriate balance I'll also just add and I mentioned Congress earlier Congress passed today a law repealing the entire adverse action notice process in DC saying the public can have not have access to anything so when I talk about getting these balance's right to protect our district values and move forward in a way that leads to police accountability that's also going to be sustainable this is exactly what I'm talking about because Congress heard that we were thinking about playing with this they didn't think we were going to go as far as they wanted so they struck the entire thing out so I I I wish we were a state I wish we will keep fighting for our full autonomy as we deserve um and we have to be aware of the reality that is facing us right now and that vote was today so we're trying to get this balance right it's still a public process that the public has access to these hearings um but to require the name to be published before any allegation has been sustained um is is unworkable well I'm I I found the language there I didn't think I had it here so without council member crayon White's Amendment with the amendment nature of a substitute this is what the law will be MPD shall publish on a publicly accessible website a schedule of adverse action hearings for cases in which to propose discipline is termination the schedule shall include a the date time and location of the hearing and C a summary of the alleged misconduct or charges against the subject officer that's what the public will know and what your Amendment would do would be to say well and also include the name and badge number I ended up agreeing with council member Pinto that there was enough of a notice here and the hearing is public that there's nothing lost with the committee Point chairman if I may yes well I'm concerned that we are you know it's it's not normal I mean if someone um does something on the subway and takes off running and identified as who who that person is he or she name will be on the news in the paper regardless if the person is found guilty or not and so that that is really not knowing I'm trying to understand the rationale of why we are doing that if I can get an answer to that that'll be helpful for me well all of this information is foilable including the full name and badge number of any officer um and if a allegation is sustained meaning the public hearing process moves forward that it was a um truthful allegation then that will all be public on the public dashboard um again and I I cannot stress this enough changing this provision with this amendment puts the entirety of secure DC at risk of being overturned by Congress so anything further yes I would like to work with you uh councilman Pentel on this revision um and I have a number of other concerns if I can address them now chairman thank you um I am also concerned about the enhan pen uh at recreation centers uh if you and I'm not sure what why did we just Target Rec recreation centers um if you can speak to that that'll be helpful for me sure um this provision came from a couple of different things one following the shooting and and murder of Robert Cunningham um at our DC Metro uh we had a deeper look at what more we can do to protect uh Metro employees and workers um and so we looked at penalty enhancements there when when an attack is made on uh bus driver Metro operator um taxi cab drivers Uber drivers and others in at the same time in conversations that I had with kids and with families in all eight Wards I heard over and over again been a pleading for us to do more to create more safe Recreation spaces for people um I heard so many stories of kids telling me they feel unsafe at a recreation center that they feel unsafe getting to a recreation center and making crystal clear that these spaces are for everybody to play safely it is crucial for our safety goals to have Recreation spaces in the District of Columbia that are accessible and safe for everyone of all ages and to engage in a crime of violence which is what secure DC addresses is a penalty enhancement if you engage in a crime of violence at one of our DPR facilities and this is really important to get the balance right to keep all of our residents safe and to make sure these spaces are for everyone thank you and thank you for that Clarity but one of the things I am concerned about as a Young Man growing up in the city plan at recreation centers all my life is that sports are very competitive and it has a lot of energy you can see it in the in the NBA all the time right and so I'm concerned that there may be teams playing basketball that may disagree and get into a fight and because of this law uh we don't know if someone may or may not get hurt and I I believe that no children or no person should be fighting in general especially at a Rec but we know in practicality kids fight right and kids have disagreements they argue but I don't I'm cautious that this may create greater Penny on uh on anyone because of a a scuffle on a basketball court so you can speak to that sure no thank you for raising it I think it's a it's a real um concern practice what you're describing of a scuffle on a basketball court or a shove or a push a fight I'm saying a fight too get they fight okay well if it's the former it would be a simple assault and it would not be subject to it if it was a crime of violence which are our most serious offenses yes it would be subject to a penalty enhancement and I think it should be um we we have to make sure that kids are protected in these spaces this is not a a sports fight um or or a push these are our most serious crimes of violence well council member was pointed out to me you've been seven minutes and there is not an amendment appending all right one more question chairman if there's no objection one more question from council member white thank you and I guess this is dependent on someone being hurt as we talk about uh crime of violence and the definition of Crime Of Violence uh it's a list of things just aggravated assault terrorism assaulting a police officer dangerous weapon intent to kill first degree sexual abuse second degree sexual abuse but also Bly injury which could escalate this as well just want to give Clarity to the public for that serious B significant B injury assault with significant B injury so significant and serious bodily injury um and we we address this also in security C is usually for things as serious as being shot in the arm um so th these are again very serious cases that we're talking about um when it comes to crimes of violence thank you council member uh is there I don't believe there are any other amendments pending uh we have the amendment in nature of a substitute before us um we'll vote on that and there's still an opportunity for discussion um we will have a Voice vote on the amendment nature with substitute as amended this is not the final vote on the bill all those in favor of the ANS uh say I I I pa chairman do we really need a roll call on the ANS we're going to vote again on the bill council member it's your choice go ahead um I just make sure everyone vot is recorded properly too uh I'd ask for the eyes are there any nayes on the amendment nature of a substitute hearing none the amendment is approved unanimously now we have the bill as amended is there any further discussion council member Nido thank you chairman I've heard from many residents in word one about this legislation some want the council to pass the bill because they believe more tools for police and prosecutors are needed to ensure people who commit crimes are held accountable but I've also heard from others who have grave concerns about police transparency civil rights and unintended consequences of the legislation for example how will drug- free zones create obstacles for people living with substance use disorder in getting the services they need I hear all of these voices and I want to acknowledge the concerns and fears around the uncertainties we've considered many amendments today to minimize the impact on vulnerable communities and protect against unintended consequences I am still eager to consider these at the second reading of the bill in order to address valid concerns that are being raised by members of our community in W one I've invested in harm reduction programs and support of services in Columbia Heights Mount Pleasant lower Georgia Avenue UST Street and Shaw if the executive wants to designate drug free zones throughout the city she must also simultaneously protect the Integrity of these and similar programs around the district and ensure protections for people who need health Supportive Services my team and I work closely with council member Christina Henderson on the language that inserted these protections and I thank her for her leadership on that and for council member Pinto for working with us earlier I withdrew my amendment that would have increased minimum minimum reward amounts for Witnesses who testify in homicide cases in an effort to create more Justice for victims I'll continue to pursue this measure including a study on the extent and effectiveness of the district's programs and policies for witness protection and assistance the public safety ecosystem rests heavily on prevention efforts historically I've made an effort to bring that to life supporting the near act introducing the red flag law and securing funding early in my tenure for violence prevention programs and expanding those each year I've been in office we established the out of school time program that provides after school and summer programming for kids I'm hoping we're going to get to expand that soon and keeping our young people engaged is one of the primary tools for reducing youth crime that's a fact all of these and many other initiatives such as getting more people into affordable housing in W one and across the district are critical elements of a comprehensive approach to addressing Public Safety my vote to support this bill acknowledges the ongoing effort in conversation to recognize and effectively address the complexities inherent in DC's Public Safety Endeavors thank you chairman thank you council member Nido uh is there any further on the bill council member Henderson um thank you Mr chairman and I I want to thank all of the colleagues today for their engagement on this issue I feel as though debate and amendments are certainly important to the process um and refining legislation um I think we've all heard uh lots of varying stat statements about what's happening in the city right now in terms of crime would say that there's not a single action or event that led to this moment um but all of us on this body have been working to address it through a variety of different approaches whether it be funding or legislation or oversight over the agency's charged with law enforcement um and Public Safety um I do think the improved version of the secur DC Omnibus is part of that ongoing work um when it comes to Public Safety I think we need to provide tools for not just law enforcement but also for communities to prevent and deter crime and also hold those accountable who choose to harm others within the community um a critical piece of correcting and stopping harmful behavior is ensuring accountability and I think that many in our communities feel as though this has been missing in our ecosystem whether it be consequences for speeding or for retail theft there is a perception that there are no consequences to unless you fatally harm someone um I think there's a lot in this secure DC Omnibus um I want to highlight a couple of things that I feel like have been overlooked um like reasonable adjustments to our data sharing laws um requiring transparency for the office of communic office of unified Communications regarding 911 operations which are critical um establishing grants for safety enhancing interventions in commercial corridors and some of these changes in security DC I think also account for the changes in the ways that people have committed crimes um or intimidate neighbors such as um the use of switches which is something that you could put on a pistol and and now is comparable to an automatic weapon um again secur DC is not Panacea um nor is it the council's first action and I want to be very clear on that this is a piece of the puzzle in the three years since I've been the council member it's been the council who's established things like the hospital-based violence Interruption program to in intercede immediately following an incident to try to stop the cycles of retaliation it was the council who created the Office of neighborhood safety and engagement and our violence Interruption programs including taking the ones Leadership Academy down to Middle School grades recognizing things that was happening with young people um we've expanded the NPD Cadet program we've funded new cameras around the city and this type of work will keep continuing on um I think that I I say all that to say that for laws to be meaningful investigations charges and trials also need to happen so there are other parts of this ecosystem and I encourage my colleagues um in those areas of government to do their parts as well thank you Mr chairman thank you council member council member Allen thank you very much Mr chair I want to start by thanking council member pinto and her team for what has been a mammoth lift uh and doing so in a spirit of compromise and collaboration I voted for this package in committee and I'm going to do so again today on the whole I believe this is a strong and responsive package to the unacceptable level of violence that we've seen in our city this past year even as I know we'll continue to work on reconciling concerns between now and second read specifically though I'm glad to see the restoration today of many of the transparency and accountability measures that were meant to ensure public access to misconduct less transparency does not make us more safe I'm glad to see everyone came to consensus on that again I'd like to highlight a few areas within the bill where I believe we can see a direct impact on reducing violent crime once this bill takes effect we're strengthening and clarifying carjacking laws following the fort of appeals earlier decision that led to several carjacking prosecutions not being able to move forward I think that's a great example of identifying a gap in our laws and then taking action to change it we're making shooting reviews permanent when we talk about a whole of government approach to prevent violence rather than just react to it it means coordination and focus that's exactly what a shooting review does it's a best practice in plenty of cities that have seen decreases in violent crime and it's meant for both law enforcement and separately for the coordination of those key efforts to reach people that are at risk as an outgrowth of this I would love to see MPD create a non-fatal shooting unit that treats those shootings which are just a matter of inches from being classified at a very different way with the same seriousness that we do homicides adding many of the increased gun use penalties is included here that's been included in previous criminal code revisions that were blocked by Congress again it's a gap in our existing law it was identified and through this legislation we're taking action and finally I want to thank councelor Pinto for including my bill that expands the private security camera rebate program to now include cameras and other safety tools for our local businesses that suffered a r a rash of burglaries last year as we heard today there may be some additional areas to keep working on between now and second reading as we get this bill across the finish line but finally I think that we can all feel there is a concerted effort to focus on legislation as the only answer to our Public Safety crisis and this council is doing its part today to strengthen laws where needed however the council does not make arrests the council does not conduct trials Council does not hand down sentences Council does not run or govern the federal parts of our system from prosecution to incarceration to Rehabilitation to supervision when someone comes home we can make the necessary legislative changes to make sure our laws are on sturdy footing but there's so much more that needs to happen for us to really drive down the unacceptable numbers of violent crime that we saw last year the district hasn't had a gun violence prevention director since the sudden and tragic passing of Linda Harley Harper last May the director of the office of neighborhood safety engagement been in an interim position for well past the statutory time when budget time comes around this Council has repeatedly had to find money to restore cuts for the critical programs that victims and survivors of violence depend on for their recovering and healing that tells me that much more challenging work of coordination and a whole of government approach in preventing gun violence has to be prioritized more have 30 more seconds Mr chair without objection I also think the loss of accreditation at the department of forensic Sciences has gotten some attention but I don't think it's clicked for how devastating that was although the ageny now has accreditation to drug and biological processing as of late December we still have backlogs of cases to analyze that will take many months to go through there's a gap from April 2021 through today the DFS couldn't test a substance found by MPD to confirm it was cocaine or some other prohibited substance that means our evidence is going to private Labs it's just not being taken up and and creates a bottleneck that's likely why we saw drug prosecutions Dro so sharply and additionally our forensic lab does not have accreditation to test Firearms or perform fingerprint analysis overall DC's got some of the toughest laws on the books with mandatory minimums and Maxes that often outpace so-called red States I don't say that because I don't think we have a good criminal code because we don't I say that because it's a simple truth and our ancient criminal code makes us less safe it makes accountability for harm done harder to come by council member thank you Mr chairman I appreciate all the work that's onone into this today thank you council member Robert White uh thank you chairman I want to start by acknowledging uh council member Pinto's efforts in introducing this bill and appreciate her dedication to addressing public safety issues that the fear in our city is real uh last Thursday evening I came back to my office between meetings and thought I would catch up on texts the first text I checked was from a friend who said hey I wanted to let you know the reason you haven't heard from me is because uh I was mugged and beaten up on Georgia Avenue and he wanted to let me know he was recovering the second text I checked was from an old friend who was upset that a former colleague of hers was killed uh in a carjacking incident in downtown the third text I checked was from nonprofit leader east of the river who said their uh office had been broken into three times in 10 days and they weren't sure how long they could stay the issues in our city are real I heard from young people last week and then in a youth Town Hall the week before that they often don't participate in after school programs after it gets dark because they're afraid of what will happen to them when they go home so I think all of us know that not acting is not an option but as we engage in this work we have to make sure we are focused on fixing what's broken that's why I introduced the whole government response to Crime act a public safety bill that I believe gets at the root issues if people call 911 and don't get an answer there's no accountability in the city doesn't get safer if police arrest somebody who's engaged in a violent crime but they're not prosecuted as the majority of people aren't the city doesn't get safer and if we don't have an accredited crime lab that can process evidence the city doesn't get safer we have to make sure we are focused on making the city safer in reality we have to take an evidence-based Solutions oriented approach there are things in in this bill that I think sound good on paper give people the impression that it will make them safer uh and help them face real issues but that in reality it won't change the situation for instance open air drug markets or Drug Free Zones open air drug markets are real uh in this city and there are seniors who tell me they're afraid uh to go to the store down the street because of issues happening there but drug free zones might Shuffle the problem to the from one corner to the next doesn't solve the problem it drugs are legal right now possessing and selling them are an arrestable crime today they can be prosecuted today but they're not so when we talk about what is going to make our city safer we have to look at our Public Safety infrastructure not just the things that sound bit good this bill is a culmination of a collaborative efforts from various council members and the mayor's office it underscores the importance of cooperation and often compromise in achieving meaningful progress even when the result is not perfect to any of us uh council member one minute Mr chairman two we're going to do all these uh speeches for four minutes when we have a three minute clock 30 seconds Mr without objection a big missing piece today that I think most people recognize is prevention I have a series of bills that I will introduce in the coming weeks aimed at prevention but moving forward we also have to be committed to tirelessly advocating for accountability and transparency in the implementation of this bill I'll hold all stakeholders including the US attorney's office the Metropolitan Police Department and the executive branch accountable for their roles in ensuring the effective execution of these provisions the these issues prevention issues don't get the same attention that quote unquote Public Safety bills get but they matter because that is the long-term effective approach to driving down crime in this city and I hope that we will continue to focus on that as we focus on Public Safety in our city thank you chairman thank you council member council member fruman thank you very much chairman Mendon and I too want to join in uh thanking chairwoman Pinto for the extraordinary work that she's done to pull all of this together and to go through this very very long day um today is about accountability and accountability is very very important and I think we have struck the right balance here I think there will be more work between now and the second reading and the bill can be improved but I very much applaud the work that you've done here accountability is one side of the coin here though because the the the people who are committing crimes are rational actors and they assess what the risks are to them and they assess what they are risking for themselves and way too many of our residents don't have a sense of hope and so they don't feel like they're putting that much at risk when they commit a crime I went to ysc the dyrs facility last week and spoke with some of the people there and 14 15 16 year olds in for carjacking armed robbery uh and and then when you ask the people that who are do who are operating the school there what sort of level of Education are these kids at when they come in and they do an assessment and these kids 14 15 16 years old third or fourth grade reading typically fourth or fifth grade math typically they don't don't see a future and if we are not working very hard to ensure that everybody in this city sees a future accountability is not going to solve our problem accountability is critical and today is today but we're coming into a budget process also and so all of us who are supporting accountability I think we will take we need to take it to heart that we need to be supporting hope and opportunity when we get into that budget process because that's a critical part of combating crime and we need to do that too thank you thank you council member council member Tran white uh thank you I want to thank you uh council member Pento and all the other members that introduced measures um I think that priority safety is a priority in the city I can't go to any meeting across the city where someone is not talking about the the crime in our city um the issue is that crime was okay when it was isolated certain parts of the city or certain sections of the city and now the entire DC because we didn't address it it's like like cancer you don't treat it it spreads and it spread all over the city and um I think that we have to do something um with that something is or something's is with all those somethings I don't know uh will this bill work I don't know but I think that uh doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcom is definition of insanity I I do do know that mass incarceration has not helped our community it has crippled the black community in so many different ways that we're seeing the effects of it now um so we do have to have a balance I believe that people do need to be held accountable uh you cannot just recklessly come and terrorize the community and do what you want to do and expect no consequences um but I think that we are deficient in Equitable Services for working class and poor people in the district when I look at uh what we've been in the budget I look at where we've been in programming after school programming Recreation we we are getting there but we have have missed the mark in a lot of different areas and so we as council members have a role to do as as as the executive um but I do know that uh we have to continue this fight and no one is coming to save us but us and I know we are facing our federal Partners on the hill but we always face them we cannot use them as an excuse not to do our job because we're going to be held accountable for what we've done with the votes that people put in that box to vote for us and and the prevention work has to get in hands I'm I'm concerned about the one's office every time I turn around I'm hearing that this program hasn't started or this person lost their Grant or we got a new director here we've had probably three directors in four years and now we have an interim director now um so if we truly concerned about Public Safety we have to do prevention work as well um we have to get people access to Jobs business but more importantly wealth creation because there's direct correlation between poverty and crime and so today um is one of our many efforts to do something about this I'm hoping with you councilman pinto and other members that some of the other Provisions get mocked up as I alluded to earlier some of the things that help people get back get their lives back after returning back to the community um money for businesses to to go on to support their businesses from the government or other partners money for nonprofits those things are critical to ensuring that we have a safe DC I want to thank you and all all my colleagues for for this measure and I look forward to working with you in the future to figure out how we can get more things that's equable in this Bill thank you thank you council member council member Parker I want to thank council member Pinto for her work on the secur DC legislation and thanks to the many residents Advocates and experts uh that have weighed in with the council over the last year uh we have made several changes uh we blocked the roll back of DC's incarceration reduction Amendment act uh we blocked warrantless searches of individuals on probation which would have resurrected fied stop and frisk policies of the past and we blocked curtailing the disclosure of body warrant camera footage and incidents involving serious uses of force uh thanks to the work of many behind the scenes up here on this de and behind us uh we have made further changes even in the last week uh we eliminated most of the concerning changes uh to police accountability and transparency uh as well as ensured that the district's vehicle Pursuit and neck restraint laws continue to protect residents from dangerous police practices uh I want to emphasize to anyone watching that this is in fact an iterative process and there's still time to strengthen this bill uh as I've said before making District resident safer is going to require much more than this bill uh MPD arrests per officer are 40% lower than prepandemic levels and the United States Attorney uh pursue significantly fewer cases than they did in 2015 uh it is clear we need greater coordination uh between all of the elements of the district's full Public Safety apparatus more to the point though our Public Safety conversations need to confront harder questions why are so many of our youth facing agencies failing basic responsibilities to link children with Services what traumas lead young men to commit violent offenses and what violence reduction strategies do we still need to implement to reach them how can we give District residents including those who have become jce involved a sense of belonging and opportunity ultimately I want to make clear this point as well we cannot and we will not tolerate the violence that has played out on the streets of the District of Columbia while I will continue to fight to prevent more of our young people who we fail in DC classrooms every day to end up in the criminal justice system I will also continue fighting to reduce the number of families that have to bury loved ones or who themselves have been victim of violence in the city uh and we know that the safer uh communities are those where residents uh are healthier and our economy is more inclusive uh and key trauma ruction programs are better supported so I too plan to vote for this legislation today uh and continue working with colleagues to truly and more holistically address Public Safety in the District of Columbia thank you uh thank you Council M Parker I think that can comes from rinto thank you very much chairman um I just want to add my thanks to so many district residents who participated in this process um to share where they disagreed um to share where we needed to make things better stronger uh different and uh lend their expertise whether it was in lived experience or subject matter EXP expertise with something that they pursue with their with their work um that informed everything that we did throughout the last several months on this bill um and makes me very proud of where we ended up um I'm also very appreciative to you all all of my colleagues um for your partnership and work on this and especially thank you to you chairman Mendelson for all of your collaboration um and assistance in moving this body forward in um what I hope unanimous passage of secure DC in just a moment um and I need to highlight the names of my unbelievably impressive team who worked literally every single day and night and weekend day um of the last several weeks and months um to get this bill right to listen to people with opposing viewpoints to balance many many different interests and needs um and who care about these issues so deeply um and so earnestly and I have learned so much from you all and so thank you so much um our committee director Evan marof our committee staff Stephen Palmer annia Mitchell aloy Rodriguez Labrada Sean Jeter akima Benjamin and our personal office who also worked um hard on this in different ways our chief of staff Genevie Huck um Lynn gra Brian Romanowski Victoria caser rubius Maddie white Mason Gro and Pablo Velasco Rodriguez um this was a a real team effort much more work is left to be done in the district to accomplish all of our goals but I am hopeful um and believe that today's action sends a very clear message that we are turning in a safer and more secure Direction it is long past due um and I thank you all for your engagement in this process and hope that you all vote Yes on on this bill today thank you council member Pino council member McDuffy thank you council member Pento um and to your entire team for all the work that you all have put into this um you know I said this earlier in the breakfast but I think it Bears repeating a lot goes into the work at the council and and you know having been in a similar position having chaired this committee and produced comprehensive legislation it's hard to get it to a point where you know you you reach any degree of consensus with with people in the public um but I think I I having spoken to you understand that you said about this with a real level of earnest and sincerity to get it right and I appreciate all the work you put into this um you know you know having been here my entire life in this city and and seeing some of the ups and downs that we we've been on as a city over the years it really pains me to see us back here with the level of violence that we're experiencing but I think this bill is is going to help us really address concerns that we've been seeing around some of the crime um I think about colleagues have put it well in saying that our efforts to reduce violence can't stop here in fact our Focus today uh is on accountability as well it should be but if you've talked to me about violence in in the past and you know that I always talk about you know the need to focus on both accountability and opportunity and we got a lot more to do by way of opportunities I do appreciate that Council Mento has worked with the executive to fund aspects of this bill um I think there's some lessons learned from me having worked on the near act and haven't had a number of Provisions not be funded nly and not be implemented uh and therefore not really set in place some of the data driven um policies that I think was widely supported by this Council unanimously and also in the public and so I appreciate the thought you put into approaching it this way and really trying to strike that balance um there's obviously a lot more work to do this is the stuff that keeps me up at night in the same way that it kept me up last night uh you know I'm a council member on this deis and really working to address these policies but I got to tell you I leave this Council when I go home and I'm a father and I'm a husband and I I really think that I just say we got a lot more work to do thank you council member I believe that's everyone who wish to speak on the bill uh we have the bill before us um Madam as amended Madam Secretary would you please call the role council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member L George council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes council member Nell yes council member nadell votes yes council member Parker yes yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tron white present council member Tron white will be recorded as present council member Allen yes council member Allan votes yes council member Lewis George Mr chairman can we do a two-minute um uh we can but uh I'm here I'm here she's here thank you council member Lewis George yes council member Lewis George votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one present uh the bill on first reading is approved unanimously motions and requests and points of order and so forth are out of order in the midst of a vote um just saying uh we're turning to reading and vote on proposed resolutions the first is um PR 255-507 District of Columbia sentencing commission Joel Caston appointment resolution of 2024 this was approved in the committee the whole meeting earlier this afternoon uh so I'm going to say so moved and I'm also going to ask for a roll call vote I believe one member had asked excuse me a Voice vote and I one member had asked to be present and that can be recorded chairman yes Mr Parker I move that we take a five minute recess I believe there's a feeling that there shouldn't be a recess I believe there's a feeling that there shouldn't be a recess if you insist on a motion to recess then I'll call a vote otherwise can we keep moving thank you Mr Parker we have Jo castone before us is there discussion uh by Voice vote all those in favor of the resolution say I I I I opposed chairman please record me as voting present Madam Secretary we record council member Nido is present the motion is approved unanimously we have PR 25-61 local rent supplement program contract number 2024 lrsp 02a with hope View Apartments LP approval resolution of 2024 council member Robert White thank you chairman this legislation would approve a subsidy for 16 apartments for extremely low-income households as part of a new construction project on Mary and Barry Avenue it comes to us from the DC Housing Authority or dcaa but the backstory also involves the Department of Housing and Community Development the development team led by T and H Investments submitted their proposal to dhcd in response to the 2021 Consolidated request for proposal they intended to build a five-story 42 unit affordable housing building with ground floor offices and support program space dhcd and its partner agencies selected this proposal to receive District subsidies from various sources out of those subsidies the resolution on today's agenda covers the piece that DCH administers project-based vouchers from the local rent supplement program or lrsp once the building comes online dcha is committing to provide an operating subsidy to help cover rent for 16 house households making 30% or less of the area median income 12 of those 16 households will also receive permanent support of Housing Services most of the subsidies for this project will come to us as one-time passive approval contracts however since lrsp is a multi-year subsidy commitment and the home rule act requires affirmative approval for multi-year contracts this one requires active vote and active vote before the contract would automatically be disapproved on March 3rd based on the materials we've received this appears to be a worthwhile project I therefore move proposed resolution 25611 the local rent supplement program contract number 2024 lrsp d2a with hope View Apartments LR approval resolution of 2024 thank you chairman thank you sir discussion uh Madam Secretary is a Voice vote okay we'll have a Voice vote the vote is on PR 25-61 all those in favor say I I I hi are there any no votes I don't see her any no votes uh the resolution is approved unanimously uh temporary legislation Bill 25- 594 streety program extension temporary Amendment Act of 2023 counc McDuffy thank you Mr chairman I'd like to move to postpone the measure for consideration until March 5th for our next legislative meeting uh my team and I have been in discussions both with councilman R Allen and D do and AFA and they expect to release the street program regulations for public comment by the time the emergency measure expires on March 20th of this year upon that release I will move the temporary legislation for final reading uh the motion is to postpone to March 5th if there's no objection it will be postponed to March 5th hearing no objection it's postponed to March 5th emergency legislation the first measure is medical cannabis clarification supplemental emergency Amendment Act of 2024 the Declaration is pr25 d625 council member McDuffy thank you chairman uh there exists an immediate need to provide a deadline date by which the existing facilities um must be I must file the applications with APPA for additional medical campas facility licenses prohibit a cultivation center from also holding an internet retailer license provide that the two cultivation center registration applicants that submitted an application to the uh Alcoholic Beverage Control Board that TI for second and receive the same score be awarded a cultivation center registration and provide that other cultivation Center and dispensary registration applicants that scored 150 points or more during the same open application period be considered for a cultivation Center retailer legislation registration in April of last year the council enacted legislation to address these issues temporary the medical cannabis clarification supplemental temporary Amendment Act of 2023 expires on March 4 1st of this year permanent legislation addressing these issues has been introduced but must complete the legislative process it's vital that the provisions of the temporary act continue in effect until the permanent legislation becomes law I'll move the deck the declaration has been moved it's before us is there a discussion on the Declaration by a roll call vote uh do we need a roll call vote by roll call vote Madam Secretary council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member L George council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes council member noo yes council member noo votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allan yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member LS George is absent Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent thank you Madam Secretary the um declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying Bill Bill 25676 council member McDuffy so move discussion since the Declaration was unanimous we'll do a Voice vote all those in favor of the bill say I I I are there any opposed guys have it unanimously the next measure is medical cannabis license clarification emergency Amendment Act of 2024 the Declaration is PR 25- 626 council member McDuffy on the Declaration thank you chairman uh last month the council pass emergency legislation to clarify that ancs within 600 ft of where Medical canabus establishment is or will be located can file a protest during the 90-day calendar uh the 90 calendar day open application period and to allow alcoholic beverage and cannabis board to extend public comment periods with the next open application period for retailer internet retailer social Equity applicants beginning March 1st of this year is necessary to apply the same protest standard and extension to all cultivation Center manufacturer retailer and internet retailer applications for similar consistency purposes and concerns of over concentration emergency legislation is necessary to prohibit all retailer applicants from locating within 400 freed of each other additionally this emergency legislation clarifies that cultivation Center retailer and internet retailer licenses issued to unlicensed establishments during the statutory 90day 90 calendar day open application period count toward the overall 50% set aside requirement for social Equity applicants finally emergency legislation necessary to allow APPA to issue licenses to approve unlicensed establishments by the later date of either September 30th 2024 or within 180 days of board approval and require unlicensed activity to cease once a license has been issued this would stagger the demand for supply and cultivation centers and set these establishments up for Success these changes would solely assist the establishments approved for licensure while all other unlicensed activity will remain on track for enforcement the emergency legislation would also allow on approval establishments that choose to discontinue operations at their proposed location more time to resume operations at that location upon request and the committee on business and economic development is currently considering legislation to enact these changes on a permanent basis with that I move today thank you council member we have the Declaration before us is there discussion I have a question coun McDuffy reading the notice it suggests that protests are limited to um those ANC commissions within 600 feet and the law regarding anc's is typic typically an affected ANC I'm not moving an amendment but I'm guessing that the bill says anc's within 600 feet and not affected anc's it's effective actually the same language that Council M Allen did last month that may be that doesn't mean that if you could maybe look at it for the temporary affected it's not necessarily 600 feet uh is there if there's no other discussion on the Declaration Madame secretary would you call the role coun mcra is abscent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes no gosh council member Henderson votes yes it's been a long day uh council member LS George is absent council member McDuffy council member McDuffy oh I'm sorry yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendon yes chairman mson votes yes council member Nido yes council member Nido votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member Bond votes yes council member fruman yes council member fuman votes yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two absents as the Declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying Bill Bill 25678 council member McDuffy so move discussion since the Declaration was approved unanimously we will do a Voice vote all those in favor of the bill say I I I are there any opposed yeah I have it unanimously historic preservations of derc District properties extension emergency declaration resolution and the underlying emergency act uh this is renewing an emergency in temporary that was adopted last year it concerns uh the fourth remaining no the one remaining house the one house out of four that the laon trust is rehabilitating in the Anacostia historic district uh there has been a time limit and this uh extends the time limit necessary for the trust to complete renovation and sale of the home I move the Declaration to discussion council member bonds and then council member white um thank you very much um I'm I'm familiar with this project and so my question is um what what is the result of the Sal that they do from these properties they've done three correct and so what's the result uh well the uh Council in its legislation when it gave the houses to the trust required that they had to be um sold on an affordable basis please don't ask me what exactly level that is because I don't know um those three houses have been sold meeting that criteria and in this fourth house is what's called big Green and it's a yeah like a was originally built as a double house all right and when you say we gave them to the trust yes uh it was my original understanding that they were to um do the renovations um and then take care of the sale does the resources from the sale go into the general fund no or is this a giveaway to uh nonprofit uh the the the three three houses to date have been money losers for the trust the sale price has been less than the restoration cost all right thank you it's really been a remarkable deal for the city C because I mean the city owned the houses as you know historic district standards the owner cannot allow the house to uh the pro the um structure to deteriorate that we have a Prohibition on demolition by neglect uh we gave the properties to the trust the trust is so we have no expense here the trust is renovating them all right and and so to to that end I'm just a little curious about properties that are not as deteriorated as those properties were um and how can we get uh speed up the process of making um deric properties uh bring them back into the inventory of ownership and therefore have additional individuals households that are into paying property taxes well the government could my answer would be the government could be friendlier to these nonprofits that are willing to take these properties and renovate them at their expense not ours uh but as you know because you pay moved the legislation five years ago uh dhcd was in extremely UNC I remember I remember I'm I'm just wondering if um we need to look at this program uh in Earnest and figure out how we can make more properties available as you say to nonprofits even if it means nonprofits are uh entity that are developed by for-profit organizations that have uh benefited from their relationship with the DC government so that we can get um speed up this process of having more properties um livable properties throughout the community yes and I know your time has expired I know council member Tran white yeah yes chairman do you know if uh the leant trust did this through a community land trust no um and so I mean I it did not okay got you uh guess do you know the criteria that was set for those who purchased the home because I hear you say affordable but I do not know offand it was in the uh the legislation it required a certain level of affordability and I believe they've worked through Mana to administer that okay I am familiar with the properties and the fourth property and there are probably two others down there that if somebody push it the whole house won't fall correct um and so it is our desire to create liberal Equitable spaces for people in District especially doing the housing prices that we have but I guess I just want to give comment to make sure uh it's affordable uh in the community because affordability means different things to different people you can make $150,000 and qualify for affordability I don't know what these particular houses were but I'm just want to ensure that we are creating a pathway for people to get housing in the jurri and I'm not sure if this is happening uh with our intent for this it sounds like it is but I just don't know the facts just asking so I just want to get no it was so this was a discussion five years ago you were not on the council and uh the um Jim I'm in the Council 7 years well then it was eight years ago but I remember it was laruby May and laruby may insisted that there be an affordability uh provision and um so and and it met whatever it met as you know we have in the law various levels of affordability and it was consistent with one of those and I would love for the trust to take the two that you mentioned but my guess is the trust was so burned by this experience that they won't all right uh if there's no further discussion we have the Declaration before us M secretary would you call the role council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George is absent council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman mson yes chairman mson votes yes council member noo yes council member noo votes yes council member Park yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allan yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes and council member Grace absent Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two absents I'm still uh dealing with uh how long this has been since council member white notes has been on the council for seven years that means it was eight years ago that we started this uh the Declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying Bill Bill 25688 uh so moved discussion since the Declaration was approved unanimously we'll do a Voice vote on Bill 25688 all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed yeah I just have it unanimously the next measure is Street vending amnesty program facilitation emergency Amendment Act of 2024 and the Declaration which is pr25 d628 council member n do thank you chairman I introduce this legislation to address a critical Gap in the street bending amnesty program which is a key component of the street vender ad advancement Amendment act that we passed last year without the successful implementation of this program many vendors will not benefit from the entirety of the legislation I am choosing to postpone this today to give the agencies more time to work out issues that have Arisen but I remain concerned that the law May pose a fundamental barrier to the most effective implementation of the amnesty program so I'm glad the council's attention on this issue has encouraged ocfo to work more closely on this um with that I withdraw the amendment the uh measure uh coun do so Street vending amnesty is withdrawn yes sir all right you're up for the next one road barrier standardization emergency yes that one I withdrew this morning um I submitted a withdrawal of the road barrier standardization emergency we received a commitment from the mayor that the district will store the barriers that the Adams Morgan bid purchased with OP grant funding and we'll work on a full transfer of ownership so that DP W can use them moving forward that addresses the most immediate concern that was caused for emergency legislation and I thank the mayor for working with us I plan to introduce this as permanent legislation so we can address the issue more fully DC stands alone in how challenging and expensive it is to temporarily close a street and even then the barriers used are Jersey barriers or MPD vehicles or DPW Vehicles none of which are as safe as tools actually designed for this purpose which we now own I think this emergency helped the executive to see where we need Improvement members should look out for a co-introduction request from me for the permanent bill in the next week or so but in the meantime I withdraw this measure thank you chairman thank you council member so the measure is withdrawn the next measure is election worker protection emergency Amendment Act of 2024 the Declaration is pr25 d629 council member bonds um thank you um chairman this measure addresses safety concerns facing District of Columbia Board of Elections officials and election workers by providing additional safeguards to the workers to help ensure that the elections are safe for everyone the hotly contested 2024 elections will bring a predictable increase in the abuse of our election officials and pow workers it is already started um in fact the board has received numerous threatening voicemail messages and someone has shattered the outer GL to their office suite the people who administer our elections are essential to the functioning of our democracy and they deserve protection since the election is upon us candidates will have begun collecting signatures and campaign signs are already popping up emergency legislation is therefore necessary to create criminal penalty enhancements to defer crimes against our elected election officials and workers as the election cycle um heats up given that this threat we must take action to protect our workers given that the attacks have already begun in many of um the situations including um we expect in coming months that there'll be more emphasis uh put on the election workers as they begin their process of administering the election and so this emergency legislation is necessary um the emergency legislation and the ANS in particular um takes into consideration that the protection would be offered during the time when the election worker is actually performing their duties and so we wanted to make that clarifying um information includ included in the law and so that's what the ANS is so you're moving the uh declaration yes is there discussion uh chairman mson just one quick question one one I hear you that it's only applies while they're doing their duties but all around the country we have had election officials who have been dogged for their election related work outside of their workplace and I wonder if you gave any consideration to framing it as related to their election their election work as opposed to Simply on site because I fear that one of the issues will be things that happen offsite council member fruman um there had been some thought about that but thinking through how we would protect a Cadre of election workers going and coming to their job doing elections work or even in their neighborhood um it just seemed like it was cost prohibited so we limited to when they're executing their assignment or their task on the premises of where the let's say vote count Center is or in doing um those kinds of Duties and so that was why because um it might be cost prohibited and we wanted to move it without um giving a lot of attention to what it might cost if we to be very honest with you but Council bonds I would note the language says um while the member employer volunteers engaged in the performance of his her duties or on account of the performance of those duties I think that's what council m fuman is talking about I I don't know you can is that what you're speaking of on account of your duties or are you thinking of when an individual because they are an election official or because they are an election worker that there might be some ramifications from doing that task that would follow them when they leave their Duty station so to speak or the facility in which they were operating or doing their work what were you thinking I'm thinking about things all around the country where actually people's lives have been ruined afterward after the fact and and I thought it was a enhanced penalty as opposed to a a secure well I'll I'll talk with you between the first and the second reading about this well it's an um emergency there would be yeah um come on guys this is an emergency in a temporary there'll be a second reading on the temporary temporary when the bill was originally circulated the bill simply said an offense against an employee of the Board of Elections there were some concern that was not related to their duties so language was added to say while they're engaged in performance of their duties or on account of the performance of those duties which I think that's what you're asking about that's the language that's the amendment nature of a substitute anything further on the Declaration we have a roll call vote on the Declaration council member LS George is absent council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman mson yes chairman mson votes yes council member noo yes council member noo votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allan yes council member Allan votes yes council member Bond yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gr is absent and council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two ad s thank you Madam Secretary the Declaration is approved unanimously uh the underlying Bill Bill 25- oh wait a minute oh yeah no no the underlying Bill Bill 25- 684 council member boms so moved ah do you have an amendment nature of a substitute um it is the same it's the same Amendment so it's so moved well it's not the same so you're moving the amendment nature of a substitute we have the amend mment in front of us let's try this if there's no objection the amendment nature of a substitute will be accepted hearing no objection it's accepted we have the bill as amended before us is there a discussion since the Declaration was approved unanimously we'll do a Voice vote this is on Bill 25684 as amended by the ANS all those in favor say I I I I opposed I have it unanimously the next measure is election Precinct modernization emergency Amendment Act of 20124 the Declaration is PR 25- 630 council member Vons um this measure is withdrawn chairman uh thank you the measures withdrawn the next measure is DC Healthcare Alliance enrollment rulemaking emergency approval act in the Declaration is pr25 608 counc M Henderson um Mr chairman I need to withdraw this measure as um all of the documents were not submitted by the executive for us to proceed uh the measure is withdrawn the next measure is DC Healthcare Alliance Financial eligibility rulemaking emergency approval the Declaration is PR 25- 607 Council Mary Henderson um I also need to withdraw this measure because all the documents were not submitted by the executive um on time are the measures withdrawn all right so we're going to turn to Temporaries no we're not going to move them all in Block because I believe three of them were never approved as emergencies right so if there's no objection we will consider in Block medical cannabis clarification supplemental temporary medical cannabis license clarification temporary historic preservation of derl District properties extension temporary election worker protection temporary reflecting the amendment in the amendment of a nature of a substitute is that clear Madam general counsel yes it is okay so I'm not hearing any objection that's one two three four four Temporaries being moved in Block I always aggravate the secretary by saying that there'll be a u two three four say be aoll call hold on there's a debate here whether it's four or five it's four bill 25677 bill 25679 bill 25689 bill 25685 I think that's that's four yep took math I took new math uh Madam the voters on that hearing no discussion Madam Secretary call the role that'll get us aied C mcy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendon votes yes council member nadoo yes council member noo votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allan yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray is absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes and council member LS George is absent Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two absence the measures are approved first reading unanimously um that concludes the business for this meeting the next legislative meeting is March 5th 2024 the time is 5:31 PM and this meeting is adjourned oh you get out of here Mr chairman do you have a tally Megan would like to know on um stores it's and I know you be right down