foreign I apologize that we seem to be getting off to a slow start uh we're waiting for a quorum uh they're seven is a quorum I know there are a couple members who are in a back room side room um and we're close so we'll start in a few minutes foreign foreign foreign daughter of this meeting this is a regular meeting of the committee of the whole of the Council of the District of Columbia I'm Phil Mendelson chairman of the council and chair of the committee of the whole today is Tuesday October 18 2022 the time is 12 25 in the afternoon this meeting is being conducted in the room 500 the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building there is at least one member who's participating virtually and this meeting is being broadcast live via the zoom video conference broadcast platform as well as on Council TV channel 13 and I believe it is streaming on the council's website which is www.dccouncil.gov this is a committee the whole meeting this meeting will be followed by a legislative meeting which will be an additional legislative meeting meaning it's not our regular first Tuesday of the month legislative meeting there are approximately six bills to be marked up in the committee as a whole for which there can be discussion and debate there are two bills that are have been moved out of the Judiciary Committee and they will come through the committee as a whole for which members can ask questions but there will not be debate I believe all these measures are expected to be put on the agenda for the additional legislative meeting following this committee as a whole We Begin our committee the whole meetings by determining there there's a quorum Mr Cash would you call the roll chairman Mendelson president councilmember Allen here councilmember bonds here council member Che here councilmember gray councilmember gray council member Henderson here councilmember Lewis George yeah councilmember McDuffie here councilmember Jones here councilmember Pinto president councilmember Silverman councilmember Silverman councilmember Robert White president councilmember Trey on white president Mr chairman you have a quorum thank you Mr Cash we have the secretary's report which is a report of committee filings I'm going to recognizing chart Pro tem Kenya McDuffie thank you Mr chairman and I will move the way of the reading of the secretary's report it's been a motion to waive the reading of the report is there discussion on the motion to waive the reading all those in favor say aye aye are there any no votes motion is carried unanimously we have the reading of the secretary's log of introductions and referrals this was circulated by the secretary yesterday I believe with the final agenda again I'm going to recognize the chair Pro tem council member Kenya McDuffie and I will move the way of the reading of the secretary's log of introductions and referrals it's been a motion to waive the reading is her discussion and the motion to wave the reading all those in favor say aye aye are there any no votes the emotion is carried unanimously as I indicated there are approximately six bills for markup in the community as a whole the first is Bill 24-24 entitled The Ruth Bader Ginsburg way designation acts of 2022. this legislation would symbolically designate Virginia Avenue between Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Northwest and New Hampshire Avenue Northwest has Ruth Bader Ginsburg way if the location is in ward 2. uh Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed as a judge of the United States court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Ruth Ginsburg and her husband Martin Ginsburg purchased an apartment in the Watergate residential complex upon her confirmation in 1993 President Bill Clinton nominated her as an associate Justice of the Supreme Court and she was approved by the Senate by a vote of 93-3 upon taking her seat on August 10 1993 she became the second female Justice and the first Jewish female Justice on the court Justice Ginsburg championed gender equality and fought for social justice under the law during her tenure on the Supreme Court she authored the majority opinion in the United States versus Virginia in 1996 which struck down the all-male admissions policy at Virginia Military Institute to joined Justice Kennedy's majority opinion ogberfeld The Hodges which granted same-sex couples the right to marry throughout the United States the authored The Descent joined by three other justices in Shelby County beholder a case which effectively gutted a law meant to borrow racial discrimination in voting she also LED in The Descent of Ledbetter V Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in 2007 in which he criticized unequal pay for female employees Justice Ginsburg passed away in September on September 18 2020. I'll add the report says more about uh Ruth Bader Ginsburg and of course there's much much more that could be said uh but that's just a brief summary this legislation was introduced by councilmember Pinto with all other 12 council members co-introducing on January 15 2021. on November 6 2021 the committee as a whole held a hearing public hearing and the committee received no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation without objection I moved both the print and report for um with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion councilmember Pinto thank you Mr chairman Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a Pioneer in women's rights and gender equality and in her own right associate Justice Ginsburg received her ba from Cornell University attended Harvard Law School and as one of only a handful of women received her LLB from Columbia Law School she served as a law clerk at the United States district court for the southern district of New York and then worked at the Columbia law school project on International procedure she was a professor of law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963 to 1972 and at Columbia Law School from 1972 to 1980 where she became its first female tenured professor associate Justice Ginsburg was a fellow at the center for advanced study in the behavioral sciences Stanford California and she co-founded the women's rights project of the American civil liberties Union arguing over 300 gender discrimination cases and six cases before The Supreme Court she was appointed a judge of the United States court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in 1980 and President Clinton nominated her as an associate Justice of the Supreme Court taking her seat August 10 1993 thereby becoming the second female Justice on the court in the United States history associate Justice Ginsburg paved the way for many women in the legal field as well as strengthened women's rights and gender equality throughout her storied career Justice Ginsburg passed away on September 18 2020 and this designation will honor her long history of contributions to equality into our country this legislation will symbolically designate the portion of Virginia Avenue Northwest between Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Northwest and New Hampshire Avenue Northwest in Ward 2 as Ruth Bader Ginsburg way Virginia Avenue Northwest was chosen for the designation as associate Justice ginsburg's home was in the Watergate complex on that portion of Virginia Avenue last current law does not permit a public space in the district to be named in honor of any living person or an honor of any person who has been deceased less than two years unless the deceased person was a president or vice president of the United States a United States Senator a representative a mayor of the District of Columbia a member of the Council of the District of Columbia this bill adds justices of the Supreme Court of the United States to this honored category for exceptions thank you Mr chairman Mr chairman uh thank you thank you councilmember Pinto I do want to note um that provision about adding Supreme Court Justices is not in the committee print but also uh Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away more than two years ago so thank you Mr chairman I'm very pleased that the council is doing this uh today uh I had worked with uh uh justice Ginsburg over the years in various uh commissions and so on and as fellow law professors we often were able to uh discuss issues uh that we both had great interest in and as a teacher of constitutional law I was always pleased when we got to that section involving gender discrimination and I was able to take up cases that she authored um she was uh such a role model for women and uh an early role model for women she once reminded me that when she was looking to go to a law school they thought that she was there to apply uh to be on the staff as an assistant uh instead of a a professor and she encountered a similar kind of uh stereotypes and discrimination uh when she uh was thinking about working in the private sector as well and I was deeply honored when she agreed to swear me in when I was first elected um and she will be greatly missed in so many ways but she's such an icon and I think women uh can look to her example and be extremely proud and have the opportunity now to stand uh where they stand because of what she did early in her career and continued throughout so I'm very very pleased that we're doing this thank you Mr chairman thank you councilman Chen casa repinto just wanted to follow up on something you just said about the exception language not being included in the committee print um yes it has now been over two years and she passed away but at the time that we introduced this it had not and so we were thinking that United States Supreme Court Justices should be included in the under two-year exception is there a reason that that uh piece of the expansion was excluded unrelated to Justice Ginsburg uh we didn't see a need to do it and uh generally I think the two-year law or rule has a um has a rational purpose to it okay and as I said uh she passed away in 2020 and it's been more than two years so this doesn't come up very often I have to say with regard to Supreme Court Justices and uh or any of the others in fact as uh for the last 10 years I don't think we've had any uh of the qualifying individuals come before us for a um ceremonial designation and there are a few folks who I think I wouldn't want to give a ceremonial designation to but that's a different issue but that's a different issue uh is there any further discussion on this uh the motion is on both the print and the report would leave for staff to make technical conforming and electronic changes Mr Cash would you call the roll it's a member Shea yes councilmember Che votes yes councilmember Gray councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes councilmember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George Yes councilmember Lewis George of OTS councilmember McDuffie yes councilmember McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes councilmember Nadeau yes councilmember Nadeau votes yes council member Pinto yes councilmember Pinto votes yes council member Silberman yes councilmember Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes councilmember Robert yes council member Treyon white yes councilmember Tran white votes yes councilmember Allen yes councilmember Allen votes yes councilmember bonds yes councilor bonds votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent thank you Mr Cash the motion that Sprint report are approved unanimously Madam general counsel our assistant general counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is Madam Secretary whom I cannot see on my screen is the record complete the record will be complete after the sorry after the committee report response had to hear a word you said could you repeat that oh no yes you're very faint uh I heard you say oh no once the committee report is filed record will be complete when the community report is filed yes measure Cisco impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting the next measure for markup in the Community Hall is Bill 24-142 entitled to bed bug Control Act of 2022 this legislation was reported sequentially first from the committee on health chaired by councilmember Vincent gray who was not here today and then by the committee as a whole that's to mark up today the print that we'll be voting on is the one that's attached to the committee the whole report as introduced this legislation would propose to establish bed bug inspection requirements for contiguous units and establish a timeline for abatement require housing providers to provide the bed bug infestation history for the previous 16 months to a prospective tenant we require housing providers and licensed Pest Control professionals to report bed bug infestations abatement to the Department of Consumer Regulatory Affairs and create a bed bug remediation assistance program to provide financial assistance for bed bug infestation abatement for low-income homeowners the committee on health made a number of substantive changes to the introduced bill including adding language that would allow tenants to terminate a lease if bed bugs were found within the first year of moving into the unit requiring housing providers to accommodate the needs of tenants with disabilities or physical limitations for inspections in abatement defining when a tenant may ask for an adjacent or adjoining property to be inspected and amending reporting requirements uh the committee the whole print supports some of these changes and then makes a number of additional substantive changes first the print strikes the the community the whole print strikes the requirement for housing providers to disclose any infestations in the rental property within the last 10 months this is because the requirement is overly Broad and burdensome it would require housing providers to disclose attendance infestations that may have long ago been remediated and also uh 10 infestations in any unit on the property not just a tenants unit our prospective tenants unit the print strikes language that would allow tenants to terminate a lease agreement without penalty if the tenant finds bed bugs in the unit within one year of signing the print does not include that provision because the presence of bed bugs in a dwelling unit could be due to any number of factors outside the control of the housing provider or the tenant including the tenant traveling internationally and inadvertently bringing bed bugs back with them allowing a tenant to terminate a lease agreement for something outside the control of the housing provider um is somewhat unfair the print adds a requirement for housing providers to implement reasonable bed bug monitoring services for a 12-month period after a pest control professional determines that no evidence of bed bugs can be found in the unit imprint adds language stating that the tenants should notify a housing provider of a potential infestation within five days of suspecting or knowing of an infestation the community of the house print simply stated the tenant should promptly notify housing providers and the committee the whole print says within five days this notice requirement mirrors language and similar bed bug laws in Philadelphia and Chicago the print also includes circumstances in which the housing provider may change charge the tenant for the costs of inspections or eradication there's no objection I'll finish this presentation um these circumstances where the housing provider may do this are when the tenant knowingly interferes with obstructs or inhibits inspections or eradication measures or when intense failure to properly maintain their unit results in the need for repeated eradication efforts the print also includes a requirement for Pest Control professionals to maintain records of inspections and eradication measures for a period of time the apprent establishes a process to handle violations of the act that was not in the introduced or the committee of the health Prince the committee the whole print includes a requirement for the Department which would be the term of buildings to create and publish an educational pamphlet on bed bugs that must be given to a prospective tenant at the time they uh that they um uh sign for a unit and the print reduces the potential amount of financial assistance available to housing providers for inspections and eradications in a single unit to the in remediation assistance fund which is established by this bill reduces it from ten thousand dollars to three thousand dollars the average cost of eradication is between five hundred and twenty five hundred dollars bed bugs negatively impact thousands of tenants in the District of Columbia each year despite this there's no law requiring housing providers to maintain a bed bug-free premise and therefore no recourse for tenants who are exposed to bed bugs bill 24-142 the bill before us will Rectify this the legislation was introduced a number of years ago by councilmember Nadeau and the committee on health and the committee of the whole held a public hearing on December 19 2019 that was last Council period the bill was reintroduced on March 1st of 2021 Again by councilmember Nadeau along with council members gray Shea and Pinto the command Health marked up the legislation in March 11th of this year and I am moving this for markup today uh I move the print would leave for staff to make Technical and conforming changes is there a discussion chairman councilman bernado thank you as you noted I am one of the original movers of this introducers of this legislation so I do have some questions about uh changes made in the print um the print allows tenants to be charged for bed bug eradication when they knowingly interfere with obstruct or actively inhibit bed bug treatments and inspections um I'm curious how we are defining that and my concern is we've seen landlords use the supposed failure to comply with pest inspections and treatment as a basis to file evictions for violating lease terms um in the past somewhat prevalently is there any reason to think that wouldn't happen here with this change um I'm curious why we feel we need to do this uh the need to do this the thinking was that since we're taking a holistic approach toward the problem with bed bugs and that this is the first time that there will be legislation regarding this in the district uh the thinking is that there are a number of responsibilities being placed on the housing provider or landlord this build makes clear the law makes clear that the landlord has to when it's reported that their bed bugs has to undertake at the landlord's cost cleaning up the apartment and if the um I shouldn't say cleaning up but um um eradicating the bed bugs yes eradicating and um and there are penalties to the landlord if landlord doesn't do that but what if the tenant uh obstructs and um and that's why we address that what if the tenant obstructs so I think the language it's common language to say knowingly knowingly interferes with the structure inhibits inspections or eradication measures I'm reading from the committee report yeah I guess my concern is is there any reason to think that this won't sort of become a default where the tenant gets charged maybe we could talk about it before first and second reading I'll just add this um we're unaware of any cases where that has happened of course there hasn't been this law but we're unaware of any such cases and we also worked with a number of the housing advocates to uh in the development or the changes in the committee print yeah and okay that's why we're comfortable with it we'll follow up with you because yes this hasn't been in place so we don't know but we have seen situations where tenants have gone so far as evicting people for failure to comply with inspections so I don't know why we wouldn't worry that they would also just sort of de facto uh okay I have two more though is and there's no objections okay um so under the version of this bill approved by the committee on health landlords would be required to disclose to prospective tenants any bed bug infestation that occurred within the building not just the unit available for rent within prior months but the cow print requires the disclosure of infestations that have occurred only within the specific unit and only within 120 only with the prior 120 days so it seems to your the print seems to conflict with the committee report which notes that bed bugs can live for up to a year without feeding and they're quite mobile it's also inconsistent with the justification for the requirement that landlords monitor units for a year after eradication so here's a question is the disclosure requirement in this committee print consistent with bed bug biology and does it make sense to only require 120 days of disclosure if we're requiring a year of monitoring so my staff knows more about the biology of bed bugs and I ever thought was possible uh yes this is consistent with I think that's the way you phrased a bed bug biology um let me say a little bit more the um bed bugs are are localized uh when when there are bed bugs in an apartment they don't just spread to other apartments they're focused because they're they're interested in the food which is to humans uh so that's why this speaks to the apartment where the infestation is in addition um uh the as I understand it what my staff just said to me was that bed bugs can be eradicated in a matter of weeks so the 120 days that we have in here goes beyond well beyond that uh but there is this monitoring requirement so that um there is that additional layer which I would say is in a sense unnecessary but it does provide a little bit more I'll say Assurance to the tenant but they can be eradicated in a matter of weeks in fact I think actually uh in a shorter time than that but not to get too gross here but you know eggs and some that may not have died right away so that's why I've just said uh several weeks okay I would ask that we have a discussion about this between first and second reading because my understanding is different in fact the impetus for this bill was actually a situation where bed bugs would spread from one home to another not even apartment building but between two row homes and my understanding is that they can live for up to a year without feeding so I just want to make sure that we are setting ourselves up with the new law to eradicate bed bugs rather and make sure that we're not um allowing any of these issues to persist so my third question is well let me just say I'm happy to talk to you um yeah after this because uh the my goal here is the same as your goal we don't want right agreed I don't want to have a long fight with you over bed bug legislation I think we can sort it out but I do want to raise a question about it if we do because again so um and then as introduced to legislation would have required landlords to respond to attendance report of bed bugs by conducting a pest control inspection within two business days and it the print extends it to 10 business days which could be at least two full weeks my concern is I don't know what's the thinking around two weeks ten days being an appropriate amount of time because they really do I mean they can spread between units not I mean they may not go through walls but there's a lot of ways for them to spread in an apartment building in that period of time uh the thinking was this and I'm again I'm happy to work with you on this I think it was this if we say it has to be within two two days uh it can be nearly impossible to get an exterminator to come out on such short notice um so it's more reasonable that it's reasonable to have a longer window to expect the Exterminator to come out uh compromise on that somewhere I'm happy to talk with you about it great okay thank you chairman I appreciate you answering all my questions I think we're all getting to know more about bed bugs are there any other questions on this or discussions yes Mr chairman um thank you very much hi I wanted to um try and understand how this print is going to facilitate the landlord having access to the units um I know it says the landlord is going to make the request but is there any muscle any way for the landlord to actually have access to units maybe adjoining units because frequently tenants are not um excited with someone wanting to come into their unit unless they are showing an infestation of bed bugs so I wondered is there some language within this print that would help us to understand how they would gain access the short answer is no and this again is an issue we can look at between first and second reading but I would say this if a tenant calls to landlord and says hey landlord I got bed bugs I want you to eradicate them implicitly if not explicitly the tenant is giving permission to the landlord to enter the unit so I don't think there's a right of access uh issue here but uh we can look at that I I think it would be worthwhile particularly since bed bugs do spread quickly and they are spread from one kept spread from one unit to the other and that's when we hear about oh my building has an infestation of bed bugs and so I just wanted to know do we have any any um any any way to make sure that the conditions in a in a building can be eradicated uh uniformly so that let's say all on one floor I mean are we within this print you know thinking about how we give the landlord the opportunity to eradicate in other units other than where the initial report came from oh yeah and as I said we'll look at it all right anything further comes from Iran's that's it thank you so much any further questions or discussion uh the vote is on the print with leave for staff to make Technical and conforming changes Mr Cash would you call the roll councilmember Gray councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes council member Henderson of OTS councilmember Lewis George foreign McDuffie yes councilman McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes council member Nadeau yes councilman Joe votes yes council member Pinto yes councilmember TS councilmember Silverman yes councilmember Silverman votes yes council member Robert White yes councilman Robert White votes yes council member Tryon white yes councilmember Tran white votes yes councilmember Allen yes councilmember Allen votes yes council member bonds yes councilmer bonds votes yes council member Jay yes councilmember Chavis yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two absent thank you Mr Cash the print has approved unanimously we have the report I moved the report with lead for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion uh by a Voice vote uh the only on the report all those in favor say aye aye aye aye are there any no votes uh the report has approved uh unanimously Madam assistant general counsel is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is um secretary is the record complete the record is complete from the committee on health and from the committee of the whole once the report is filed once the report is filed and a budget director does the measure Cisco impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does and I'll note that the bill is subject and I believe there is a subject to appropriation clause in it correct the physical impact statement indicates a cost I don't have in front of me or something like 1.4 million a year correct 1.4 million in FY 23 and 5.2 million over the plan yes um the objection dispatch will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting a third measure for markup is Bill 24-417 Teresa Howe Jones Way designation Act of 2022 the legislation would symbolically designate First Street Southwest between Martin Luther King Jr Avenue and Brandywine Street all in Southwest as Theresa Howe Jones Way the location is in Ward 8 it's a symbolic naming which is for ceremonial purposes and shall be in addition to and subordinate to any name that is an official name Teresa Jones was born in The District in 1933 she and her family were residents in public housing which led to her organizing her neighbors making her a leader in her housing Cooperative complex her formal community service began through her work as executive director of Southeast Neighborhood House a major neighborhood organizing force during the Civil Rights and black power movements she also served as an assistant branch chief for the United planning organization or upo she was a staunch home rule and statehood activist having served as a delegate to the D.C statehood constitutional convention in 1982. Miss Jones is well known or was well known as commissioner and chair of advisory commission A.D and as a founding member of the ward 8 Democrat she was on the board of the Anacostia neighborhood Museum and the Anacostia Economic Development Corporation after she retired from the upo she took on initiatives such as the east of the river needs assessment project the emergency shelter housing program The Neighborhood Market survey and the crisis intervention for utility payments Mr Jones passed away on June 10th excuse me July 10 2017. [Music] his legislation was introduced by councilmember Treon white along with six other council members on October 1st 2021 the committee of the whole held a public hearing on the measure on July 6 2022 committee received no testimony or comments in opposition to the legislation without objection I'll move both the print and the report would leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion Mr Cash would you call the role this would be a roll call vote councilmember Henderson yes councilmember Henderson yes councilmember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George councilman Lewis George councilmember McDuffie yes councilmember McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman mendelsohn votes yes councilmember Nadeau yes councilmarnado votes yes councilmember Pinto yes councilmember Pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman yes councilmember Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White councilman Robert White councilmember Tramway yes customer Tran white votes yes councilmember Allen yes councilmember Allen votes yes councilmember bonds yes it's votes yes council member yes votes yes and councilmember gray is absent Mr chairman there are 10 yeses and three absent uh the um motion which is both the print report are approved unanimously Madam assistant general counsel is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is madam secretary's record complete and you were completely muted but I believe you said once the report is filed I'll try this again once the report is filed thank you madam budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does the objection dispatch will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting the next item for markup is Bill 24-526 engineering licensure Amendment Act of 2022. this legislation was introduced by myself and councilmember Mary Chang as introduced to Bill amends the law to clarify the scope of the practice of engineering with respect to Consultants officers or employees of the district government our employees Consultants officers have an independent agency the District of Columbia and the bill makes conforming amendment to another provision in the code the practice of engineering was not regulated in the district until 1950 when Congress adopted the Professional Engineers registration Act that legislation did provide for exemptions and the exemptions were for officers or employees of the government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia and also an exemption or the practice of engineering exclusively as an officer employee of a public utility Corporation these Provisions these exemptions remained in the law until the council approved Bill 21-279 the Professional Engineers licensure and regulation clarification Amendment Act of 2016. that legislation in 2016 repealed all of the provisions of the congressional act from 1950 codified I won't give the codification a year but that included in the repeal the exemptions for District employees despite being the law in late 2016 the Department of Consumer Regulatory Affairs did not enforce the requirement for government employees practicing engineering to be licensed until 2021. due to the negative impacts that enforcement could have on multiple projects at district and independent agencies this Council adopted emergency legislation in this Council period I believe in 2021 to add an exemption to put back in the exemption an exemption an exemption for persons acting as a consultant officer employee of the government or an independent agency of the District of Columbia acting under the supervision of a professional engineer uh that emergency legislation was the impetus for the bill that's before us uh the buildings before the print is before us does make some changes and I want to note this it establishes Reciprocity for individuals licensed and states with similar or higher eligibility requirements it also um let me see the print exempts exempts quote persons acting as a consultant officer employee of the government or an independent agency the District of Columbia or to a graduate of a program accredited by the accreditation board for engineering and technology or another accreditation entity that is acceptable to the Board of Professional Engineers file under the responsible charge of a professional engineer unquote well not too different from the emergency legislation and temporary that we previously adopted for decades engineering licensure laws in the district Exempted government employees or officers and employees at independent agencies Exempted them from having to obtain a professional engineering license to engage in the practice of engineering the committee print restores that exemption with some improvements refinements that had been repealed in 2016. his legislation was introduced the permanent bill was introduced November 30th 2021 the Community Hall held a public hearing on April 25th 2022. and we have worked with various agencies as well as others who are very much involved in the engineering business to try to make sure that we have the print correct with that I will move the print would leave for staff to make Technical and conforming changes is there a discussion uh Mr Cash would you call the role the vote is on the print councilmember Lewis George councilman Lewis George council member McDuffie yes councilmember McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman mendelsenville TS council member Nadeau yes councilmember nadeaux votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Silverman yes councilmember Silverman votes yes council member Robert White yes councilman Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes that's our Tran white votes yes councilmember Allen yes councilmember Allen votes yes council member bonds yes councilor bonds votes yes council member Che yes council member Chay votes yes councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson um I'm speaking slowly to give my colleague an opportunity to come back so I'm voting yes but can we um what is the rule can we wait uh okay yes councilmember Henderson votes yes councilmember Lewis George yes because we're loose George votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absence foreign were you saying that you were trying to speak slowly to give time for a colleague to return that is correct because the rules do provide for what we call a two-minute rule that's right but we didn't need it thank you um we have the uh the print is approved unanimously we have the report I move the report with leap for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is their discussion the vote is on the report all those in favor say aye aye aye any opposed the uh report is approved unanimously I'm general counsel is to measure legally and technically Madam assistant general counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is um secretary is the record complete once the report is filed and budget director does the Metro Cisco impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does and I believe there's no fiscal impact correct that's in no cost uh without objection the special will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting the next measure for consideration is Bill 24-736 entitled to Wilhelmina and Calvin rollark way symbolic Street designation Act of 2022. his legislation with symbolically designate the 500 block of Foxhall Place Southeast as willamine and Calvin roll our way the location is in Ward 8 a symbolic naming is for ceremonial purposes and shall be in addition to and subordinate to any names as an official name Philomena Jackson was born in Portsmouth Virginia calling her graduation from high school she attended Howard University graduated from the Robert H Terrell Law School in 1944 and opened her own private law practice in 1947. Wilhelmina Jackson met Calvin rollark in 1960 and the two married in 1963. Philomena and Calvin rolack were insufferable in life and worked in tandem to improve the lives of the poor and disadvantaged in the District of Columbia Mr rollark had established the newspaper of the Washington former a weekly newspaper serving the African-American community in 1969 the Rolex founded the United black fund of greater Washington to serve the unmet needs of mostly small and struggling black and Latino non-profits which were not served by what would become the United Way in 1976 Wilhelmina rolack was elected to the ward 8 seat on the council District of Columbia the second person to hold the position and she would serve four consecutive terms through 1992. the report doesn't note this but I will note that a couple of measures that um she authored and put through the council were to establish the police cadet program I believe at the time was both police and fire could that program or it is today I think that's what she established which uh we have um really come to rely on here as an important part of recruiting local youth into our uh sworn services for Public Safety another accomplishment was uh that uh it was her legislation that eliminated money Bond in the District of Columbia for criminal charges so only in the very very rarest of circumstances as an individual when they're arrested in the district required to post bail this has been the practice in the district for decades since councilmember Warlock uh got that legislation to the council and I note that it is touted as a reform that other jurisdictions have been struggling with for years because they recognized that um money Bond can be very unfair and discriminatory and uh that is part of her Legacy here both willamy and Calvin rollock Work tirelessly to make the district in a special word eat a better place to live and work for residents Calvin rolack unexpectedly passed away in October 1994 and Wilhelmina rolack passed away in February of 2006. this legislation was introduced by myself and councilmember Treon White in March March 29th of this year and the Community Hall held a public hearing on July 6th of this year the Committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to the legislation without objection I moved both the print and Report would leave for staff to make technical confirming and editorial changes is their discussion yes chairman councilmember white um just wanted to concur the comments you made about well I mean a rolock and also TJ also known as Teresa Jones who were strong black women in Ward 8 that set precedence for leadership in our city um I do want to note that uh Calvin and Willamina rolock were known as the power couple um in what they doing their time they spend their leadership across the city um it's important to honor these residents Community Advocates on Ward 8 communities in the District of Columbia have benefited deeply from their childless work as you mentioned just now um it is a great honor to have introduced this legislation alongside with you chairman um for the 500 block of fox hall Place Southeast um and and for the record chairman I don't see my cardio Shelton legislation listed but I guess we'll figure it out in the next couple of minutes but thank you foreign white I'll note a couple of things one is um we will include your remarks of support uh for this legislation in the committee report um with regard to Cardell Shelton that legislation is pending and we are looking to mark it up but your office might be helpful to us with providing some biographical information if you could yep um is there any further discussion the uh vote will be on the both the print and Report with lead for staff Mr Cash would you call the roll councilmember McDuffie yes councilor McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes councilmember Nadeau yes councilmember nadeaux votes yes council member Pinto yes councilmember Pinto votes yes council member Silverman yes councilmember Silverman votes yes council member Robert White yes councilmember Robert White votes yes councilmember treyanna white yes councilmember Tran white votes yes councilmember Allen yes councilmember Allen votes yes council member bonds yes councilmember bonds votes yes council member Jay yes councilman votes yes councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes councilman Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George yes councilman Lewis George votes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses one absent of the print report are approved unanimously Madam General assistant general counsel is to measure legally detectively sufficient for our consideration yes it is I'm secretary's record complete once the report is filed Madam budget director doesn't measure Cisco impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does which is that there's no physical impact correct without objection dispatch will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislation additional legislative meeting the last item for markup in the community the whole is pr24-814 defense of the Council on the starter Elementary Edition resolution of 2022. the purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of the council with regard to the commute and feeder pattern for a new Fox Hall Elementary School and the future expansion of Stoddard Elementary School I am not going to read much from the community report I'm going to go straight to the print and my motion is going to be uh on both the print and Report and I'm going to make one change to the uh repo to the print which I'll explain in a moment so the resolution in Section 3 says it is the sense of the council that when establishing the catchment area for the new Elementary School in Fox Hall village DC uh DC public schools DCPS should Endeavor to ensure that no family assigned to the new school has a longer commute to school than they would if remaining inbounds for their current School a repeat should Endeavor to ensure paragraph two the new Elementary School in Foxhall Village is located such that it cannot accommodate Glover Park families as the new school is not reasonably accessible from Glover Park and three the standard edition must be built in such a way that an additional story can be added When Future enrollment requires it and DCPS should begin planning for this additional story during the school year in which Stoddard's enrollment meets or exceeds 85 percent of its permanent capacity that's the essence of this sense of the council in what I read I omitted uh words on line 13 or other families within Stoddard's current catchment area so I'll repeat it uh that paragraph two is the new Elementary School in Foxhall Village is located such that it cannot accommodate Glover Park families as the new school is not reasonably accessible from Glover Park I'm going to say a little bit more this is a sense of the council resolution so it's not binding but it does Express a position of the council I will also add that the council this Council in the budget that we adopted earlier this year in the capital Improvement plan uh explicitly added that the Stoddard Edition must be built in such a way that an additional story can be added When Future enrollment requires it so we're sort of reiterating what we've already put in the budget with that I will add as well I had said this at our meeting our breakfast meeting this morning I'll just note that the record does not include breakfast that um the geography of Glover Park is such and this is just a part of this Stoddard Elementary School catchment area the geography of Glover Park is such that the only way to get the Foxhall Road is to either leave Glover Park and basically go over to Wisconsin Avenue and go down the Reservoir Road or go up to tunlaw Road or to cut through the park and the park is a large Park Glover archfall Park a very large Park and it's unreasonable to expect that elementary school kids on their own will be traversing that Park um and it's sort of unreasonable to expected parents should be traversing that Park and it's kind of unreasonable to expect that parents we get in their cars with their kids and a lot of kids in clever Park a lot of parents in Glover Park given those townhouses may not have cars but to expect that they're all going to get in their cars and go drive eat East in order to get across the park so that's why I'm supportive of this resolution and putting it Forward I move the print and re if there's no objection I move both to print and report to print as I noted to change I would leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion on this uh touch uh Mr chairman the resolution here uh simply reflects the concerns that um um include the following that the Foxhole school is not easily accessible from Glover Park that DCPS should do all it can to ensure current starter to students do not see an increased commute to school following construction of the fox hall school and that the new edition had started to be designed to support a future third story um and it's my hope that the mayor's future planning uh will be uh informed by this resolution last I want to note that this resolution should not be taken to suggest that only Ward 3 schools face overcrowding or deserve a focus of this kind from the council certainly schools in our Awards face the same issues around the district rather the resolution intends to highlight specific unaddressed issues at one particular School and provide a clear statement on how this body would see those issues addressed for that school community so thank you very much Mr chairman thank you councilmember councilmember Henderson um thank you Mr chairman I I raised this in the breakfast and I appreciate that you are making some adjustments here um for those in the room who probably haven't looked at this um the original resolution essentially called for the council to say that the existing boundaries of Stoddard Elementary should stay the way they are and I felt that that was unwise considering we are well number one we just funded um uh DCPS and the deputy mayor for education to do another school assignment boundary process which would be approximately 10 years after the other and um DCPS should be given the opportunity to make those considerations using the data in terms of where boundaries are drawn or not without the council saying that one specific school's boundary should not change um while um and my feeling there was that what is to stop well I understand where council member is coming from as a representative for Ward three there's nothing to stop any of the ward council members from also introducing similar resolutions for their particular elementary schools middle schools high schools Etc um and I feel like we're heading down a slippery slope of doing school assignment boundary policies from the Deus without the process being afforded to us um beyond that though while we're on the topic I think that um and I sort of asked this offhand I do think DCPS needs to then consider why are we even building this new Elementary School if we are going to decide I I recognize that Key Elementary School is overcrowded and that was the purpose for driving this but if we are to say that none of the students can come from the neighboring cool boundary then where are the children supposed to come and I feel like we need to figure that out before we spend 100 million dollars to build a new school that no one is going to attend um and so with that uh Mr chairman I I appreciate the change that you've made I I still am planning to vote no on this but my colleagues should take their um however they wish just because I feel like we shouldn't necessarily be doing it for one specific school thank you thank you councilmember Anderson Is there further discussing the councilmember Silverman uh Mr chairman um uh I actually toured starter um in the uh School Readiness tours the famed council member J School Readiness tours um and you know for those who are not familiar um there are a number of portable classrooms uh around the school uh that that take up I think almost all of the parking lot um so I I say that to say it's clear that there needs to be uh an addition and that there are overcrowding issues uh but that it but I also want to recognize I think what councilmember Henderson brought up in the breakfast it's highly unusual to do a sense of the council like this for a specific school um and it was mentioned that there are Geographic issues but I will just say that you know I appreciate council members and councilmember Henderson's point there are safe passages issues with a lot of our schools perhaps it's not the geographic boundary of a park but it is safe passage to school and I hope that if there are similar be perhaps parallel issues I'll say that we give the same consideration that we're giving here to Stoddard today um I will be voting yes uh but I do think this is a a bit unusual um and I appreciate councilmember Chase comments that she made at the end of her remarks uh addressing this thank you so much thank you councilmember Silverman further discussion uh I'm just going to add a little bit more so I I totally understand the concern about whether we're going to start doing this piecemeal with different schools I think that the situation was started and the change I made just now to the uh resolution verifies this is uh specific to a geographical situation and the reason I see a need to for the council to speak to this is because the executive for the past two years has been really deaf to a community that has said that the geographical you know Glover Park is geographically locked in and uh at that certain situation doesn't apply in too many other circumstances I certainly think there needs to be flexibility with the boundaries and the change I made allows for that on all sides except for the southern and western sides of Glover Park which are landlocked I mean it's a large Park it's so analogous to a situation I believe it was earlier this year the months run together it might have been last year where the uh DCPS or the government purchased the Old Military Road school and decided they was going to send all the preschool kids from what they were at Lafayette over to Military Road school and the community said no I mean really we're going to have preschool Pre-K kids going across Rock Creek Park now they're that's with family at least with parents presumably they're not walking that distance but um it was in the same somewhat the same situation Rock Creek Park is a geographic boundary and uh so sometimes the district government isn't getting it and this the resolution says Hey here that boundary mean that boundary is real and uh and uh so you need to stop thinking about uh building a new school that is going to require that kids have to Traverse a park that's really what this does I think that's unique and I would add this as well for those who are concerned I mean I worked with colleagues here to put in the budget the budget support actor requirement for boundary study there needs to be a boundary study uh there is a significant problem in the city with over enrollment a number of schools and under enrollment a number of schools and the city has not seriously address the boundary issue for our schools and it's not going to be easy or politically easy when we get there but that needs to be done and I fully support that and if there is legislation that starts to piecemeal individual schools and their boundaries I will make sure they get referred to the committee of the whole than simply being retained so that there can be a more careful look at that legislation it looks like I've managed to provoke more comments that councilmember Lewis George yeah I just I think we should go through the process here because there are a number I understand this is a special circumstances but remember last year we had overcrowding issues in War 4 schools we still have overcrowding issues Lafayette Elementary just the same as an overcrowded school um we just addressed Roosevelt's utilization Coolidge Wells are going to have utilization issues and while I would want to address them in the same manner I think I also have to let we also have to just let the process play out here um and go about it the right way so I I don't think we should be putting ourselves even though it's just a sense of the council I don't think we should be taking this step forward today thank you if there's no further discussion the vote is on both the print and Report the voters on both the print and Report would leave for seismic technical conforming and editorial changes and the print reflects the change that I noted and because this is a sense of the council I think we can do this by a Voice vote all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye opposed no no I believe councilmember Lewis George and councilmember Henderson want to be recorded and sorting no correct the uh chairman yes I'd like to be recorded as voting president this is Nadeau sorry we've all got masks on yes okay the motion is approved unanimously excuse me not you know the emotion is approved two customers are recorded as voting no councilmember Nadeau is recorded as president and assistant general counsel is the measured legally and technical-based division for our consideration yes it is um secretary's record complete once the hearing record and reporter filed Madam Project Director does the measure Cisco impact statement uh comply with Council requirements yes it does is there a fiscal impact statement No it's a sense of no there is there are no fiscal impact statements written on sense of the council resolutions okay so the non-existent fiscal impact statement does comply with the council requirements that there doesn't need to be one correct the objection uh is this on the consent or non-consent agenda without objection this will be on the consent agenda for today's additional meeting we have two measures from other committees Bill 24-125 ex expedited adoption eligibility Amendment Act of 2022 reported out of the committee on Judiciary and Public Safety Chair by councilman Charles Leon Mr Allen thank you very much Mr chairman Bill 24-125 the expedited adoption eligibility Amendment Act of 2022 was introduced by you on March 1st 2021 the bill is referred to the committee the next day and the committee held a hearing on March 8 2022 and was unanimously approved at an additional meeting on October 11th the committee print creates an expedited adoption proceeding for lgbtq parents who use assisted reproductive technology to have a child the current adoption process meant for the adoption of children with no biological relationship to either adoptive parent like an older foster child subjects these lgbtq parents to an overly burdensome process that is unnecessarily long expensive demanding of Superfluous information and procedures and ultimately it's inequitable these unnecessary procedures include a home study criminal background checks and a time of the court hearing in today's climate lgbtq rights are increasingly coming under attack some states across the country have taken steps to ban gender affirming care restrict participation by transgender students in school sports and allow denial of services to lgbtq People based on religious or moral objections the committee print would ease the logistical and financial burdens on lgbtq parents merely looking to confirm their parentage of their child and establish the legal protections that come with it the benefits of establishing parentage of a child conceived through assisted reproductive technology extend beyond the district given to the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires courts in other states to recognize valid judgments and orders made by a court in another state families can rest assured under this bill that their rights will be upheld and recognized should they decide to move to another jurisdiction this is an important step in making sure that our legal system evolves with technology I especially want to thank the lgbtq family lawyers who supported this bill and for their advocacy and all the public witnesses that testified about how this would impact their families at our hearing thank you Mr chairman I'd request this bill be added to the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow oh thank you councilmember Allen uh this is before us for questions and clearance are there any questions from Members regarding the bill and I'm assistant general counsel is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is secretary's record complaint yes it is and budget director does the measure system ex statement comply with Council requirements yes it does is there a physical impact no there is not the objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting final item is Bill 24-925 also from the Korean Judiciary Public Safety business records efficiency Act of 2022 councilmember Allen thank you very much Mr chairman Bill 24-925 the business records efficiency Act of 2022 was introduced on July 5th 2022 by you at the request of Attorney General Carl Racine the bill is referred to the committee on July 12 2022 and the committee held a hearing on the bill on September 16 2022 and it was unanimously approved an additional meeting on October 11th the purpose of bill 24-925 is to make a small but impactful change to the district's evidence laws the bill would allow a party seeking to introduce a business record into evidence in either civil or criminal trial to authenticate the record or prove that it is what it purports to be through a written declaration made under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury by a custodian of Records a business record includes documents such as Bank phone or medical records that are just made in the ordinary course of business currently litigants are required to call a physical person to the witness stand at trial to authenticate that a business record is a business record often from outside the district thereby needlessly consuming resources and valuable court and juror time for example to introduce a Verizon phone bill into evidence it's now necessary to call a Verizon employee to the stand this would permit the parties to use a written declaration instead which is commonly done in other jurisdictions thank you Mr chairman I'd request this bill be added to the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow thank you councilman Allen are there questions from members and I'm assistant general counsel is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is secretary is the record complete yes it is our budget director does the measures physical impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does and it is not uh subject to Appropriations and does it have a physical I mean excuse me it does not have a fiscal impact thank you uh without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting that's going to conclude the items for this committee the whole meeting the we have alleged an additional legislative meeting to follow and the uh following that the next legislative meeting which will be a regular meeting will be November 1st and I'm reasonably certain that we will have an additional legislative I assuming additional Committee of the home meeting on November 1st the time is 1 35 uh actually before I adjourn us um we will try to start the legislative meeting at two o'clock the time is 1 35 and this meeting's adjourned foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign are we ready I'm calling to order this meeting this is an additional meeting of the committee as a whole of the Council of the District of Columbia I'm Phil Mendelson chairman of the council today is Tuesday October 18 2022 the time is 2 37 in the afternoon this meeting is being held in the council chambers room 500 of the Johnny Wilson building although it is what we call a hybrid meeting because I believe at least one council member is participating virtually this meeting also is being broadcast live via the zoom video conference broadcast platform live on Council Channel 13 cable television and I believe is streaming on the council's website www.dccouncil.gov this is the 37th legislative meeting of council period 24. as I said it was an it's an additional meeting it's not our regularly scheduled meeting our next regularly scheduled meeting will be November 1st we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence I would ask the members on the Deus respect that as well as members in the audience it's a moment of reflection and however one wants to observe a moment of silence foreign secretary would you please call the roll hopefully you can hear me Mr chairman councilmember Allen I can hear loud and clear I'm here thank you councilmember bonds councilmember bonds councilmember Che here councilmember gray councilmember gray councilmember Henderson here councilmember Lewis George here councilmember McDuffie here chairman mendelsohn president councilman Joe here councilmember Pinto present councilmember Silverman present councilmember Robert White president House member Tryon white president Mr chairman you have a quorum thank you Madam Secretary we have the consent agenda before us the consent agenda is I believe the first four pages of the agenda are there any changes to the consent agenda I'm not hearing any changes I'll ask the secretary to call the roll this the vote is on the consent agenda council member Robert White yes yes oh yes thank you from the consent agenda thank you yes absolutely Robert White votes yes customer betray on white yes from patreon White votes yes councilmember Allen yes comes from Alan votes yes councilmember bonds councilmember bonds House member Che yes I'm from Chay votes yes councilmember Gray councilmember Gray councilmember Henderson yes remember Henderson votes yes comes from religious George yes I remember Lewis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie yes I remember McDuffie votes yes chairman mendelton yes Cameron mendelsohn votes yes comes from Benidorm yes that's where I'm going to do votes yes councilmember Pinto yes Pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman yes comes from Silverman votes yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two absents Mr chairman hang on one second councilmember bonds yes yes thank you so much councilmember bonds votes yes Hammond there are 12 yeses and one adjective the thank you Madam Secretary the consent agenda is approved unanimously uh that takes us to the non-consent agenda uh we have um final reading on Bill 24-507 the elections modernization Amendment Act of 2022 and there will be an amendment I'm going to recognize and show the Judiciary Committee councilmember Allen thank you very much Mr chairman uh the council voted unanimously in favor of Bill 24-507 the last legislative meeting today I'd like to move a clarifying Amendment which was circulated yesterday morning to members the amendment just clarifies that the Board of Elections is required to mail ballots to all eligible registered voters in special elections to recall elected officers the committee print includes a provision that requires the board to mail every register to qualified elector a mail-in ballot postage paid prior to any board-run election recall elections including the recall to recall advisory neighborhood Commissioners are run by the board and therefore should be included in this requirement so to make this clear this amendment strikes language and current law that allowed the board to use mail voting for ANC recall elections but did not require it the amendment also allows the board to decide the number and location of vote centers and ballot Dropbox is used for recall elections as the current requirements for the primary and general elections wouldn't make sense for those limited purpose elections uh thank you Mr chairman with that I moved that Amendment thank you Mr Allen we have the amendment before us I said it with some hesitation because I didn't turn to my peepers uh I think we can handle the amendment this way if there's no objection the amendment will be accepted is there objection to the amendment I'm not hearing any objection the amendment is accepted thank you Mr Allen and so moved on the underlying Mr chair I think you already moved it because now that it's been accepted now I'll move the underlying uh is there any further discussion Madam Secretary would you call the roll the vote is on Bill 24-507 as amended councilmember Treyon White yes councilmember Treyon white votes yes councilmember Allen yes councilman Allen votes yes councilmember bonds yes yes member Shea votes yes comes from the gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes councilmember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George yes comes from Lewis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie yes councilmember McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes councilmember Nadeau yes councilmember Joe votes yes councilmember Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman yes I'm from the Silverman votes yes and councilmember Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent uh the bill is amended is approved unanimously I will turn to emergency legislation we have a I believe we have six emergency measures uh proposed by council members and then we will turn to emergency legislation proposed by the mayor the first is attorney general civil rights enforcement second emergency Amendment act we have the Declaration first pr24-975 councilmember Allen thank you very much Mr chairman on January 4th 2022 the council passed the Attorney General civil rights enforce an emergency Amendment Act of 2022 which expired on May 2nd 2022 and on February 1st 2022 the council passed the Attorney General civil rights enforcement temporary Amendment Act of 2022 temporary law is set to expire on November 19th 2022. this second round of emergency and temporary legislation is now necessary to prevent a gap in the law between the expiration of a temporary law and a passage of the permanent legislation that is pending in the committee on government operations and facilities and the committee on Judiciary and Public Safety the underlying legislation amends the Human Rights Act of 1977 to clarify the Attorney General's authority to prosecute certain civil rights violations and remedies the Attorney General can obtain in those cases thank you Mr chairman and with that I move the Declaration foreign we have the Declaration before us is there discussion um we'll have a roll call let me just remind members the Cadence here is that we do roll call on the Declaration if the Declaration is approved uh unanimously then I'll do a Voice vote on the underlying measure uh uh this is a pr24-975 Madam Secretary would you call the roll councilmember Allen yes councilmember Alan votes yes councilmember bonds yes that's remember bonds votes yes councilmember yes councilmember Trey votes yes councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes councilmember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George Yes councilmember Lewis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie yes councilmember McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes Cameron Mendelson votes yes councilmember Nigel yes councilmember nadeaux votes yes councilmember Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman yes I'm from Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes councilmember Robert White votes yes and councilmember tray on white yes President White votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent thank you Madam Secretary the Declaration is approved unanimously uh we have the underlying Bill Bill 24-1042 comes from Brown the move Mr chairman is there discussion I will do a Voice vote on this all those in favor this is on Bill 24.1042 all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed of the odds have uh Madam Secretary I don't see you hear any no votes do you agree agreed Mr chairman the bills approved unanimously the next measure is protecting security sensitive dashboard data emergency declaration resolution of 2022 pr24-973 councilmember Robert White thank you Mr chairman this emergency legislation is necessary to specify what information the department of General services or dgs may withhold from new public facing work order system that we put in place in order to safeguard campus security public school principals students and families have been calling for increased transparency into campus maintenance issues and I've been working to deliver that transparency throughout my time as chair of the committee that oversees DDS Mr chairman last October he led us in unanimously passing the protecting our children emergency Amendment Act of 2021 which directed dgs to post School heating and air conditioning work order information online this year my committee and I led the council in passing and funding a budget support act subtitle called the government space maintenance and repair transparency or gov smart dashboard Amendment act the gov smart law says all public school work orders must be posted as of the start of this current fiscal year and all parks and recreation facility work orders must be posted next fiscal year as a result an expanded version of the online work order transparency system went live this month this is a big step forward in helping School communities understand the state of their schools and track dgs's progress fixing issues right now despite the Lost statement that all work orders must be posted CGS is withholding certain information from the dashboard such as problems with exterior door locks dgs leadership and I agree that this General approach is necessary because putting that kind of information out on the internet could embolden someone to try and enter a school with a known security vulnerability and cause harm today's legislation will help clarify what information dgs is allowed to withhold from the newly expanded dashboard it will also direct dgs to send the information they withhold to the relevant Council committee chairs if work orders go unresolved for 45 days when we get to the underlying bill I'll move an amendment that reflects further negotiations my team and I have had with dgs since I introduced this legislation on Thursday to ensure that the agency had the time it needs for administration of these new Provisions I move PR 24-973 the protecting security sensitive dashboard data emergency declaration resolution of 2022. thank you councilmember white uh is there discussion on the Declaration uh the vote will be on pr24-973 Madam Secretary would you call the roll councilmember bonds yes that's going to bonds votes yes councilmember Shea yes remember Trey votes yes councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes that's remember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George yes comes from Lewis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie yes councilman McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes councilmember Joe yes councilmember Nadeau votes yes councilman Pinto yes councilmember Pinto votes councilmember Silverman yes I'm Robert Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes Mr Robert White votes yes customer betray on white yes profitry on white votes yes and councilmember Allen yes welcome to Allen votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent thank you Madam Secretary the declaration has approved unanimously we have the underlying bill bill 24-1039 and the agenda indicates that there'll be an amendment as well councilmember white uh so moved Mr chairman um can I offer the amendment now yes please thank you this amendment makes changes to the timelines and the proposed emergency and temporary legislation at the request of dgs to ensure the agency has adequate time to review work orders and notify the council it reflects a compromise worked out between my office and dgs to ensure dgs has adequate time to determine whether certain work orders are security sensitive and to provide required notices to the council we intend to continue to engage the department on these issues to ensure we have reached the appropriate balance of security transparency and administribility prior to the introduction of the permanent version of this bill so move Mr chairman it thank you councilmember white we have the amendment before us I think I'll treat this the same way as the last one which is if there's no objection it will be accepted question yes councilmember Lewis George thanks um I understand bgs AG for the 30-day Council reporting winner to be extended to 45 days uh to get give the asian-dated time they need to pull together the work order report information for us but can you say more about what we are expecting to be in each of these reports are we expecting the information to be more involved than what would otherwise be included on a dashboard because I'm just struggling to understand what is so difficult for dgs about sharing information in a more timely fashion I'm worried that this is a way for the agency to continue to like withhold crucial information about the scope of security maintenance issues and the needs in our public facilities um so I just want to understand more if we're giving them more time are we going to get more details about some of the facilities issues we are facing councilmember uh thank you for uh the the question so the the extension from 30 to 45 days reflects a good faith effort to work with the agency uh as we uh pass the emergency and work on the permanent legislation I want information as quickly as possible we have pushed the agency significantly uh on this so we did work with them to to compromise um we have not defined other than the fact that they have to report the work orders we have not uh had conversations with the agency about what will be in it uh so if you have thoughts about what's not in the current work order system that would be helpful to you let us know and we'll we'll work through that for the permanent okay thank you anything further on the amendment I'll buy a Voice vote all those in favor of the amendment say aye aye aye aye are there any opposed the amendment has approved unanimously uh further on the bill as amended uh by Voice vote this is on Bill 24-1039 as amended all those in favor say aye aye aye are there any no votes I'm secretary I don't see or hear any no votes do you agree agreed Mr chairman the bills approved unanimously the next measure before us is attorney general transition emergency declaration resolution 2022 pr24-977 this is being moved by both myself and councilmember Allen um I'll speak briefly and then uh turn to councilmember Allen if he wants to say anything uh this legislation in a sense is resurrected from 2014 the last time there was a change in who was occupying the position of one of our um major offices uh this legislation uh will ensure an orderly transfer of the duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General because we know there will be a new attorney general and uh enables the Attorney General elect to have reasonable access to facilities Personnel Services and other resources and services prior to assuming the office of Attorney General this emergency legislation authorizes the current attorney general to provide space Services Etc to the attorney general elect for necessary transition activities starting November 9th 2022 through January 17 2023 um I move the Declaration customer Alan do you want to say anything uh I'll just add briefly first off thank you Mr chairman uh for working with me on this and appreciate you moving this um just I'd also note that one of the things I think it's important here obviously as a reporting requirement as well to make sure there's accountability uh for the council approved funds estimated Council CFO so I think this is a very appropriate necessary thing as we think about our transition for this but we also have the type of accountability and transparency requirements that I think would be uh just a Hallmark of good government as we help this transition so with that I certainly encourage my colleagues to support this thank you thank you council members is there discussion on the Declaration uh we will have a roll call vote uh this is on pr24-977 Madam Secretary councilmember Shea yes remember Shea votes yes councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes remember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George yes remember Lewis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie yes remember McDuffie votes yes chairman Middleton yes remember Mendelson votes yes councilman benedo yes I'm gonna do who votes yes councilmember Pinto yes remember Pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman yes number Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes remember Robert White votes yes councilmember Trey on white yes remember Treyon whitefields yes councilmember Allen yes from Alan votes yes and councilmember bonds yes remember bonds votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent foreign that was so did you say it was 12 to nothing 12 to 1. no um one absent twelve nothing with one absent there we go yes thank you um the Declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying bill so moved uh and my staff gave me a oral Amendment to strike on line 57 to strike the phrase quote and that the reprogramming of those funds has been approved by the council unquote and the rationales that reprogrammings of less than 500 000 do not require Council approval and that this um was caught after the measure had been filed so again the oral amendment is to on line 57 strike the phrase quote and that the reprogramming of those funds has been approved by the council unquote does general counsel have that yes chairman I do are there is there any objection to the amendment there's no objection so the amendment is accepted you have the bill as amended uh is there any further discussion by Voice vote all those in favor bill 24-105 as amended say aye aye are there any opposed the um the bills approved the next measure is pr24-976 River Rock Court designation emergency declaration resolution 2022 councilman Allen do you want to move this I will very quickly too Mr chairman moments ago we took the second vote on the permanent version of this measure as you know there are households currently living in this alley what the emergency would allow is for those residents to begin the process right away to get urgently needed addresses for delivery for safety reasons because this legislation won't be effective for quite some time after it's passed and then sent to Congress for review uh moving this emergency measure so that we can get that ball rolling now so with that Mr chairman I move the Declaration thank you Mr Allen we have the Declaration before us is there a discussion we'll have a roll call vote on this pr24-976 Madam Secretary councilmember Henderson yes remember Henderson votes yes remember Lewis George yes that's from Louis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie yes that's one of the McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes Cameron mendels and votes yes councilman benedo yes remember nadeaux votes yes councilmember Pinto yes or a pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman yes I remember Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes remember Robert White votes yes councilmember Trey on white yes from patreon White votes yes councilmember Allen yes remember Alan votes yes councilmember bonds yes remember bronzo CS comes remember Shea yes Trey votes yes and councilmember gray is absent Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent the the decoration has approved unanimously we have the underlying Bill Bill 24-1044 Mr Allen hello Mr chair is there discussion uh by a Voice vote all those in favor say aye aye aye aye opposed ma'am secretary I think I forgot this on the last one uh but on this one I don't see or hear any no votes do you agree agreed Mr chairman uh the bills approved unanimously the next measure is River East at Grandview condominium property tax exemption emergency declaration resolution 2022. Pier 24-978 I'm moving this together with councilmember Treyon White I'm going to read from the notice last August meaning 2021 Engineers issued a letter to homeowners at River East to Grandview Condominiums advising them to vacate the premises due to uninhabitable conditions based on significant structural issues this is the property that many people referred to as Talbert Street and Southeast um subsequently uh the uh Engineers determined that families in approximately 30 of the 46 units condominium units should move out subsequently homeowners uh vacated their homes on a temporary basis however over a year later the department of buildings and dhcd and the Condominium Association are still working with soil and structural experts to determine the best path forward dhcd recently extended rental assistance for another year to the residents the district government has employed multiple assistance programs in response to the displacement of these homeowners including exemption from property taxes related to the Talbert Street property under the district's lower income home ownership exemption program the property tax exemptions obtained under the program have expired or will soon expire and there is no indication that the displaced homeowners of the River East to Grandview Condominiums will be able to return to the property in the near future in order to financially protect these displaced homeowners it's desirable to approve emergency legislation this emergency legislation to temporarily continue the tax exemption for the properties they are unable to use and I would say unable to use while we we meaning the government and the Condominium Association figure out the best path forward the legislation if I remember correctly because I don't have it right in front of me would extend the exemption uh for a year or until the homeowners are able to return whichever occurs sooner I moved the Declaration let me ask councilmember white if he wants to say anything oh thank you chairman um I think this is beginning to address uh the diva issue of the property these residents are D homeowners in which most are first-time homeowners here in Washington DC most uh D.C resident original DC residents um and to no fault of their own the property uh has become uninhabitable and so we've worked with dhcd uh councilmember bonds your office to help relieve some of their tax barriers and so we uh extend it for at least a year and we hope to come back and figure out some more solutions to help these residents not lose their wealth uh by letting this property go downhill so thank you chairman um for your partnering with me on this and look forward to working with councilmanita Barnes to further figure out how we can help these residents not lose their property and their equity and wealth in their homes thank you thank you council members for further discussion um thank you thank you very much um I just wanted to add to this scenario which has been horrific for the families and really for our city um the fact that we are going all out to make sure that these families are made whole and uh councilmember White and I agree that one of the biggest burdens that these families continue to have and that is to continue to pay a mortgage on properties that they cannot occupy and so we'll be moving in that direction I've already had some conversations with um the um housing department they are aware and we're trying to move in that direction to alleviate these families of any uh undue burden so that they can move forward and become homeowners in this city Anew so I just wanted that to be put on the record thank you customer Barnes there's no further discussion the vote is on pr24-978 um secretary would you call the rule councilmember Lewis George yes I remember Lewis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie yes Robert McDuffie votes yes chairman mendelsohn yes Cameron Mendelson votes yes councilmember Nadal yes yes councilmember Pinto yes remember Pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman yes Robert Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes remember Robert White votes yes councilmember Tran white yes number three on white votes yes councilmember Allen yes welcome to Allen votes yes councilmember bonds yes yes councilman yes number three volts yes remember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes councilmember Henderson votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent thank you Madam Secretary the Declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying bill so moved is there discussion foreign Voice vote this is Bill 24-1046 all those in favor say aye are there any opposed um secretary I don't see you hear any no votes do you agree agreed Mr chairman the bills have proved unanimously the next measure is pr24-980 Housing Authority accountability emergency declaration resolution of 2022. councilmember Silverman thank you Mr chairman um what is happening at the DC Housing Authority is a very definition of an emergency the Authority's job is to provide safe sanitary and dignified housing for our low-income families um and it is to make decisions about housing authority properties that will provide deeply affordable housing to those at very low income so for years residents have been testifying before the authority and at times before this Council saying that the authority isn't doing its job and increasingly it seems the authority is more focused on market rate Economic Development opportunities than creating that deeply affordable housing the scathing HUD report put all of this in plain sight we need to address this with urgency and we need to start at the top and make sure that the people who manage and make decisions for the authority know what they're doing so that is why I am glad that so many of my colleagues 12 of us and the Attorney General have joined together in introducing this emergency legislation we need permanent legislation to truly fix these issues and I will be introducing that bill soon for now however I am asking colleagues to tackle three urgent reforms number one training requirements for the board and its executive director second transparency and properties and finances and operations third consumer protection clarification it's clear from the HUD report that the executive director and board need more training about how housing authorities work their programs and basic Federal and local requirements while that report gives the housing authority six months to address the training gaps the bill before us today sets earlier deadlines for completing training and a penalty for board members who failed to do so the HUD report also had a highlighted major errors in procurement rent calculations in even which units are vacant or occupied since District funds are keeping that Authority solvent we at the council need to know what we are getting with the appropriation of our your taxpayer dollars when the council votes to give 50 million dollars to the housing authority to address its capital needs we need to hear that they used it for what we appropriated it for to stop the rat infestations and mold that people are calling our Council offices about the data we are asking for will help us make sure District funds that are going to The Authority are being used for these purposes Mr chairman can I have one more minute uh there's no objection please thank you so much um so we need to make sure we know where the funds we are appropriating are going and we need to make sure that it's not failing at the authority simply out of federal trouble but instead actually helping residents live in dignified homes finally I want to thank the attorney general and his office for bringing um to our attention that the authority has claimed that it is not subject to consumer protection laws since 2019 our consumer protection has been clear that landlord tenant issues are subject to the law I don't see how dcha would think it's exempt but this bill spills out um that it is not it I mean maybe you can think of it a bit as a belt and suspenders approach I'll just say I think there's a strong case to say that dcha was already covered but we're making sure that it is so I asked my colleagues to continue to support this emergency declaration and the underlying bill thank you Mr chairman uh thank you councilmember Silverman and I want to note I believe even though you're listed on the agenda I believe most of the members have co-introduced this legislation that is correct uh so we have the Declaration before us is there discussion Mr chairman councilmember bonds thank you very much um I want to thank um really and truly thank you and of course I want to extend special thanks to council member Silverman and to the AG for putting today's legislation in place so quickly I like most of us who read the assessment with saddened and dismayed by his contents and we know we've got to fix this and we've got to fix it now all of us the council the Board of Commissioners the mayor and the executive team at the agency must work closely together to address the problems facing the authority many that have existed for decades particularly the Aging housing units and diminishing funds to address the need the October HUD assessment goes well beyond maintenance and repair of uninhabitable units topics that have been the Cornerstone of our traditional performance and oversight questions with the authority and in this report demand fuel Council performance and budget oversight hearings in fact we must carefully track the Housing Authority's progress in implementing the changes required by the HUD report and conduct regular Council hearings to make sure that the authority is on track to make the necessary changes further I believe that we will need to do all that we can to help the authority respond to the assessment by November 29 and these responses will help us determine what further legislative fixes may be needed to get the authority back on track it's so important that we do so because safe secure and stable housing is a human right that we all deserve by putting such safeguards in place through today's legislation it will ensure that the authority is doing all that is required to provide just that this may require reevaluating many aspects of the Authority's governance operations procurement and including the use of both district and federal funds as my colleague just mentioned this emergency legislation is an important first step towards establishing greater accountability it places new reporting requirements in place that we have needed and as chair of the council's housing committee our goal is to utilize these new reports to improve the governance to improve outcomes for our public housing residents most importantly and our voucher recipients and I want to stress further that more extensive oversight and reform may be necessary the HUD report along with these reporting requirements should be a guide for permanent comprehensive legislation to improve the safety of our public housing the transparency of the operations at the authority and procurement and the effective delivery of services to our residents thank you thank you councilmember bonds Is there further discussion on the Declaration councilmember Robert White and councilor Nadeau is that at hand after after Mr White uh councilman pinto and I hands are up to you thank you Mr chairman I want to thank my colleague councilmember Silverman and the attorney general for uh Drafting and introducing this bill what this most recent HUD uh report showed us is how much work we have to do to improve the conditions of public housing this report indicated that we have problems with procurement with reporting with maintenance with governance we have problems across this agency what is also clear from this report is that the status quo will not move us in a better Direction and if the district doesn't move in a better Direction then we will see ourselves in a receivership the district has to take this report seriously the next step is not a good one for the district so I really appreciate uh council member Silverman taking the lead on addressing long-term fixes I think we can have to continue to look at what we do in the short term to give confidence to Residents who live in public housing first to give confidence to the public and to this Council and to give confidence to HUD because if we don't do the those things we are in trouble and our residents who are depending on the housing authority to be effective are in trouble again thank you councilmember Silverman I look forward to uh voting in favor of this bill thank you councilmember white a customer Nadal and then council member uh Denise Lewis George thank you chairman and thank you to councilmember Silverman for swiftly putting together this piece of legislation um and for proactively working to increase council's oversight capabilities over at the Housing Authority as a former member of the housing committee and um current chair of the Human Services committee where I have joint oversight of the Housing Authority in relationship to vouchers I'm regularly in contact with the leadership of the Housing Authority many of these problems have been known for a long time I think the HUD report surfaces very little in the way of new information but it does provide us with an opportunity after conversations I've had recently with the Housing Authority it does seem that many necessary items are in the process of being addressed they have six months to move forward on a corrective action plan in negotiation with HUD and I think it's appropriate for that work to be accompanied by enhanced transparency to the council there's a long road ahead toward us having a healthy housing authority and we as a council need to be aggressively moving things in the right direction current and future residents of DC Housing Authority properties cannot and should not wait for a bureaucracy to repair itself in order to live in safe and dignified housing I will add that HUD as the oversight body of our housing authorities are has has in many ways abdicated some of its responsibility having only just done this report after years and years of a lack of oversight on their part as well as very little funding towards what the mandates are here that we need to implement in the District of Columbia so I hope as we do our best to work together to repair our local Housing Authority we can also join together to put pressure on HUD to better support the agency both financially and through oversight as well thank you and I look forward to voting for this measure thank you councilman adult councilmember Lewis George followed by councilmember Pinto thank you chairman I want to thank my colleague councilmember Silverman for her leadership on this emergency manager today uh the HUD report issue the other we confirmed what public housing residents have been saying for years conditions or abysmal residents are neglected and management is failing I visited a public housing building for seniors in my ward over the summer where only six of the 22 units were presently occupied six out of the 22 units I'm not going to sugarcoat what the tenants share with me they believe that the city is simply waiting out these residents to die off so the building can be moved out of the public stock and that sentiment is shared by many public housing residents across the district stop for a moment and think about the to the degree to which we're failing these residents and the only explanation that makes sense to them is that their City wants them out EC's pattern of inaction and disinvestment when it comes to public housing has been devastating for Neighbors who depend on public housing but it's also been devastating to every D.C resident at risk of displacement or homelessness who needs an affordable dignified and safe place to live while 2 000 housing units sit vacant or in disrepair and the federal government is not blameless here years of federal disinvestment in Housing Programs has fueled the deterioration of the district's public housing stock and prevented us from Keeping Up with the need for housing vouchers and we have to name that as well so we have a crisis on our hands for years we've all known it and now it is our time to act and that starts with a full accounting of our spending real-time reporting on unit vacancy and repairs and making sure that the leadership of the Housing Authority is fully trained to oversee a public housing agency but let's also be clear with the public and with ourselves that we cannot stop here the conditions in our public housing facilities and the failures outlined in the HUD report demand systemic changes and Relentless oversight to bring meaningful and Lasting change our world job will not be done until public housing residents can come to us and tell us that they see the difference in their day-to-day lives I'm grateful for this emergency legislation as an important first step and I'm eager to work with my colleagues on the housing committee to strengthen our oversight and right the ship through permanent legislation thank you and I look forward to voting yes on this legislation thank you councilmember Lewis George councilmember Pinto followed by councilmember McDuffie thank you Mr chairman District residents deserve to have habitable and dignified places to live and a Housing Authority that is responsive responsible and well managed the report released by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development assessing the D.C Housing Authority outlines the really extraordinary deficiencies in failures in nearly every aspect of dcag's mission and Leadership the failures identified in this report have been ongoing in some cases for many years as is the case with the decades-long housing wait list worst in the nation unit occupancy rate public safety issues and lack of transparency in Contracting among other issues I want to thank councilmember Silverman for your leadership on this issue and for introducing this amendment today this legislation legislation excuse me this legislation will require much needed training for dcha leadership across several key topics mandate transparency through required monthly reporting on areas of concern and efficiency and ensure that dcha is being held to the same standard as other landlords in the district when it comes to Consumer Protection these are important and useful steps but we have a long way to go in writing this ship I've spoken to councilmember bonds and I know she shares my concern that we need to have a hearing on this report director Donald has had the last 14 months to develop a plan and to address the inadequacies in our public housing and unfortunately has failed to do so effectively there has been a steady decrease in the occupancy rate at dcj including over the last year the failure to house residents in available housing units is a direct cause of displacement and homelessness of District residents and the ongoing deterioration of our public housing stock is a de facto dismemberment of this critical social safety net in addition to this failure to provide decent safe and secure housing dcha's programmatic and administrative mismanagement and opaque financial reporting to the board has led to an increasingly dire financial situation dcha needs to establish administrative and financial management systems that more clearly meet the Mandate of its Mission the agency must also evaluate to what extent new Talent is needed to properly and effectively fulfill its programmatic and administrative functions further the need for Commissioners with extensive real estate experience is highlighted by the extensive nature of the failings of this agency dcha needs to develop and share with the council and HUD its comprehensive strategy to turn around the direction of this agency and I'll work with my colleagues here on the council to weigh all of our legislative options to ensure that dcha can effectively carry out its Mission I look forward to the upcoming hearings to discuss this issue more in detail because we know we need to see just 20 more seconds Mr chairman without objection we need to see major systems and outcome improvements from dcha in the coming weeks and months to address what is one of our City's most pressing challenges access to safe and affordable housing so thank you very much again councilmember Silverman for introducing this bill I think it's clear that not only serious changes are made but we all myself included need to do more to make sure that some of these reforms are not put to the the side and really prioritized thank you thank you comes from repento councilman McDuffie followed by councilmember Allen thank you Mr chairman I agree with councilman Pinto that this is one of the city's most pressing challenges when it comes to housing affordability and the affordability crisis that we're experiencing today and I agree with the rest of my colleagues who have weighed in on this measure I think we all know D.C Housing Authority provides housing for some of the district's most vulnerable residents and the fact that many of those residents continue to lack safe and quality housing with no end in sight is deeply disturbing and frankly unacceptable it's further vexing that in a city with thousands of people experiencing homelessness and housing and security uh we're now at the home to the lowest occupancy rate of any large public housing authority in the country and this to directly contributes to dca's uh downward Financial trend the HUD assessment really Echoes what me and my team on my staff have seen in our own walkthroughs uh public housing in Ward 5 in places like Montana Terrace and other places like Lincoln Road Apartments a residents are not only concerned about the neglect and the deterioration of physical conditions as evidenced by mold and growth and Persistence of past but also the lack of transparency on RAD conversions and those same developments uh we all know that as I mentioned the housing affordability is one of the district's major challenges but there's really no excuse for dchas and adequate management of housing programs and it's consistent non-compliance with long-standing HUD rules and regulations but let's be clear this is not a problem that was caused by any one person and it's not a problem frankly that can be solved by any one person the conditions are abhorrent and the council needs to do everything in our power possible to ensure dcha leadership turns the agency around that's the management leadership the executive director the board and everybody included uh today's uh emergency legislation is going to help address some of the immediate needs identified by Hud but it doesn't go far enough to do everything that's necessary uh and the underlying issues that can send the health and safety of the public housing units to truly address those issues we do need to lay the groundwork for dcha to truly reach a state of good repair and vastly improve occupancy for residents in need uh I'm gonna work with council member bonds and and everybody else who's demonstrated I think a serious interest in this issue of the council I think we need to include a round table with the Chief Financial Officer that I would plan to hold to brief the public on dcha's long-term capital needs and facility condition assessments it's going to help bcha effectively Implement corrective actions and it's going to make future District investments in dcha more impactful and commit us all to drastically improving housing conditions for current and future public housing residents thank you thank you Mr McDuffie council member Allen thank you Mr chairman this uh this weekend I was visiting with several Ward 6 constituents in one of our public housing sites and as we walked around most of the buildings didn't have doors didn't have doors um I didn't have doors um residents talk about the mice uh that ran through their Apartments I talked with one resident who has duct taped their kitchen cabinets to try to help keep the mice from coming into the kitchen we saw mold falling and crumbling ceilings and walls walk through counting the number of vacant apartments throughout um I talked with one neighbor who took two years to get a smoke detector installed in her apartment um I think the HUD report is damning I do appreciate my colleagues though that also noted that HUD does not get to uh be free and clear of their responsibility as well uh and I hope that we're all kind of keep hammering away on that and yes we didn't it didn't happen overnight uh that we find ourselves here but we are here it is our responsibility now to act now um and I'm very grateful councilman Silverman for putting this legislation forward because it is the step that is necessary now and there will be many more steps to come but this is a very important step to take um I talked to those residents a couple years ago um Mr chairman you and I worked with events DC I think it was about 15 million dollars we cut out against DC we put it to DC housing authority and said all right we want to see some improvements I haven't found a single person who thinks they saw a 15 million dollars worth of improvements in public housing uh be that in ward 6 or anywhere else um I appreciate that it sounds like there's some hearings that are coming I think that's necessary again councilman Silverman thank you for this legislation because it is the Urgent and necessary step that we've got to take today as well as what we then outlined those next steps uh to get us where we got to go and I really am glad to hear so much uh consensus I think around recognizing the urgency and uh of where we are and the steps that are taken here so thank you Mr chairman and uh very strongly support although I think it's going to be unanimous uh support for this legislation thank you customer Allen councilmember Treon White thank you uh first I want to thank uh my Council colleague Alyssa Silverman um and those members who joined on uh I guess for me in the last I guess two decades I did extensive work in public housing communities all over the district um and this eyesight it doesn't seem to have gotten any better I think in the last 10 years we are now on our third director I'm starting with I believe Adrian toddman um now I'm not their director now uh as mentioned uh when you go into these properties the amount of Deployable and dilapidated conditions is inhumane um and I visited uh so many housing communities with oag or dcra and they get a slap on the wrist uh even to the point where the department of the DC attorney general had to file a lawsuit against these property owners um as a result a few months ago I did a sleep in around Potomac Gardens just to see and feel what everyday residents are feeling every day and it's scary um not just hearing a number of gunshots outside to him the mice scratching inside the walls for hours um just to see the plumbing issues when you flushing just water leaking from one apartment to the next um and what I saw in a few hours people are living in every day and we as a council as a branch of government even executive have a duty to ensure the residents are living in healthy living conditions and to my colleagues uh comments HUD is not off the hook um I've sent emails and letters to HUD um to little to no response outside of a general email response and it's our hope that we pushed all of our government agencies both local and federal to ensure that you know the conditions get better in a number of vacant units is disheartening we have so many individuals calling my office every day calling Council member's office trying to get a place to live for their families stuck in the streets uh then we got this removal of tents throughout the district um we just have to do better um bad things happen when good people do nothing there are a lot of good people in this District that want to do something this is a one step in the right direction to do something about these Deployable living conditions without public housing properties thank you foreign thank you councilmember white councilmember Henderson um thank you Mr chairman I want to thank uh councilmember Silberman for putting forth um this measure I'm not on the housing committee but I've gone to several of the hearings and have had conversations with the head of dcha um since my time on the council concern not just about the vacancy situation but also trying to raise the alarm about some of the mold uh situations that we were hearing from residents um and feeling frustrated frankly about the issues that we were having with some other agencies as it pertained to private Apartments as a um for mold enforcement and so um I appreciate that the HUD report uh shed some light on some issues that residents have been talking about for years um I just want to reiterate um you know I recognize that the agency is going to need to respond to HUD but I I wanted these reports to be made public because I felt that people needed to know that progress was being made um and also to respond to some of these allegations and I didn't feel that um waiting six months was enough time and frankly I think that um I think someone mentioned something about hearings I'm interested in when we were going to have those um and I feel like they should be regular and not just twice a year to discuss all the various issues the wait list Etc and so um I look forward to supporting this today and providing whatever support the authority needs or it feels it needs in terms of getting back on track thank you thank you councilmember Henderson further I'll just add this um sometimes people think that by keeping quiet on something means that I don't care about it or I'm not supportive uh absolutely to the contrary here I'm very disturbed by the um the findings of the HUD report I usually don't speak on these things because it's clear to me that this is going to pass and I don't know that I need to make the arguments for it but I will say this a majority of the members have spoken and they've spoken on this because the concern of council members I would say the concern of the council is quite serious with regard to the state of affairs with public housing to me the most um uh the most serious of the concerns raised by Hud is that they're over more than one in four units are vacant we have a affordable housing crisis in the city our own public housing more than one in four of the units are vacant and the report goes on with difficulties with renting the units that is uh lack of coordination and management plus the maintenance conditions as well so the amount of time that we're spending here discussing something that's going to be passed unanimously it reflects uh how concerned council is if there's no further discussion we use the Declaration just want to note something that's um an affliction throughout the government and that is lack of good leadership in many positions where it's really really needed and the executive director's response to council member Silverman's legislation quoting reactive overly burdensome and unreasonable really what we need is good leadership and we don't have it so I would just say as with my colleagues thank you so much councilmember Silverman because maybe maybe we'll get it thank you there's nothing further we have the Declaration before so vote will be on pr24-980 Madam Secretary would you call the rules councilmember McDuffie yes let's remember McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes Cameron Mendelson votes yes councilman benedo yes husband Bernadette votes yes councilmember Pinto yes remember Pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman yes Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes remember Robert White votes yes councilman betray on white yes remember Cheyenne white votes yes councilmember Allen yes remember Alan votes yes councilmember bonds yes council member bonds votes yes yes remember Trey votes yes councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes remember Henderson votes yes and comes from Lewis George yes Amber Lewis George votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent the Declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying bill is um uh councilmember Silverman yes at this time I moved the underlying Bill Mr chairman as our discussion uh by a Voice vote the vote will be on Bill 24-1049 I'll buy a Voice vote all those in favor say aye aye aye are there any no votes um secretary I don't see her hearing no votes do you agree I agreed Mr chairman uh the bills improved unanimously the next item on the agenda is sign regulations emergency declaration resolution of 2022 pr24-972 so moved I have a uh I have to figure out where I am here I will explain this in a moment but let me say procedurally there is linked on the agenda and Amendment nature of a substitute that's to the bill itself and that was circulated yesterday before before 12 a.m at 12 p.m uh but I also have an amendment that I've circulated this morning to the Declaration I believe that's the only no and I have an amendment that was circulated uh yesterday no I have an amendment that was circulated uh the Declaration this morning and another amendment that was circulated later this morning to the amendment Act so those are available to members let me move the Declaration explain this uh this legislation is being introduced at the request of the mayor however I can uh vouch that this legislation has been worked on very closely between the city administrator's office the Attorney General our general counsel's office this legislation would among other things ratify and adopt certain sign regulations previously issued by the executive issued by the constructive construction codes Coordinating Board and the city administrator the bill would also clarify the rulemaking process for sign regulations and clarify the prohibition on off-premises Advertising that's in a section of the municipal regulations in August of this year the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held the regulation of outdoor science has to be affirmatively approved by the council these earlier regulations had not been affirmatively approved by the council they had been passively approved the court of appeals held that the emergency rules adopted in recent years by the city administrator were invalid because they had not been affirmatively the council had not acted affirmatively through the passage of a resolution to approve the rules the emergency bill before us would adopt and give retroactive effect to the relevant Rules promulgated by the construction codes from Coordinating Board and the city administrator and provide further clarification on the mayor's rule-making Authority with respect to signs under the construction codes Act I am moving a uh an amendment to the Declaration and that was circulated at 10 50 this morning it's largely technical but rather than just have general counsel do it uh I thought that it should be in the record here um I'm sort of looking at it instead of saying for example in the long title uh sign regulations previously issued by the construction codes Coordinating Board it says issued by the chairperson of the construction codes Coordinating Board and so forth so I moved the amendment is there discussion or if there's no objection uh they'll be deemed the amendment will be deemed as accepted I'm not hearing any objections so the amendments accepted we have the Declaration before us as amended or any further discussion Madam Secretary would you call the roll the vote is on pr24-972 chairman mendelsohn yes Cameron Mendelson votes yes councilmember to do yes remember Lindale votes yes councilmember Pinto yes remember Pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman yes from Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes remember Robert White votes yes councilman betray online yes I'm from patreon White votes yes councilmember Allen yes Governor Island votes yes councilmember bonds yes yes councilmember chain yes from the tables yes councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes remember Henderson votes yes comes from Lewis George yes remember Lewis George votes yes councilman McDuffie yes remember McDuffie votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent thank you Madam Secretary the declaration has amended has approved unanimously the underlying measure build 24-1036 sign regulations emergency Amendment Act of 2022 so moved I circulated an amendment nature of a substitute yesterday the mamination of a substitute among other things specifically identifies each of the sign regulations issued from 2014 onwards that this legislation ratifies and adopts it specifies that each of the rules adopted ratified and Incorporated by reference apply retroactively to the date that the applicable notice of the emergency or final rulemaking was issued it also specifies that the rules continue in effect from the date unless otherwise superseded the amendment issue of substitute authorizes the mayor to issue additional rulemakings under the construction code's approval and amendments Act of 1986. and it makes technical amendments to conform with drafting conventions I move the amendment nature of a substitute visitor discussion I'll buy a Voice vote all those in favor of the nature of the substitute say I I opposed I I don't see or hear any no votes the amendment nature of a substitute is approved I'm now going to move an amendment that was circulated this morning at 11 32. and it adds a new subsection C to read as follows no criminal penalties may be imposed for an act or a mission to predated the effective data of the sign regulations emergency Amendment Act of 2022 if that act or emission constitutes a violation of law as a result of the retroactive applicability of a rule ratified and adopted in subsection a of this section this amendment makes clear that no criminal liability may be imposed for an act or a mission to predate it the effective data of the sign regulations emergency Amendment Act of 2022 that is what's before us right now if that act or emission constitutes a violation of a law due to the retroactive applicability so it's just to clarify a point of law with regard to the Retro activity I moved this amendment and I think I'll treat this as if there's no objection it will be accepted is there any objection foreign I'm not hearing any objection oh the amendment is accepted just to be clear or to confuse everyone's I moved the bill I moved the amendment nature of a substance it was approved I've now moved this amendment which has been approved we have the bill as amended before us is there discussion I think by voice folks since the Declaration was approved unanimously the vote is on Bill 24-1036 as amended all those in favor say aye aye are there any opposed um secretary I don't see you hear any no votes do you agree great Mr chairman uh the bill is amended is approved unanimously I mean just a second foreign next before us are the um the Managed Care Organization or MCO contracts and I'm going to let me say a circulated notice with council member Robert White and these are the requests to the mayor I'm going to move together uh pr24-985 pr24-983 and pr9 24-981 I will state the titles contract number CW 99927 with amerihealth Caritas District of Columbia Inc emergency declaration resolution 2022. contract number CW 99929 with Amerigroup District of Columbia Inc emergency declaration resolution of 2022 and contract number CW 99931 with MedStar Family Choice Inc doing business as MedStar Family Choice District of Columbia emergency declaration resolution of 2022. I put the three before us I recognize councilmember white and then I'll speak for a moment uh thank you Mr chairman I uh I followed this procurement extremely closely for a year now the council told the administration to go back and redo the procurement and follow the law I work very hard to make sure that exact thing happened after a procurement and six appeals and nearly unprecedented legal scrutiny and political pressure the administration made the final decision before us today we all want to make sure we have the best care for residents there is no daylight between us on this issue none of us want to cast a vote for something that results in poor quality of care for our residents that is the big looming concern over our discussion today the question is how do we as council members know who are the best companies to serve our residents we have to realize we up here are not experts on health care for conducting procurements that's why we are not the ones who should pick winners and losers past performance is reviewed both by the client agency and the office of contract and procurement the client Agency Reviews performance during a contract and sends that information to ocp ocp reviews that information and other information on performance during the Contracting process past performance was reviewed for these contracts just like it is for every District contract the council can't vouch for any of these bidders because we haven't done a full evaluation or a legal procurement process nor will we do those things so if we want the best possible care for residents we should not insert ourselves into this process the bottom line is that this procurement process has withstood almost unprecedented political scrutiny and protest the procurement has been done twice now the second time according to guidance we the council issued and the outcome was the same my committee has followed this procurement process each step of the way and if other council members had qualms with the process they could have raised it at any point if we involved the council in the procurement at this point we're getting involved only because we don't like the outcome from the process that we prescribe that's not how our procurement should work the council should not pick winners and losers of contracts the least objective and least Fair way to get to the best care for residents is to have open season for lobbyists making one-sided arguments every single several years the city rebids procurement contracts some bidders win and some bidders lose any entity that loses will say that they shouldn't have lost because they are the best and the others are the worst last year four companies bid on the MCO contract ocp determined that three of the four bidders were unresponsive the mayor asked us to waive the law to approve the preferred contractors but we told her no to go back and redo this procurement and follow the law this time these contracts are the result of that process uh a little more time if there's no objection CareFirst doesn't like the result so that throwing the kitchen sink at us using every argument they can muster and the council's political environment is easy to make out a case against any of these providers a quick Google search will yield lawsuits against all of them that's why procurements are done through a process that is insulated from lobbying and keeps the field level for all bidders and that's why there's an appeals process CareFirst is trying to confuse and mislead CareFirst told us that they had just a clerical error and that it was similar to errors that of other bidders this is false and the contract appeals board assess the merits of this claim and dismissed it there is a public record on this subject care first told us that ocp didn't evaluate past performance this is false ocp did the same past performance review for each bidder and does the same past performance reviews for all procurements there were 6 500 procurements last fiscal year and never have we gotten a complaint about how the district evaluates past performance all bidders had the same past performance review that looked at performance across the country and in DC and every bidder on this contract has significant issues with past performance and CareFirst is saying that Amerigroup is a bad actor but CareFirst just reached a 95 million dollar settlement with the district for raking and profits on their Managed Care contract my point isn't that care first is bad my point is that all these contractors have concerning issues in their records that we cannot sort through in conclusion the mayor has asked us to pass these contracts after the administration went through an arduous procurement process that the council asked them to engage in I urge the council to consider whether the information we're getting where that information we're getting is coming from when deciding how to cash your votes all of our hearts are in the right place and we care about the quality of care for constituents but are we considering the facts on the ground the reality of this procurement process or are we given Credence to multi-million dollar lobbying campaigns for the outcome of a major contract I urge the council to pass these contracts that the mayor sent down thank you Mr chairman thank you councilmember white um I'm going to try to give a little bit of context so members will recall that throughout 2021 the Council on a number of occasions passed legislation trying to push forward um compliance by the executive with the procurement process and in particular Decisions by the contract appeals board we were at sort of an impasse and I don't mean by that that the both sides were in my view in legitimate positions I think the council was right but we were uh we were stymied by the executive and so we worked out a deal last September I'm saying this supposed to create some context here that um basically what we did was we overrode the procurement Practices Act uh we overrode the contract appeals board and we said that the incumbent MCO contracts could remain in effect for another roughly nine months while a new procurement was pursued what's before us now is the new procurement and I also want to remind members that although the executive did complete the procurement process in the nine months the executive took another four months before they got the contracts to us the incumbents right now were incumbents who in a sense didn't deserve to be here and it's only because we overrode the procurement Practices Act a year ago and overrode the cab that they are here today uh so that's just to give some context I am a strong defender of the council's authority to approve contracts because I believe the process of requiring these contracts to come before us and the knowledge by the executive that you never know they never know when we are going to scrutinize one of these contracts keeps them more how do I want to say adhering more closely to what the law requires the reason why the council has contract review Authority is because what we found the council found was that without this uh review Authority the procurements we're not good and that's a polite way of describing what in the breakfast I referred to as corruption that's decades ago I'm a strong believer in having the approval process sometimes they screw up but that does not mean that I believe that the council should weigh in or second guess I don't if we do not approve these contracts that are before us there will be a new procurement the current contracts which as I said are in a sense not legitimately uh not legitimate will be extended for another 12 to 18 months how do I get to 18 months because it's been roughly 18 months since the last procurement that we tried to um uh that we tried to deal with the um experience tells us if we go through a new procurement if there's no objection another minute if we go through a new procurement experience tells us that with contracts of this size um having a new procurement will not douse controversy there will be controversy again the losing bidder will say that it was not right we will be where we are now I am comfortable with what's before us because there have been six appeals to the contract appeals board and in every one of those cases the contract appeals board upheld the procurement process that's before us I've asked director shutter the chief procurement officer to be here to answer questions under rule 337 that's permitted and I'm saying that so that if members have questions about the scoring or about the competition or anything about the procurement process he is here and he can answer those questions who's next Alzheimer Pinto thank you Mr chairman I want to use my first couple of seconds here quoting from a statement from our colleague council member Vince gray who is unable to be here with us today who said I am encouraging my Council colleagues to vote no on the MCO declaration resolutions so we ensure District residents are presented the best health care options through a transparent and error-free procurement process I wanted that to be on the record on on his behalf as the chair of the health committee uh but that is not my statement my statement is that there has been a lot of discussion as we all know over the last few years especially about the Medicaid care contracts and rightfully so with nearly 200 000 patients affected and over eight billion dollars of taxpayer money at stake but I would not but I would ask this body not to allow all the talking and discussion and back and forth to confuse the core issue that we're dealing with today are we all fully confident that these contracts were procured without error and with all of the appropriate information taken into account and that they are in the best interest of District residents to be clear there has still not been a procurement process that assesses all four of the bidders head to head against one another the first procurement led to the disqualification of three of the four bidders after a series of cab rulings one of the disqualified bidders was reinstated to the original procurement and then the two remaining disqualified bidders competed in a subsequent procurement process the contracts before us today come to us as a result of these two separate procurement processes there is no clear public information about how these bids scored in relation to one another except for something I saw about an hour ago that was just released publicly demonstrating that the scores were likely to have been even between care first and Amerigroup which leads to more questions I hear my colleague as the chair of the government operations committee councilmember Robert White oversees procurement making the argument that we need to let the procurement stand and that intervention by the Legislative Branch would be an overstepped and set an inappropriate precedent and I hear my colleague as the chair of the health committee Vince gray who oversees these providers say that there may have been Foul Play and that one of the providers is a checkered history in our city but to both I say let's table this vote today and have a hearing or a round table perhaps a joint Roundtable with the government operations committee and the health committee alternatively the committee of the whole could have a round table I wish I had a committee to hold a Roundtable so I'm sorry to ask you to do this um but I I hope that you will and that way many of us can I have 30 more seconds without objection that way what many of us are hearing um from what some say you know lobbying is going on and calls and emails and visitors to our building and our offices can happen in a public setting where all of our questions can be answered in in a format that the public is used to in the public deserves what were the initial applications of the providers what were the scores were all of the clerical errors found in the three providers who were kicked out of the first round substantively identical or were they completely distinct and if they were identical why did the cab not find in the same way for each and even more fundamentally it with so much at stake is there a downside or a risk to tabling this vote and having a public conversation about allegations and concerns that we're hearing for a few more weeks there is no real emergency here because it's my understanding that our emergency contracts are in place through the beginning of next year so let's do this the right way so that all of our colleagues can be confident that the contracts that we approve are valid and best for district residents and Mr chairman if you'll permit me I'd like to make a motion and block um to postpone to a Time certain on pertaining to contract numbers CW 99927 with amerihealth Caritas District Columbia 99929 with Amerigroup District of Columbia and Amerigroup District of Columbia and I would like to move to postpone these measures to a certain time uh following a hearing or a round table on the contract process so your motion is to postpone to a Time certain what's the time certain the legislative meeting immediately following a hearing um all right there's a motion before us to postpone to a legislative meeting following I guess the next legislative meeting um I don't support that Mr chairman one second is it a motion to postpone until after the next legislative meeting I thought you said after a hearing on this matter which is not actually scheduled and so it makes it motion to postpone indefinitely since we don't have any specificity about that I'm going to be a little more liberal or flexible in interpreting this if unless there's objection um uh I'm going to construe that the you don't mean literally a hearing which requires 15 days notice in the register that it could be a round table um I don't support this but the the uh but I did talk to you beforehand councilmember pintoso your suggestion which again I don't support is like a round table next week which means then the November first meeting so I will construe this as a motion to postpone to the next subject okay I raise it Mr chairman because it determines whether it's debatable or not correct okay correct well and and this is debatable and I'll say for the third time I don't support this um and I would urge members not to see Mr chairman do you support this foreign further discussion on this councilmember White uh thank you Mr chairman I um I appreciate my colleagues uh motion and intention with the the hearing uh what I want to raise is a concern I shared a story with colleagues this morning uh after seeing these uh Facebook ads care person spent a lot of money on lobbying this contract after seeing these Facebook ads and not having the volume on my uh computer one day I turned the volume on in the evening to see what the the ad was saying and there was a an actor an older black woman who said council member Robert White doesn't care about the health care for people now my daughter is three and six were standing next to me and the first they looked at me like Dad how could they say that about you and then they looked again they said dad in no way that's true and it's not true here's the problem with that between today and that hearing you're going to get ads with your name saying that if you vote against this you are unethical you don't care about the health care for people you're going to get lobbied to get to an outcome of a contract that is supposed to be done without political influence and so we're going to see a ramping up of a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign and that will set the tone for the council that the council will intervene if we get lobbied enough if people spend enough money even if they lose a procurement even if they lose an appeal multiple appeals they can still spend money and Lobby the council and get the outcome that they prefer so it is not harmless in a procurement standpoint to to table this in order to hold a hearing and so I would caution us against it because once the council if the council doesn't approve this contract we have sent a very clear notice that we are a player in procurements and the winners and losers of procurements and then we have then selected the outcome so I want us to be abundantly careful about this because we set a precedent and we won't be able to undo that precedent so I won't be supporting uh the the motion in the table I very much encourage urges to pass a contract that were sent to us and not get in the business of picking winners and losers councilmember Henderson um thank you uh Mr chairman um and I mentioned this earlier at the breakfast um the contract before us in total is approximately 8.8 billion dollars over five years it is the largest contract I would probably argue that we have of any in the district government and I was confused as to why we were considering this on Emergency when technically we have until November 26 in order to make a move here and I already expressed this and so I'll say this now I thought that a hearing would have been worth it not necessarily for public Witnesses no offense but this is about a process and a fact base um I've spent a lot of time on this I'll give you guys this is my prop because this this has been confusing I had to like pull out markers and do colors I read all of the cab rulings I read the summaries for the contracts um I see director shutter on the zoom I've talked to director shutter twice um and I feel like if we are going to do this and everyone is going to feel confident in it what is the risk of us taking another week so that all colleagues can feel like their questions have been answered here um and so I'm going to I who knows where the votes stand I'm going to support councilmember pento's um motion on this and and then we can go from there thank you uh further on the motion House member Silverman thank you Mr chairman so um I unders I think we're all uneasy and let me speak directly to the people who are here um who who feel strongly for various reasons uh about this contract um you know this is a lot of money our biggest contract in District government and people's Health Care is at stake so I just want everyone sitting in the chamber to know and I think council member Henderson demonstrated uh with her visual that that this body but let me assure you this body takes this seriously but as councilmember white said um Council we we have a procurement process in place to remove it from political considerations we want to make decisions based on criteria that's in the request for proposals now um this is the first time many of you have been to this chamber and I've said many times this procurement has been messed up from the beginning but we have to come to a conclusion and I want to assure there is one young woman who came up to me and actually councilmember Henderson and spoke very movingly we are not taking away health care providers what we are doing here is deciding on three insurers that will be our Managed Care insurers for this city council member uh to to the motion I really I went back and watched a hearing we had August 2020 where we were going to get all of our questions answered then there was another hearing when we were going to get all of our questions answered and here we are again nothing is going to change in two weeks because care first is gonna lobby with a lot of money and clearly a lot of people power to tell us that they should be the provider Amerigroup is going to do the same thing apparently amerihealth is the only one that seems to have gotten through this unscathed and MedStar will do the same thing as well uh and I I agree with what councilmember white said if we if we if we don't follow what ended up being the result of the cab rulings and the procurement process we are going to be in this position with every single big contract in this city where someone could just spend a lot of money to try to overturn the decision of ocp so I am going to vote against uh the motion to postpone thank you customer service customer McDuffie just to make sure I'm clear Mr chairman was pending as the most impulse phone yes to a Time certain okay it's my understanding that these contracts have and always have in the past had a period of Readiness review and I wanted that as a council member Robert white as the chair of the committee uh what that means uh If This Were to be postponed uh certainly um and I'll have cheap shutter to to see more on this if necessary but but there's a significant Readiness uh review because this is not this is about a third of our uh sort of insured people transferring them to new contracts is a long uh tedious process it takes months and they've told us that's every time we've gotten to the end point of these contracts it's one of the reasons we've had to uh extend it so postponing this could uh mean an extension of the current contracts uh which would be to benefit the the current incumbents uh but but this is not a a smaller short process that they have to undergo uh by the end of the year and they can't even start that until we approve the contract so the council member Duffy I would say it's not harmless if we delay this thank you it councilmember Pinto second round thank you Mr chairman I just wanted to briefly address a couple of the points that have been made um first around this lobbying idea I'm not sure when we decided to shy away from lobbying we get lobbied all day all night in the building at our homes um we're constantly lobbied and that's part of our job is to respond to feedback from the public and make the best determination that we can on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the city and so I guess I'm not persuaded that additional lobbying is going to happen um notwithstanding I'm really sorry about the advertisers that your daughter saw that is um too far and not appropriate um in terms of the point about the providers I I don't think that this is a reason not to move forward because otherwise we would have the same insurers for the rest of time but it is my understanding councilmember Silverman that a practical effects that that may happen is that if the insurers are changed um not all insurers have the same providers in their Network and so I think it is true that over time some providers would be changed now again I don't think that's not a reason to move forward but um to that concern and then lastly to this point that we've um I respect that you re-watched the hearing in August 2020 I should go back and do the same but this issue is different and so I don't want colleagues to think oh we've been through this process so many times and we've already dealt with this issue and we need to come to a conclusion the issue that we're dealing with today around fairness of procurement and making sure that everything is transparent is different than the CBE issues that we were dealing with in August of 2020 and so that that's the issue that I would like to have a hearing on and Garner additional attention discussion and transparency around the issues that we see here thank you Mr chairman thank you councilmember uh we have the motion to postpone before us uh all those in favor the motion to postpone say aye I have a roll call about Mr chairman um secretary would you call the role the vote is on the motion to postpone sorry I was waiting to connect councilmember Nadeau yes votes yes councilmember Pinto yes must remember Pinto votes yes councilmember Silverman no councilmember Silverman votes no councilmember Robert White no councilmember Robert White votes no councilmember tray on white no councilmember Tran white votes no councilmember Allen no councilmember Allen votes no councilmember bonds no councilmember bonds vote snow councilmember Shea no councilmember Shea votes No councilmember Gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes must remember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George yes remember Lewis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie no councilmember McDuffie votes no chairman Mendelson no chairman Mendelson votes no Mr chairman there are four yeses seven no's and one absent uh Madam Secretary say that again there were four seven and one that's twelve four ases eight sorry eight no's and one absent oh the motion fails the uh so we have the contracts before so nobody has yet volunteered to ask questions to Mr shutter so I'll ask some questions of him until somebody else asks to ask questions so Mr shutter uh could you talk about uh if this if the some have said that the scores were even uh how could how can you defend what's before us if the scores were even uh chairman the this the process and the the contracts that are in front of the council is the is following the legal process that the the district uh went through um in the league there's no legal basis for us to cancel the first solicitation uh the district followed the uh what we were illegally obliged to do um I don't feel like that completely answered the question so are you able to publicly talk about the scores uh yes the scores have been have been shared chairman the scores for both the first solicitation and the second solicitation can you say anything more about the scores uh the the from the first solicitation uh there were two Awards uh amerihealth and American group and the second solicitation uh one award from MedStar realize chairman that the the reason for the second solicitation was responding to a a rigid cab ruling that forced us into the second solicitation uh due to our inability unlike any other jurisdiction uh to be able to clarify uh proposals so we are in a we are in a situation with two solicitations um and the cab also uh in in their review there was a a question on the comparison issue the comparison issue was raised in a protest the basis of the protest was that there are two solicitations and arguing that it prevented meaningful comparison the cab uh found that it was part of the solicitation process and it was proper so that is the process that was followed and the results of the scoring and the results of the awards is from the Contracting officer following the district process again has been mentioned uh this was a publicly noted publicly uh uh um posted solicitation with uh Source selection criteria a a team evaluated those uh a Contracting officer worked with the the Attorney General to ensure that we have legal sufficiency and that the the process was follows here and the contracts in front of you are a result of that process this process has been reviewed by the contracts appeals appeals board six times including specifically the issue that you're bringing up chairman on the comparison of uh contractors thank you yes councilmember oh okay Mr chairman thank you Mr chairman thank you director shutter for being here Mr chairman I think councilman is waving a use maybe she could be um so I guess first after the first round when amerihealth was selected and the other three were moved out before Amerigroup was put back into the second round how did the three remaining bidders scores relate to one another the there were two uh there were two separate solicitations this was not a head-to-head comparison uh that was within one solicitation uh the the um the comparison was uh and as I said the comparison and the question was asked to the cab on that comparison so the district Contracting officer followed what we were legally required to do there is no basis to cancel the first solicitation uh and the instructions in the second solicitation were also very clear to that point okay let me let me said all four never competed Head to Head can you provide us with what the four scores were on an individualized basis yes the uh I I can't do that council member could you do that now uh yes in the first solicitation there was uh uh MedStar with uh I'm sorry the first solicitation uh has amera health at 74.71 points Amerigroup at 66 points the second solicitation has MedStar at 64 points I'm sorry MedStar at 74 points and care first at 66 points so the first solicitation was amerihealth at 74.71 Amerigroup at 66 the second solicitation was uh MedStar at 74 and CareFirst at 66. okay so in the evidence that we have available to us CareFirst an Amerigroup scored essentially the same yes the same the same points that's correct and is it true that the cab included in their ruling that there was underscoring done for care first uh the cab I don't know that uh answered houses okay are you aware of anything that the cab ruling said about these um um but uh Injustice given to CareFirst no I'm not aware of an injustice to uh to care first okay could I ask one more question so it's my understanding that in the event of a tie if these contracts were being competed directly against one another that the Contracting officer would need to make a determination as to who would win and provide an analysis as to why that decision was made that would then be reviewed by the office of Attorney General that's correct okay and so given that you just said these contracts did not have an opportunity to compete head-to-head don't you think that in a different circumstance there would it would warrant uh an analysis to determine as to which of these insurers were placed above the other if they were had a tide score council member the the process that the district followed was what we were legally obliged to do this was not a head-to-head competition as you as you pointed out it was within both solicitations uh the review and the result of those solicitations or the contracts that are in front of you uh and um the cab has reviewed and opined on the very question that you're asking and I'll State again that the board found it was part of the solicitation and it was proper so there is no legal basis for us to do other than what we did counselors if I can jump in the um the four companies they all responded to the first solicitation is that correct that's correct Jeremy so theoretically the four had an opportunity maybe I shouldn't say theoretically the four had an opportunity to compete Head to Head that's correct chairman and then through the Contracting process which I believe this was challenged and upheld by the cab uh the uh some of the bidders were disqualified from the first the first procurement that's correct chairman and that was challenged at the cab and the cab upheld what you did correct there was a there was a protest at the cab the basis of the protest specifically was that there were two solicitations and the protest argued that it prevented meaningful comparison amongst the offer Wars and that the protest found regarding that or the cab found the Patrick's appeals board found in regarding that protest that it was part of the solicitation and proper what the Contracting officer did there is no legal basis officer to do other than what was done anything further from members um yes chairman I had my hand up oh I'm sorry council member it's all right that's okay um Mr Sutter thank you for being here um and we are all hoping that you can glean some understanding um to this um dilemma that we're in as a couple of my colleagues have indicated we've been here before it seems um and with the same Health Care Providers and that's no surprise because the contract is very generous and it's very necessary because we want to make sure that our Medicaid customers are taken care of and so you you mentioned a couple of times you said we were legally obliged to do what you did based on the cab so I have to ask does the cab supersede any Authority that you have as the procurement office well the the cab um council member is reviewing what actions the the Contracting officer took and advise again those actions and as I mentioned uh that in this comparison issue the cab did rule on that and that the board found that it wasn't the solicitation it was proper okay and so you're telling me then if I'm hearing you right that the cap supersedes your Authority the cab instructs you as to what you must do even after you've gone through the procurement process and made some selection based on your document that's in the community that um vendors May respond to is that correct well the the cab is reviewing what we've done uh council member and will tell us if we're we're correct or or not correct either through sustainment or uh um uh or denying the protest I I see from our bonds if this helps I think the cab is somewhat analogous to the court of appeals I wouldn't say that the court of appeals supersedes the authority of the council for example but if the council does something that didn't do it right then the court of appeals will tell us we didn't do it right in the cab if if you also Contracting procurement doesn't do something right then the cab can say you didn't do it right um thank you chairman I I kind of understood that what I'm trying to get at is Who's on First and who's on second here let's just be clear and it sounds like the decisions that the Contracting Office made Were Somehow um erroneous or an error and so you then were put in a position to go back out with the instrument and accept another round of bids for the same Services am I correct know the the reason for the second the reason for the second solicitation is the results of a previous rigid cab ruling that prevents the Contracting officer from clarifying subcontracting plans in proposals and requires the Contracting officer to throw out that proposal rather than looking at it so you're correct there were four proposals submitted three of them uh were rejected one of them was found sufficient and one of them through the cab the cab agreed with one of them not being thrown out so there were two remaining in the first solicitation and the second solicitation was open to all all right so um being a reasonable minded person I would say that mayor health and MedStar had the highest scores am I correct the 74-74 that's correct okay and so then where we are stuck is this tie where we have 66 66. or that seems to be the issue but it's really that you or the cab have determined that Amerigroup should be the third entity that we contract with the the cab determined that Amer groups proposal in the first solicitation was responsive and therefore the Contracting officer then needed to review that proposal in the first solicitation all right so in the second solicitation care first got the same score as Amerigroup and I'm trying to understand why the ruling is as it is today and you know eight billion dollars can certainly be divided four ways as easily as it can be divided three ways or two ways right council member that the the district was very specific in our second solicitation on how we would review the results of the first and the second solicitation and that uh specifically that an offer or may be awarded under only one of the MCO rfps an offer or who submitted a proposal and is selected for award under the first RFP may not be selected for award under the second RFP so and that language was in the second solicitation uh we were required to do a second uh solicitation and the results of uh both of the solicitations are what is in front of the the council today these Awards and the process uh again I would state that is has been very publicly announced fully understood by all parties uh under significant scrutiny by attorneys and by the office of Attorney General and has been reviewed by the cab a number of times as well and so the question that you're asking specifically was reviewed by the cap and determined that it was proper um and I just have one one final question chairman so then if Council were to vote today could we technically vote for a one year or a two year do we have to vote for the whole five years the the award is a five-year base period I see okay oh thank you I'm throwing a little bit more there we don't have the ability to amend contracts that's an executive function so what would that could be amended by the executive not by us all right so let's say hold on a second because I spoke a little too quickly I believe in this case because the um the contracts before us are the result of a solicitation the solicitation would have to allow for that kind of amendment and I don't know that it did all right so it does not in other words it's absolute five years that's correct okay and there's a reason for this kind of rigidity it's to prevent the kind of um games that we've seen in the past when I say in the past I'm talking about many many years ago um where things can just be changed and without a process did all the competitors can equally compete on that's the reason for the rigidity so there are these rigid rules the first solicitation if I understand correctly not all the bidders met the rules and so they got thrown out and uh what I heard Mr shutter say was in the past a Contracting officer could negotiate with one or two of them but then that got challenged before the cab like that was unfair to the other bidders so the cab said you can't do that so they got thrown out so then there's the second solicitation and the terms of that solicitation have to be strictly adhered to or the losing bidders can claim that it was they were it was an unfair process that that's the reason for the rigidity Mr shutter do I have that right that's correct chairman um chairman and Mr chatter I thank you very much but you know I guess I'm looking at it long term and I'm looking at billions of dollars going out of the door and um going out of the door and I want to make sure that the service uh rendered to the the residents is top quality and when I look at these kinds of scores I'm assuming it's based on 100 I do have concerns so thank you very much councilman Allen thanks Mr chairman um all right Mr shutter I'm going to come back to something I think my colleague was asking about that I want to try to understand as well and I'll be honest that so far the answers are about as clear as mud uh so I'd like to try to help understand this and I I'll preface it by saying this um as you as you help explain this um I need your help not just to explain it to the council but to the public as well um at this point these contracts are being written about in the press and the media the general public is reading them so regardless the outcome I think we got to figure out how to do our level best here to make sure we're explaining this well and answering people's questions they have trust in US so um you've walked through the two different solicitations uh in short we got two groups that scored 74 ish points and we got two that tied at 66. I gotta believe you didn't flip a coin so I need to to help explain why if they both scored 66 why was the decision to go with Amerigroup over care first someone had to make a choice yeah I understand the decision making around it in as plain a way as possible so that you're not just helping us understand it but the public as well I understand your question um council members so this so This requirement for the district the district made a public announcement through a solicitation uh describing what the district was looking for for health care insurance companies for mcos we were explicit in that solicitation of the source selection criteria and the process that uh the contractors that that the providers would be reviewed with we were also explicit with the requirements of the law in the district to submit um items within their their proposal uh including things like subcontracting plants so there was also a a a public notice period there was a discussion with the providers while the solicitation was open to ensure if there's any questions that we would answer those questions the the district Contracting officer um received proposals re reviewed them uh in the first round three of the four proposals uh were not were had to be thrown out and they were thrown out because of the rigid uh ruling that I have mentioned before that prevents the Contracting officer from going back to a proposer and saying uh what you sent here uh we need to clarify it if it is correct or not for example the the the numbers uh for your certified business Enterprise and your subcontracting plan are incorrect we did not have the Contracting officer no longer has that ability uh to clarify and and receive updated proposals where there are challenges therefore the the contracts required and the district's requirement was uh to have up to three uh Managed Care Organization contracts to support our beneficiaries therefore with only one approved the district was required then to to put out a second solicitation realize also please under District law we cannot just cancel a solicitation so if we canceled the first solicitation the provider that that responded appropriately uh would have the grounds to protest as well so the the laws surrounding the district and the regulations which are very nuanced and and substantial in the in the district around Contracting required that we uh um request a second uh solicitation for the district to be able to get up to three uh Managed Care Organization contracts the solicitation the second solicitation was very clear that um the first solicitation that we would award first on the first solicitation and then secondly award uh up to three in the second solicitation there were a number of of contract appeal board protests that were that were um that were submitted the results of those uh appeals and protests uh led to the resulting contracts that have been sent to council okay Mr shutter yes sir um just because my time is ticking away and I want her to be careful here all right so I want to make sure I unders I'm going to try to say back what I heard in a very short way um the first solicitation the two entities that successfully went through that and got their score were a married group and American Health Amerigroup amerihealth 74.71 and 66. that's correct as you were then looking for a third correct you go back out with second solicitation MedStar and CareFirst come back 74 and 66. so there's no coin toss there's no direct Head to Head between the two 66s would it be accurate to say if CareFirst had scored a 73. and MedStar scored a 74. you still would not have gone with care first because in that second solicitation you were only looking for one that isn't that is an accurate statement uh council member and further to that that point was the point of a protest and that point was sustained that the district was correct in uh in their decisions uh doing just exactly what you said and the scenario that you put uh that would be correct okay thank you that's I was trying to drill down to that that piece and then uh and I know my time is up just Mr chairman um from we we have an end you know we have this Contracting process that we are trying to keep out of the politics of it so your response to this is these are the rules and so these are the rules of the solicitations um and the process you followed upheld by the cab appeals and then reviews and decisions and that's why you're putting this forward in the way that it is that's correct we have we have filed the laws and the regulations and worked very closely with our program and with the AG um to make sure that we've done uh the right uh the right analysis and the right decisions here and the results of these contracts are the result of the the legal process that the district followed got it okay thank you very much thank you Mr chair I I feel like speaking to the issue of the the two scores being tied it's a little bit like saying that if you have two different sports games and their teams in the two different games that have a tides to have the same score that they're tied they're two different games so you can't say that the teams even though um one basketball team and one basketball game had a score of 66 and the other basketball game had a score of 66 and therefore they were tied to two different games and here there were two different procurements and we could say well the having the two different procurements LED to us you know was was wrong except that the cab upheld having the two different procurements and a reason for the two different procurements was that the bidders in the second procurement had lost had been kicked out of the first procurement they didn't do something right in spite of the the attorneys and the proposer makers and all the folks who have a lot of expertise they didn't do something right so they got thrown out of the first procurement so there was a second procurement that was challenged the cab upheld having to procurements but even if you were to look at it as a tie because it's not a tie there there's a process for resolving the tie and it would be the Contracting officer or it would be by the process which in this case was two different procurements or it could be by us and I vote that it's not by us and actually if we were to step in and say well no we think one bidder with a score of 66 is better than the other bidder and we're disagreeing with you we don't then actually get the other bidder because it's just going to mean a new procurement we can't really resolve the crop cry all we can so you followed a process if we step in we're not actually going to resolve the tie we're going to require a new procurement I don't know if that helped anybody but it was meant to Robert White says it didn't councilmember Lewis thank you chairman um and thank you to my colleague Charles Allen uh for his line of question that was very helpful my only other question here um director is uh it seems that both were given the 66 and separate instances what I would like to know is what though I guess you have without going into too much detail um I guess what was the 66 given to America for and what was the 66 given for care first for I'm thinking about patient outcomes here right so if someone was given a 66 because of poor past performance um one of the groups got 66 for that and then another group got 66 because of sort of uh you saw I guess a less important reason um then that would make a difference for patient outcome so is there any way you can speak to the the reason for the 66 what I'm just trying to make sure is that uh the 66s won't impact patient outcomes like the reasonings for the 66s won't impact patient outcome in a negative way um is there any way can you can speak to that the 66 factors yeah uh yes ma'am there are um detailed Source selection factors uh one of the factors I believe you're talking about those past performance and looking at the factors uh for uh past performance uh both care first and America group both scored eight three on past performance okay customer Lewis Church thank you uh customer Henderson did you have a question I did um good afternoon director a few hours ago um I wanted to ask about um since you're here in terms of the definition of past performance in terms of what is looked at um and I I mentioned this earlier and for um the benefit of everyone else the the last the last major contract I can remember the council disapproving even though everybody says we should let the process be was Horizon in 2015. there were seven members of this current body who voted no to disapprove that contract which was around Health Care on the Department of Corrections and there was an issue there in terms of what is the definition of past performance because ocp and I think director you said that was your first week on the job when you came to DC but the Contracting officer who wrote that summary had told the council that Horizon had had a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics and that they were a good performer and everybody knew that with a Google that wasn't exactly accurate um in the contract summaries that you all sent over with regard to um MedStar and even care um and with MedStar and and Amerigroup um both of them remarked that in the prior contracts with the district that um both vendors had satisfied or had I think something to the effect of satisfactory in terms of meeting the contract obligations um to what extent are past judgments and settlements considered in the definition of past performance they're considered uh they're considered in two different areas uh one is in the the past performance specifically it that is outlined in the solicitation instructing uh the offer Wars to submit specific information around similar uh supporting similar um uh organizations uh um uh in the nation um and that past performance is reviewed uh so there is there's there's information in there there's also as we've discussed information both in the the summary of the of the proposal uh uh speaking to litigation there's also um uh this specific question in submission from each of the offers on uh the litigation that is that is proved that uh they have been involved in the last 10 years so past performance is looked at by the specifically in the criteria um in Source selection and scored uh by a team there past performance is also looked at and scrutinized is a matter of responsibility for the contractor for the district and in that case uh the bitter offer or submission has details of of any litigation that uh has taken place in in the last number of years uh there is a review by the Contracting officer and with the attorney general and um the what was the timeline of of those cases what was the result of them what were the remediated remediate actions that took place there and there is an official determination of responsibility by the Contracting officer that is written up and that is approved for legal sufficiency by the attorney by the Attorney General's office so there is a review of past performance in in two different areas of uh of our review okay um councilmember and Joe mentioned earlier the um I think they're uh quarterly reports in terms of um outcomes and how the the plans and patients are performing under those plans um director and obviously this was not included in this current procurement but do you feel like in the future it would make sense for if we're going to evaluate Health contracts that that information should be considered going forward there are there are other things that you know that can be considered as a matter of specific past performance in the comparison but uh as I mentioned in looking at responsibility that those issues are taken into account and are considered by the Contracting officer and the attorneys uh prior to determining that that contractor is a responsible contractor so it is in fact reviewed and has been reviewed in this case thank you thank you um thank you director shutter um for being here today but also for answering my questions over the last few days thank you absolutely thank you councilmember Henderson um I don't disappear Mr shutter but I think we can go back to debate Is there further discussion on what's before us from bernado thank you chairman um I'm gonna be voting no on these contracts today in a situation like this it's not enough to say that the executive complied with the law so the council can't evaluate the merits of these contracts there is a process that has to be followed but the council is an intrinsic part of that process our review is as much a part of the procurement process as anything the office of contracts and procurement does or the contract appeals board does and that's because following the process crossing every eye and dotting every t sometimes leads to bad results and that's why final accountability for those results rests with us that's why what happens to our people on Medicaid rests with us we are all accountable and if we never actually exercise our contract review authority to deny contracts the executive won't care that we have that Authority we'll still get bad procurements so I say let's send this back and um get better outcomes for our patients thank you chairman Mr chairman council member customer check thank you Mr chairman I'd like to respond to the notion about the council's role here we have review of contracts and it's supposed to be a backstop against something plainly wrong plainly um irresponsible or even illegal so that we catch it but we are not part of the process we are not the second level for contracts to go through that approach would make us part of the process we are not part of the process we are a backstop and a backstop owner it has to be plainly on reasonable plainly uh wrong something that we have to catch as the final net but we are not part of the Contracting process as such and so I'm going to be voting for this today this has been my head is spinning from all of the discussion here today but also what we've taken up in the past but let's be clear this has gone through a proper process even to the contract appeals board and it's now not you know the second appeal to bring it to the counts that's not what we should be doing thank you thank you councilmember there's no further discussion councilmember Allen thanks Mr chairman um I appreciate this um and the debate um I will I will admit that I bring a little bit of my own bias uh into this one um before joining the council as staff I I worked with healthcare providers in the district um and the Amera group at that time um had problems uh to say the least and I know that the Amerigroup of today says they're not the Amerigroup of then and there's different people and different leaders um but I just kind of carry that with me a little bit so I've been a highly skeptical throughout this entire process um I do appreciate though the very healthy debate around this to try to help understand what the process actually looks like and where It ultimately lands I take voting on our contracts very seriously uh it is only a handful of times that I have voted against a contract that's been put in front of us and typically that's when I am looking at something where I believe it's a policy Choice kind of wrapped into a contract so take the Horizon contract uh many years ago uh which would have partially privatized the jail um that's me was a policy Choice wrapped in a contract and a policy choice I disagreed with and so I voted against that uh take the food service contract with DCPS my perspective that was a policy Choice wrapped up as a contract around where we believe fresh nutritious food should go and how to deliver it and I voted against that I can vote against a contract when it's the policy and what I've been struggling to hear here is where is this question around policy and where is this question about process and as I continue to hear this and have heard through the process of ocp of the cab Appeals I am left seeing a process perhaps even flawed but a process not a policy change so I am of the opinion at this point I've got to make sure that we allow that process that we want ocp to follow and that we have the cab there for a reason uh so I am not voting against these contracts I think this is a process question and we want to keep uh the council out of the process I have no problem though when it's a policy thank you Mr chair thank you councilmember any further discussion yes Jim councilmember Tran white yes thank you um it's been an intense uh discussions um I remember joining the council 2017. there were a lot of discusses around uh uh the Medicare Medicare contract uh even then it was appeals back and forth kind of similar to this process now uh the council has a duty to ensure a fair Equitable process um the cab or the contraction appeals board has a mission to provide an imposter expeditious inexpensive and knowledgeable form for hearing resolving contract disputes and protests um and uh June of 2022 the opinion was uh redacted by Decay rule by the district and properly that the district can properly rejected America's proposal as a non-responsive for the reason set forth here in uh consequently the cab sustained the instant protests in order districts to take corrective actions uh one by rescinding a notice to a murder group that is a proposal uh deemed non-responsive and to eliminate from competition as we heard in the discussion um by Mr Sutter um and fully evaluate America's proposal subconscious subcontracting plan incorporating and accepting the clarification information provided by the contractor uh officer by dslbd um new to me today was the actual numbers and who scored what and when they gave me further Clarity on the process um and to to hear that uh I guess the analysis that the two didn't compete gave me uh a greater a greater um ease that you know it's our job just to vote on this based on America what happened with the process um and I'm comfortable in supporting this today uh uh simply because I feel like you know it went through an appeal process what six appeals were filed and we're still here today um so in the future um in solicitation five years from now we're probably gonna be here again yeah when you talk about well we you be here in spirit Mary and it's eight I think the contract is worth 8.8 billion dollars and I'm and affecting over 200 000 residents and so we take this very seriously um and some may feel that the residents are not going to get Quality Health Care I'll show you that as long as I'm a councilman I'll fight for Equity truth and Justice um to ensure that we do all our all that we can do to ensure residents are getting that Quality Health Care Service um there's no break in services and so today I'll be in favor of this contract um oh there it is but I want to thank everyone who participated in this process in hopes that we are able to always create a platform for people to appeal and offer their opinions on especially matters over eight billion dollars thank you thank you councilmember white further discussion council member Henderson um thank you Mr chairman and um even though I um was in favor of councilmember Pinto's proposal in terms of a hearing I do appreciate you asking director shutter um to come today and that I think that was able to add some clarity for some of my colleagues um like I said I I spent a lot of time with this when I first joined the council and frankly it wasn't until I actually read sat down and read the cab rulings that I realized while it is being represented that everyone had the same issue from a clerical error that wasn't entirely accurate um in terms of process and so in many ways the administrative law judges who reviewed this matter really had no choice in terms of their determination I think in some ways but they also provided strong reasoning in terms of those public rulings which are which are public um and I kind of I'm easy about this obviously given the past record in terms of Amerigroup um but one could argue the past record in terms of some of the other companies as well there was one thing that was clear for me though I was not prepared to vote down all three contracts because at the end of the day one company in particular did followed everything they did it right they didn't even have to go to the cab um and it was time in terms of us moving forward on that um councilmember white Treyon white um had mentioned in his comments around a fair Equitable process and I would add to that the other part of our responsibility on the council side is vigorous oversight um I don't think I've we have had a hearing in terms of just on Medicaid mcos just in general in terms of how they're doing how they're performing how they are acting on behalf of DC residents but that is something that we will absolutely be doing in the next Council period I don't know who what whatever the committee makeup will be um that is not something that I'm going to give up on because I think that when we wait until plans are falling apart that is a disservice to the residents where we have to keep moving people around um and so with that Mr chairman I moved to close debate I'm sorry I know that they're a couple yeah um you're serious about that there are only a couple more people who want to speak I think okay I'll take that off the table okay uh so that's been withdrawn uh further on this comes from Lewis George I'll be short um I just want to know that I have long been a strong support of Medicare for all models uh that remove for-profit health insurance insurers from the equation I think this ongoing debacle of District companies undercutting one another one another politicizing the process and potentially winning Billion Dollar Deals without meaning full evaluation it's only strengthened my conviction and support of a single-payer system not only in the district but in this country but until that policy is won uh it is on us here in the district to get our Medicaid Insurance systems right beyond all the reusable doubt that providers we are working with other providers that will put our patients first and so I hope moving forward as my colleague Christina Henderson has noted uh that moving forward that we do take the time to have hearings really on our Medicaid providers hearing more not just hearing from our patients not just storing these votes but hearing from our patients throughout so I hope that that's something we can Center as we move forward as a council thank you thank you councilmember council member Robert White uh thank you chairman I'm going to be very brief I I just want to thank my uh colleagues for product questions and concerns I know where the questions and concerns come from we are all trying to do the right thing for residents in trying to keep the playing field level so that we're always doing what is best and not what lobbying pushes us toward I appreciate the questions and clarifications of how the procurement was done including how past performance was evaluated what issues Cav ruled on just to recap we we sent this back last year the results are before us where there are indications of corruption or contract steering that's appropriate for the council to to step in where we believe that the district government is ultimately spending too much for goods or services that's appropriate for Council to step in as council member Allen said on policy issues the the role that a council is not picking winners and losers in procurements particularly after the conclu illusion of a process that we require and that we did significant oversight on uh that we did if we didn't want someone to win and we wanted someone else to win we should have said that we didn't because it would have been inappropriate um so we are here with the contracts that the mayor has submitted and I I am going to vote in favor of those and hope that we all will be doing so momentarily thank you chairman thank you councilmember Madam Secretary would you call the role the vote is on pr24-985 pr24-983 and pr24-981 [Music] councilmember Pinto so councilmember Pinto votes no councilmember Silverman yes once remember Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes member Robert White votes yes councilmember Tryon white yes councilmember Treon white votes yes councilmember Allen yes comes from Allen votes yes councilmember bonds yes councilmember Barnes votes yes councilmember Shea yes councilmember Shea votes yes councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes councilmember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George yes councilmember Lewis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie yes councilmember McDuffie votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes councilmember Nigel no councilmember Nigel votes no Mr chairman there are 10 yeses two no's and one abscess oh the Declarations are approved we have the underlying uh resolutions that's pr24-986 pr24-984 and pr24-982 I could give the titles but I think I'll just leave it to what it says on the agenda uh council member White you want to move them so moved Mr chairman how they're before us is there any further discussion uh Madam Secretary are you comfortable if we do this by a voice note yes Mr chairman all right seeing or hearing no discussion uh on the three the three contract approval resolutions all those in favor say aye aye opposed no no no I heard two no's that would be councilmember pinto and councilmember Nadeau and of course councilmember Gray's absence um there were no other no votes the decor the the contracts are approved uh we will turn to uh first reading and vote on temporary legislation because there's no objection uh I will move all of these in Block that's um the Attorney General civil rights enforcement second temporary protecting security sensitive dashboard data temporary River East to Granville condominium property tax exemption temporary housing authority accountability temporary and sign regulations temporary and the temporary for the sign regulations I believe the emergency had been amended so the temporary will include those amendments the same amendments uh Madam General assistant general counsel is that clear enough yes it is yes it is and I don't believe there were amendments to the other emergencies uh so uh the motion is to approve the five Temporaries including the Amendments that have been made to the emergency is there discussion I think I was clear I moved these these five um hearing no discussion Madam Secretary would you call the role councilmember Silverman yes remember Silverman votes yes councilmember Robert White yes remember Robert White votes yes councilmember Tryon White yes remember Trey on white votes yes councilmember Allen yes remember Allen votes yes councilmember bonds yes from the box votes yes councilmember Che yes I'm betray folks yes councilmember gray is absent councilmember Henderson yes remember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George councilmember Lewis George councilmember McDuffie yes councilmember McDuffie votes yes chairman mendelsohn yes chairman Mendelson votes yes councilmember Nadeau yes Mr benendo votes yes councilmember Pinto yes remember Pinto votes yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two absents uh the Temporaries are approved unanimously on first reading that's going to conclude the business for this meeting the next the next meeting of the council is scheduled for November 1st 2022 as I'd indicated earlier there'll probably be an additional committee the whole on that date the time is 5 16 in the afternoon and this meeting is adjourned