UPDATED 12:45pm on 08 Feb 2024 to clarify information about the Restaurant Revitalization and Dram Shop Clarification Amendment Act and At-large D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson’s amendment to the Secure. D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act.
This edition of The Collins Council Report looks back on the D.C. Council’s Feb. 6 legislative meeting.
It includes a recap of the council’s first votes on the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act and Restaurant Revitalization and Dram Shop Clarification Amendment Act. This roundup also discusses Joel Caston’s appointment to the D.C. Sentencing Commission while providing an update in the MacArthur High School designation conversation.
NOTE: This report is dedicated to the spirit of civic engagement, as seen in the multitudes of people who converged on Room 500 of the John A. Wilson Building to watch the council deliberate on the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act.
In First Vote, the Council Approves Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act
Hours before the D.C. Council’s first vote on the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, residents, clergypeople, and organizers flooded the fifth floor of the John A. Wilson Building.
Many of them secured their seats as council members, at their monthly breakfast, debated over the comprehensive public safety bill. Once Room 500 reached capacity, several others were directed to Room 412, which served as an overflow room.
Tuesday’s council breakfast opened the door for discussion about DNA collection, pre-trial detention, and drug-free zones. Hours later, the D.C. Council, on its first vote, unanimously approved the bill, with D.C. Councilmember Trayon White (D-Ward 8) voting present.
The latest version of the bill includes a unanimously approved amendment in the nature of the substitute (ANS) that D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2), chairperson of the council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, submitted earlier this week.
Pinto’s ANS expanded the parties to be notified in advance about “drug-free zone” designations, allowed Freedom of Information Act requests for sustained and unsustained allegations against police officers, granted the Office of Police Complaints’ unfettered access to Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) files, and dialed back changes to police restraint restrictions.
Other amendments flowed in throughout much of Monday and Tuesday.
D.C. Councilmember Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1) introduced, then withdrew, an amendment not only increasing the amount awarded to witnesses who come forward, but requiring an assessment of the District’s witness protection program.
The council soon after approved an amendment by D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson (I-At large) that omitted from the legislation’s anti-mask provision “intent to cause a person to fear for their personal safety.” By the time Henderson introduced the amendment, the committee print of the Secure D.C. Omnibus ensured that mask wearing would be prohibited when done with the intent of committing a crime or theatening someone.
Against Pinto’s wishes, D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (I-At large) brought forth an amendment eliminating a Secure D.C. Omnibus provision that allows law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples from arrestees.
Much of the debate around DNA collection started at the council breakfast, where Pinto and McDuffie mulled over the implications of collecting DNA before someone has been charged and convicted of a crime. The council ultimately approved McDuffie’s amendment by a 9-4 vote.
Councilmembers Pinto, Henderson, Nadeau, and Matt Frumin (D-Ward 3) voted against it.
D.C. Councilmember Anita Bonds (D-At large) introduced, then withdrew, an amendment expanding the definition of “crime of violence” to include trespassing, coercion and unlawful entry. Despite Bonds’ pleas for senior crime victims who experience these types of crimes, the amendment didn’t catch much traction among other council members.
After seeing the passage of McDuffie’s amendment, D.C. Councilmember Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) withdrew her similarly crafted amendment. She subsequently spoke about another amendment that moves up record sealing, as outlined in the Second Chance Amendment Act, to the next fiscal year instead of Fiscal Year 2028.
Pinto, responding to Lewis George, requested that they table the amendment and work together on a bill during the budget season.
While Frumin questioned the practicality of Lewis George’s amendment, Ward 8 Councilmember White and D.C. Councilmember Robert White (D-At large) threw their support behind it. Pinto, however, remained resolute in her position, telling her council colleagues that they must stave off congressional interference.
At-large Councilmember White agreed with Pinto, saying that the council has to “play the long game.” Soon after, the council approved Lewis George’s amendment with a 10-3 vote. Pinto, Frumin, and D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) voted against it.
Lewis George later introduced, and withdrew, an amendment restoring the felony threshold in the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, which was $500, to $1,000.
While Ward 8 D.C. Councilmember White attempted, for several minutes, to bring up amendments he wanted to introduce, Mendelson gave McDuffie the floor to put forth a verbal amendment.
McDuffie’s verbal amendment added a clause to Pinto’s legislation that makes pre-trial detention temporary and requires the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council to assess its effectiveness. This process would take place within the 255 days following the implementation of the public safety emergency bill that the council approved last summer.
At that point, only McDuffie, Mendelson, Pinto, and the council’s general counsel had copies of McDuffie’s amendment. Mendleson suggested delaying the amendment until the second reading of the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act.
The council conducted a roll call vote anyway. McDuffie’s amendment passed with a 10-2-1 vote. Mendelson and Pinto voted against the amendment, while Frumin voted “present.”
The council soon after circled back to Ward 8 Councilmember White. His amendment, introduced less than two hours earlier, specified that the anti-mask provision applies to only ski masks.
After White and Pinto engaged in dialogue, White opted to delay the vote on his amendment until the second reading. He then inquired about a provision in Pinto’s legislation redacting an officers name and badge number for misconduct cases that haven’t been substantiated.
Again, Pinto stressed that congressional Republicans will overturn the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act if it has what she described as radical measures.
Pinto and White’s conversation then pivoted to dialogue about penalty enhancements for violent crime around recreation centers. White, reflecting on his upbringing in recreation centers, expressed his fear that young people could be penalized for fighting on Department of Parks and Recreation facilities.
In response, Pinto pointed out that, under her bill, only more violent crimes would trigger enhancements.
In the minutes before the council conducted their first roll call vote on the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, much of the council thanked Pinto for her work on the bill while providing varying viewpoints.
Ward 8 Councilmember White lamented about turnover and lack of funding in the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement. At-large Councilmember White spoke about friends and constituents who suffered from crime while stressing that the council can’t implement provisions for the sake of doing so.
While Henderson pointed out that the Secure D.C. bill counts among several attempts to tackle crime, Allen, former chair of the council’s Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, echoed a point Mendelson made earlier this week: fighting crime doesn’t fall all on the council.
The second vote for the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act will most likely take place on March 5.
Restaurant Legislation Sparks Dialogue about Initiative 82
On its first vote, the D.C. Council unanimously approved the Restaurant Revitalization and Dram Shop Clarification Amendment Act.
This legislation includes provisions holding licensed establishments liable for alcohol-related injuries and ensuring they are better able to afford insurance helping to recover damages. More relevant to this report, the legislation also omits service charges from calculations that building owners make when determining the rent for commercial tenants.
In the aftermath of Initiative 82’s passage, several restaurants added service charges to patrons’ bills. As some council members mentioned during Tuesday’s council breakfast, patrons who conflate such charges with tips end up not tipping workers at all.
As Lewis George told her colleagues, some restaurants also funnel revenue from service charges to overhead, and not workers’ tipped wages.
That’s why, this bill, initially intended to support businesses navigating the post-pandemic economic landscape, sparked questions about how restaurants are spending the revenue incurred from service charges, and if the revenue, in fact, is going to tipped workers.
Amid concerns about the goal of Initiative 82 — the elimination of the tipped minimum wage –not coming to fruition, Chairman Mendelson pledged, at the council breakfast and on the dais, to see that the council follows through with what nearly three-fourths of District voters approved.
As such, he announced amendments he said he’ll introduce during the second reading. The first amendment protects restaurants that comply with D.C. Office of Attorney General and industry service charge disclosure guidelines from private lawsuits. Meanwhile, the second amendment speeds up the end date for Initiative 82’s full implementation by two years.
The council unanimously approved McDuffie’s amendment in the nature of a substitute, which, among other things, mandated a public education campaign about the District of Columbia Tip Credit Elimination Act of 2022. It also limited civil action of third parties against restaurants and bars and further clarified the liability that a licensed establishment faces in alcohol-related injuries.
Lewis George circulated an amendment that changes the definition of service charges so it doesn’t include workers’ base pay. In explaining the rationale behind her amendment, she said that, by designating service charges as base pay, restaurateurs would benefit from lower rent while circumventing Initiative 82.
McDuffie, chairperson of the council’s Committee on Business and Economic Development, spoke against Lewis George’s amendment, saying it would lead to greater rent burden for restaurants. On the dais, Parker asked how the D.C. government would regulate Lewis George’s amendment, if included in the legislation.
After much discussion between the three of them, Lewis George withdrew the amendment, pending a meeting with McDuffie and Parker. More to come on March 5, when this legislation comes up for a second vote.
Joel Caston Secures Appointment to D.C. Sentencing Commission
The council unanimously approved the D.C. Sentencing Commission Joel Caston Appointment Resolution, with Councilmember Nadeau (D-Ward 1) voting “present.”
Caston’s appointment to the D.C. Sentencing Commission came after much controversy surrounding the circumstances of his 27-year prison stint and the council’s meeting with the D.C. Sentencing Commission on Jan. 23.
Throughout the last few weeks, members of the council touted their support for Caston, stressing that the commission would benefit from his perspective as a returning citizen, organizer and public servant. In 2021, Caston became D.C.’s first incarcerated elected official when his fellow residents at D.C. Jail elected him as advisory neighborhood commissioner of Single-Member District 7F07.
During the council’s Committee of the Whole meeting, D.C. Councilmembers Pinto, White (Ward 8), Bonds, White (At large), and Parker spoke favorably about Caston.
Parker went as far as to point out that, during the council’s meeting with the D.C. Sentencing Commission, Milton C. Lee Jr., associate judge and commission chair, stressed the need for diverse viewpoints and experiences on the D.C. Sentencing Commission.
With his appointment now official, Caston would be able to do just that as he weighs in how judges dole out sentences.
D.C. Council, Ward 3 Community to Revisit MacArthur High School Designation Act
At Tuesday’s council breakfast, Chairman Mendelson said he would recommit the MacArthur High School Designation Act. This means that he’ll amend it in alignment with the final name that community members, and students in particular, want for their school.
Last month, council members clashed about the prospect of naming the newest District public school after U.S. General Douglas MacArthur, an official who practiced racial discrimination. Out of deference to the school community, Mendelson and D.C. Councilmember Matt Frumin (D-Ward 3) requested that the council advance the legislation.
The council would later do so, but with only six council members in support. Councilmembers Nadeau, Parker, Lewis George, and McDuffie voted no while both the Ward 8 and At-Large members voted “present.”
Council member Vincent C. Gray (D-Ward 7) was absent.
After recently meeting with MacArthur High School community members, Mendelson and Frumin learned that students felt no connection to the MacArthur name nor the man for whom MacArthur Boulevard in Northwest is named.
Frumin confirmed that the school community is working on an internal process to determine a new school name. Such a development compelled Parker to point out that, if not for the community’s last-minute change of heart, the school designation would’ve gone on as planned.
Parker, weighing in on the situation further, suggested that the council stand on principle. He even went as far to mention that the Council Office of Racial Equity be invited to conduct research for any future street, school and landmark renaming.