Viewing entries tagged

1 Comment

Grosso tackles pay gap, student debt, and out-of-school time as Council returns to work

For Immediate Release: 
September 20, 2016
Matthew Nocella, (202) 724-8105

Grosso tackles pay gap, student debt, and out-of-school time as Council returns to work

Washington, DC – The Council of the District of Columbia returned from its annual summer recess today and Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) wasted no time proposing solutions to challenges faced by the District of Columbia. The gender and racial pay gap, funding for critical out-of-school time activities, and the growing student debt problem were the focus of new legislation introduced by the councilmember.

Closing the District Wage Gap

Grosso introduced the Fair Wage Amendment Act of 2016 to address persistent pay inequities for women, especially women of color, face in D.C.

“Equal pay for equal work is a simple concept. Yet, even in D.C. the wage gap that women experience persists,” said Grosso.

The bill would prohibit employers in the city from requesting information about a prospective employee’s salary and benefit history before an employer makes a job and compensation offer.  This would help to end a practice that perpetuates the wage gap.

“Leaving a job that is unfairly compensating you is no guarantee that your pay will be much better when employers make job offers based on previous, deflated wages. We can break that cycle.”

According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, women in D.C. make 90 cents for every dollar paid to men.  It’s much worse for women of color: African-American women earn just 56 cents on the dollar and Latinas just 50 cents when compared to white, non-Hispanic men.

Addressing Student Loan Debt

Grosso also introduced the Student Loan Ombudsman Establishment and Servicing Regulation Act of 2016 to address the increasing burden student loans are placing on D.C. residents

“Growing student debt presents a serious challenge for our residents and our local economy, creating a burden that follows them and stifles every aspect of their lives: buying a house, starting a business, saving for retirement, and furthering their education,” Grosso said.  “This bill is a first step that assists District borrowers and increases servicer accountability.”

The bill would create an ombudsman in the Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking empowered to establish licensing requirements for student loan servicers in the city.  They would also be charged with informing D.C. residents about their options when seeking student loans and when working to repay them.

Recommitting to Youth Development

Finally, Grosso, along with Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, introduced the Office of Youth Outcomes and Grants Establishment Act of 2016.  The bill establishes a framework for greater strategy-setting, coordination and funding for out-of-school programming.

Out-of-school time programming has myriad benefits to youth who participate, improving their educational, behavioral, and physical health outcomes. Funding for such programming currently comes from many government agencies, including grants to youth-serving groups via the D.C. Trust, which dissolves on September 30.

“What we are proposing today provides equitable access to quality out-of-school time services, which we know help best position our students to succeed,” Grosso said. “As Chairperson of the Committee on Education, I see this coordinated, data-driven, multi-agency effort as an opportunity to create real results, insulated from the political manipulation and financial impropriety of the past.”

The bill establishes both an Office and a Commission on Youth Outcomes and Grants charged with overseeing inter-agency coordination, tracking data and assessing need and outcomes, and making grants to organizations that provide out-of-school programming to District of Columbia youth.

“This legislation is informed by the efforts led by the Deputy Mayors for Health and Human Services and Education to plot the next steps for our out of school time efforts in light of the Trust’s dissolution. I look forward to continuing to work with them and other stakeholders to incorporate their input as we move through the legislative process.”


1 Comment


Grosso's Anti-Shackling Law Will Soon Come into Effect

In December of 2014, at the end of the D.C. Council's 20th legislative session, the Council passed Councilmember Grosso's bill to eliminate the use of shackles or restraints on pregnant inmates and detainees during and leading up to labor. Although the final version of the law did not go as far as Grosso had hoped it would in prohibiting the shackling or restraining of pregnant in almost any situation, nonetheless this is an important human rights victory. The legislation, the Limitations on the Use of restraints Amendment Act of 2014, is expected to become official law on July 25, 2015, at the conclusion of the mandated Congressional review period.

The final law states that no woman or girl in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) or the Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services (DYRS) shall be restrained during the third trimester of pregnancy, during labor, or during post-partum recovery, except in extraordinary circumstances. Any such uses of restraints in extraordinary circumstances are to be documented and justified. For women and girls in the first or second trimester of pregnancy, the law stipulates that when restraints are necessary, the least restrictive restraint possible shall be used, except in extraordinary circumstances--which also must be documented. It is the responsibility of DOC and DYRS to inform the women and girls in their custody of these rules.

In advance of the legislation coming into effect as law, Grosso sent letters to the Directors of the DOC and DYRS. The responses from DOC Director Thomas Faust and DYRS Director Clinton Lacey are below. Although the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was not included in the final version of the legislation, the Councilmember will seek to work with MPD to ensure that pregnant women and girls in the Department's custody are treated with the utmost respect for their health needs and human rights.


1 Comment

Kicking off Women’s History Month, Grosso Introduces Bill to Ensure Gender Equity in D.C.

For Immediate Release
March 3, 2015

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun
(202) 724-8105

Kicking off Women’s History Month, Grosso Introduces Bill to Ensure Gender Equity in D.C.

Washington, D.C. — Today, in honor of Women’s History Month and the International Women’s Day on March 8, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) introduced the Local Implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Amendment Act of 2015. The United Nations General Assembly adopted CEDAW in 1979 and President Carter signed the treaty on behalf of the United States in 1980; however, the United States Senate has not yet ratified CEDAW. In 2014, municipalities across the nation began signing onto the Cities for CEDAW initiative, pledging to implement the principles of CEDAW at the local level in light of the Senate’s failure to act.  The U.S. is one of only eight countries that has not ratified the treaty. Countries that ratify CEDAW are mandated to condemn all forms of discrimination against women and girls and to ensure gender equality in the civil, political, economic, educational,  social and cultural arenas.

“In D.C., we already have some of the strongest human rights protections for women and girls in the country,” said Grosso. “In honor of Women’s History Month, I am introducing this legislation to ensure that all of our government agencies are working proactively for gender equality.”

Under the legislation, D.C. government agencies will be required to conduct gender analysis reporting, including data analysis, to assess gender equity in their operations. The bill also calls for an annual citywide action plan to address any deficiencies identified in the gender analysis reporting. Such analysis and evaluation will help identify and remedy structural gender inequalities in the D.C. government.

Additionally, March 3 is the International Sex Worker Rights Day and CEDAW notes how sex workers are particularly vulnerable to violence and other human rights abuses due to stigma and criminalization. Grosso has previously called for a greater emphasis on protecting the human rights of those involved in commercial sex.

1 Comment


Paid Family Leave: Eight Weeks for District Government Employees

By Anne Robinson

In March, we published a blog post on the Fair Leave Act of 2014, introduced by Councilmember Grosso.  The legislation provided D.C. government employees up to six weeks of paid leave in connection with the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child, or the care of a family member who has a serious medical condition.   During this time, conversation was sparked across the country about the need for men to be more supported as fathers and policies that encourage women to stay in the workplace.  This was an area where D.C. could lead.

When the Mayor released his proposed FY2015 budget to the Council in April, we were pleased to read that he included language for a six week maternity or paternity leave for D.C. government employees.  This was a follow through on the promise he made during the State of the District speech in February and similar to the language in the Fair Leave Act, but the issue of a fiscal impact was still unclear.  

Throughout the budget process, we worked diligently with Chairman Kenyan McDuffie of the Committee on Government Operations and were successful in amending the Mayor’s Budget Support Act language to: expand the language to be for the care of any family member; increase the amount of time from six weeks to eight weeks; and to cite all references and definitions to the D.C. Family Medical Leave Act (DC FMLA) for consistency (see the bottom of this post for the language).  

The eight weeks of paid family leave policy for a qualifying District government employee will go into effect on October 1, 2014.  The Department of Human Resources (DCHR) is currently working on issuing a bulletin to each agency’s Human Resources advisors to inform them of the law and the leave certification process.  They are hopeful that it will be issued by mid-September, at which point employees can submit an application for the benefit for leave occurring on or after October 1. DCHR is also working on a draft rulemaking that will be open for a 30 day comment period in late fall.   The eight weeks of paid leave will count against the allotted 16 weeks in a 24 month period of unpaid leave that is currently given under the D.C. FMLA.  The bill has no fiscal impact because employees’ salaries are already allocated for on an annual basis, therefore this leave time will not require any extra funding. 

The paid family leave beginning on October 1 is a major step for the District of Columbia and we will eagerly track the implementation process and the success of this initiative.  Our work is not done until we can expand this benefit to all of our families in the District working outside of government employment.

As we began our research and collaboration with advocacy groups, it became clear that identifying a funding structure to provide paid family leave without creating a new source of revenue would be very difficult.  California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island each have paid family leave programs that were more easily implemented because of already existing state level payroll and income tax systems.  Other jurisdictions offer paid family leave through State Disability Insurance (SDI) funds and temporary disability laws. Unfortunately, the District of Columbia does not have structures like these in place to expand coverage to all residents.

Over the summer, advocates worked with the Department of Employment Services (DOES), in partnership with Mayor Gray, to apply to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for a grant to study the feasibility of a paid family leave program in the District.  At the White House Summit on Working Families in June, President Obama announced that DOL’s Women’s Bureau and Employment and Training Administration will make $500,000 available for up to five grants.  If awarded this funding, D.C. would be able to assess various aspects of a paid family leave program by estimating the expected costs, benefits, and economic impact; evaluating different models for delivery; and provide an analysis of education and outreach needs. The results of the grant competition are expected early this fall.

There is a major shift happening in national policy and paid family leave is a topic that many organizations are focusing on to support women and families in the workplace. Our office will continue to explore the option for expansion of paid family leave, researching alternatives, having conversations with the business community about the effects of paid family leave on the private sector, and supporting other federal policies that might help us progress toward inclusive paid family leave.  This is an area where D.C. can lead, and we plan to!

If a D.C. government employee or HR advisor is seeking information about the law, please direct them to DCHR at (202) 442-9700. The agency has FMLA coordinators who will advise them.

*This post is part of an ongoing series of posts by Councilmember Grosso’s staff to support professional development. All posts are approved and endorsed by Councilmember Grosso.



Grosso Takes Stand for Women to Make Own Reproductive Health Decisions

Grosso Takes Stand for Women to Make Own Reproductive Health Decisions

Washington D.C.–Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in favor of two for-profit businesses–Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood–who challenged the Affordable Care Act claiming it violated federal law protecting religious freedom by requiring them to offer their employee’s insurance coverage for a variety of methods of contraception:

“The Supreme Court decision in the “Hobby Lobby” case is another example of how the split court has no respect for the rights of women who should be able to make reproductive health decisions free from intervention by anyone.  I strongly believe that no company, regardless of the owners’ personal religious beliefs, should be permitted to interfere with an employee’s reproductive health care decisions.  It is a woman’s personal right and she should not be discriminated against at her work place just because her employer holds a particular religious belief.  My Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, when enacted into law, will ensure that a woman is protected from discrimination by her employer when making reproductive health decisions and I urge the Council to move quickly on passing this important legislation.”





Grosso’s Reproductive Rights Legislation to Protect Women and Families

For Immediate Release

May 6, 2014

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun

(202) 724-8105


Grosso’s Reproductive Rights Legislation to Protect Women and Families  

Washington, D.C. – Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) introduced the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, a bill to amend the Human Rights Act of 1977 to ensure that individuals are protected from discrimination by an employer or employment agency based on an individual’s reproductive health decision making, including a decision to use a particular drug, device, or medical service based on an employer’s personal beliefs about such methods of family planning.

Nationally, there have been a number of disturbing cases of bosses retaliating against employees for their reproductive health care decisions. For example, in Wisconsin, after the state legislature passed a law requiring insurance plans to cover contraception, the Catholic diocese told employees that if they used the benefit, they would be fired. In the past 4 years alone, individuals in California, Texas, Montana, and Indiana have brought discrimination suits against their employers after being fired from their jobs for being pregnant without being married

Recently, a Supreme Court case brought by Hobby Lobby explored whether the federal government can require for-profit companies to provide coverage for forms of birth control that conflict with the company owners’ personal religious beliefs. The Hobby Lobby case is only one of more than 100 federal lawsuits by employers seeking to limit contraception coverage benefits that are available under the Affordable Care Act.

“An employer should not be able to tell their employee whether or not they can access certain kinds of health care,” said Grosso.  “While the District enjoys some of the strongest non-discrimination laws in the country, this specific legislation signals that we stand by the rights of women and families to make their own reproductive health decisions without involvement from their employer.”




Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014




Councilmember David Grosso introduced the following bill, which was referred to the

Committee on __________________.

An ACT to amend the Human Rights Act of 1977 to ensure that individuals are protected fromdiscrimination by an employer or employment agency based an  individual’s or dependent’s reproductive health decision making.

            BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this act may be cited as the “Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014”.

            Sec. 2. Section 211 (D.C. Official Code § 2-1402.11) of the Human Rights Act of 1977, effective December 13, 1977 (D.C. Law 2-38; D.C. Official Code § 2-1401.01 et seq.), is amended to add a subsection (d) to read as follows:

            “ (d) An employer or employment agency shall not discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of or on the basis of the individual’s or a dependent’s reproductive health decision making, including a decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service, because of or on the basis of an employer’s personal beliefs about such services.”

            (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any rights of an employee provided through any other provision of law or collective bargaining unit.

Sec. 3.  Fiscal impact statement.
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the

fiscal impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(3)).

Sec. 4.  Effective date.
            This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of Columbia Register.




The Fair Leave Act of 2014

by Anne Robinson

This week, Councilmember Grosso along with Councilmembers Catania, McDuffie, and Wells  introduced the Fair Leave Act of 2014. The bill was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.  The intent is to provide government employees up to 6 weeks of paid leave in connection with the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child, or the care of a family member who has a serious medical condition.  By offering 6 weeks of paid leave for a government employee, we actively invest in families by supporting early childhood development, the health and welfare of residents, the retention of women in the workforce, and the vital role that parents play.  I think that 6 weeks of paid leave is a very small price to pay for outcomes that have such a diverse impact. 

Currently, the District of Columbia Family Medical Leave Act (D.C. FMLA) allows for all persons working for businesses with 50 employees or more to receive up to 16 weeks out of a continuous 24 month period of unpaid leave to care for a family member in the event of a birth, adoption, fostering, or illness.  A family member is a person related to the employee by blood, legal custody, or marriage; a child who lives with the employee; or a person with whom the employee has shared a home with in the same year. The D.C. FMLA unpaid leave allows for 4 weeks longer than the federal FMLA.  The definition of “family member” is inclusive and reflective of whom we label and identify as family here in the District.  The law includes safeguards for the employee’s position and benefits during a period of unpaid leave and also protects the interests of the employer. 

We believe that amending the D.C. Code to allow for 6 weeks of paid leave will have positive impacts on education, health and welfare, and human rights in our city. 


Councilmember Grosso serves on the Committee on Education and he hears the testimony from parents and teachers alike about their concerns for the educational development of children.  He is also involved in analyzing the District’s need for universal pre-kindergarten programs that start as early as three years of age to ensure that we are reaching the children who are not getting basic skills at home that help them to be school-ready.  Studies have shown that beginning at birth, care-takers in the home foster the necessary development of communication, empathy, curiosity, creativity, and confidence.  These are just some of the fundamental traits that children need to develop prior to beginning pre-school and kindergarten programs.  When parents can nurture language and literacy starting from birth a child is better prepared both physically and emotionally when they enter school. When we provide parents with the tools they need to teach their children we set into motion foundations for a child’s future success.


Councilmember Grosso also serves as a member on the Committees on Health.  From meetings with nurses, health care providers, and patient advocates we are constantly discussing ways that we can broaden and ease the recovery process for those who are ill and in need of care.  One way to do this is to offer paid leave for a new mother to stay at home with her infant child so that she can recover from the delivery without the fear of the financial burdens that an individual or family faces when they must take leave from work.   The average time to heal from the birth of child is 6 weeks, but that is under the best of circumstances.  Recovery from a surgical cesarean delivery, complications from the delivery, or post-partum depression can increase the need for leave time.  It is vital that our city provides high quality health care and assistance to low-income residents of the District who need it.   If a parent has to choose between working and staying home with a new child it can delay regular well-baby checks-ups or immunization schedules, which is a serious public health concern.  

Gender Roles and Balance

As gender roles in our society shift, the roles of men and women in the household are also changing.  Positions and opportunities for women in the workplace are evolving while at the same time women must strive to be perceived as equal to their male counterparts.  Women do not want to face employment setbacks for being pregnant or taking time off.  This legislation gives either parent the benefit of taking time off to care for a family member without the fear of lost positions or wages.  The legislation also promotes the necessary role that fathers and secondary caretakers play in their child’s development.  When the government supports fathers to stay home with a newborn, studies have shown that this solidifies their involvement in the long-term care of the child.  This bill acknowledges that not only is the man’s employment position or salary relevant, but also his involvement and concerns as a parent. We recognize that there is a great diversity of families and this bill is designed to be inclusive of all family structures.


The United States ranks second from the bottom, runner up to Pakistan, for paid maternity and paternity leave.  Norway and Canada top the paid leave charts with four months of paid government leave for both parents.  Even though our economic structure and system of government do not function the same way as these countries, it might be time to consider the economic benefits that can be gained from providing paid leave.  California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island all offer 6 weeks of paid leave for all employees, which is funded through a payroll tax.  The state of Washington passed paid leave legislation and is currently working on their budget for the program.  In July 2013, the U.S. Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee approved a fiscal year 2014 spending measure that includes $5 million to support a new State Paid Leave Fund.  The fund will provide planning and implementation grants to states wishing to establish paid leave programs and provide benefits to workers who need to take time off for reasons covered under FMLA. 

Mayor Gray indicated in his State of District speech that he would also be introducing similar legislation that would allowed for 4 weeks paid leave for the primary caregiver and 2 weeks for the secondary caregiver.  These are all signs of progress and we hope the District of Columbia will be next on the list to offer a similar benefit. 

To offer District government employees 6 weeks of paid leave is economically sound.  By having this policy in place, we will attract more qualified employees to work here and we will encourage the mothers to return to the workplace.  By granting flexibly and time to recover and bond, parents will feel less pressure about their financial situation.  And by having parents who are able to stay at home with the concern of financial burdens lifted they will be able to focus on the child.  This concept loops us back to better public health, stronger families, and promoting the basic education and skills a child needs starting from birth to be healthy and school ready. 

*All posts are approved and endorsed by Councilmember Grosso.



Gender Disparities on Board and Commissions

While preparing for a December hearing to consider nominations to various Boards and Commissions, Councilmember Grosso noticed something— there were far more men than women under consideration for appointment. We found ourselves wondering if this was a coincidence specific to that day and those specific Boards, or if there was a broader trend of gender imbalance. We reviewed the memberships of all the Boards before the Committee on Business, Consumer, and Regulatory Affairs (BCRA) and then the 150 plus Boards and Commissions citywide. Our question was answered—there are significant and often egregious gender disparities. 

During our research, another problem presented itself.   Much of the information we were searching for, we could not find.   If information is not publicly available then how can residents know who is on Boards and Commissions and what they are doing?

Gender Disparities

Looking at the broader list of the Boards and Commissions with information available online (more on that below), almost a third of the memberships are dominated by men, including several powerful entities:

  •         Alcohol and Beverage Control Board 6 men, 1 woman
  •         Business Regulatory Reform Task Force – 11 men, 6 women
  •         Commission on African American Affairs – 11 men, 4 women
  •         Housing Production Trust Fund, Board of Directors – 6 men, 3 woman
  •         Interfaith Council – 23 men,2 women
  •         Streetcar Financing Task Force – 13 men, 1 woman

Disappointingly, Boards and Commissions covering topics that are historically associated with gender stereotypes are especially prone to such imbalances: 

  •          Advisory Panel on Special Education – 4 men, 15 women
  •          Board of Industrial Trades – 7 men, 1 woman
  •          Board of Nursing – 0 men, 7 women
  •          Board of Social Work – 0 men, 5 women
  •          Constructing Codes Coordinating Board – 11 men, 0 women

There are, of course, male nurses and female construction workers, but according to these numbers, their perspectives are marginalized.  D.C. prides itself on being forward thinking, but the reflection of sexism in these leadership positions contrasts starkly with our vision of a city that stands for equality.  And this discussion does not begin to consider other measures of diversity. 

Public Access and Information Sharing

What was equally disturbing and frustrating was the amount of information that we simply could not find online.  We were looking for details about the membership of these entities.  We hoped to find a list of names.  Maybe some biographical information.   Figure out when the next Board meeting would be and when the last one was held.  Who attended?  Did anyone take notes?  Did anything happen? 

The District’s Office of Boards and Commissions (DOBC) has a list of the Boards and Commissions, but it does not provide enough information about what they do and who sits on them.   Sometimes, the Board or Commission is housed under a local agency and that agency is responsible for listing the information.  However, it did not matter if we were looking for information at DOBC or the agency’s website because the information often was not there. 

While most of the Boards and Commissions could be found online, at least 30 percent are unavailable. Those that are online provide inconsistent levels of information, some of it woefully outdated.   Some examples of entities that have little or no information online include the following:

As Councilmember Grosso noted in comments before the BCRA Committee, this represents a failure of government transparency and accountability.   Additionally, the lack of information can be construed as a violation of D.C.’s Open Meetings Act (OMA).  OMA mandates that these government affiliated bodies publicly advertise their meeting times and locations, as well as provide meeting minutes.   

So…now what?

These public bodies in D.C. have an important role to play—they are making decisions about the granting of licenses to local business, setting policies and procedures, or giving a voice to our city’s diverse community.  This is why it is vital that their information is open to the public.  Unfortunately, some of the city’s current set of Boards and Commissions do not serve any good purpose or have remained dormant for years.  Mayor Gray called in December 2012 to reform the problem by abolishing 30 of the least functioning of them.   A bill is currently before the Council, but has not yet been brought up for a vote.  Passing such legislation would be a step in the right direction, but it will not solve problems of transparency or gender imbalance.

Reviewing other jurisdictions around the country shows that publicizing information about these public bodies is not hard to do.   Baltimore, San Francisco, Nashville, and Denver—cities of similar size to D.C. but diverse in location and reputation—all have easy to find, centralized lists of Boards and Commissions accompanied by basic information such as membership and meeting times.  What’s more, they include information about how to apply to join these public bodies—encouraging residents to engage with local government is critical to a vibrant and functioning city.  Greater community engagement improves government accountability, and vice versa.  So, what should D.C. do?

In December, Councilmember Grosso called on the Mayor’s Office to make the membership and other key information about Boards and Commissions available and published online by the end of January.  This would require that the DOBC collect this information with the help from individual agencies and then have the Office of the Chief Technology Officer aggregate the information in one centralized location on the DOBC website.  If the Executive branch cannot accomplish this task, Councilmember Grosso is prepared to introduce legislation to make the government operate in a more open and accessible manner.  It would be similar to San Francisco’s law that requires the government to make this information easily accessible online.   These bodies make vital decisions and recommendations, and residents of D.C. should know how to voice their support or air their grievances.   The Boards that grant professional licenses or have a direct say in how government works should be balanced, open, and available to the public. 

Making this information public and easily accessible will also, we hope, encourage more District residents to apply for openings on Boards or Commissions that fit their skill sets, areas of expertise, or interests.  Asking residents to participate in government is how we make the city function through heightened participation.   We want all residents to know what any given Board or Commission does, when it meets, and, most critically, what impact it has on the District.    


*This post is part of an ongoing series of posts by Councilmember Grosso’s staff to support professional development. All posts are approved and endorsed by Councilmember Grosso.