Comment

Grosso Introduces Bill to Establish a Small Business Tax Deferral Program

For Immediate Release
April 14, 2015

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun
(202) 724-8105

Grosso Introduces Bill to Establish a Small Business Tax Deferral Program

Washington, D.C. – Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) introduced the Small Business Tax Deferral Act of 2015. This legislation would establish a small business tax deferral program for those business owners with annual gross receipts that do not exceed $5 million when averaged over a three-year period.

“Small businesses provide a significant number of employment opportunities, foster growth and innovation and are often staples in the communities they serve,” said Grosso. “In D.C. we need to create a climate where small businesses not only survive but thrive and helping to alleviate the operational drain that payment of rising property taxes often causes, will certainly aid in this effort.”

According to a recent report published by the D.C. Office of Revenue Analysis, “mom and pop” shops—those with only a handful of employees—have sharply declined over the past 15 years.  These businesses include florists, bookstores, hair salons, butchers and others.  This legislation will help these types of businesses keep their doors open for years to come.

###

Comment

Comment

Grosso Introduces LGBTQ Cultural Competency Legislation for Clinical Medical Providers

For Immediate Release
April 14, 2015

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun
(202) 724-8105

Grosso Introduces LGBTQ Cultural Competency Legislation for Clinical Medical Providers

Washington, D.C.—Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) introduced legislation seeking to narrow LGBT health disparities in the District of Columbia with the introduction of the “LGBTQ Cultural Competency Continuing Education Amendment Act of 2015.” The legislation requires two credits of instruction on cultural competency or specialized clinical training focusing on patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender nonconforming, queer, or questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.

 “Over 66,000 LGBTQ citizens reside in D.C., and they deserve access to medical professionals who are sensitive to and knowledgeable about the unique health needs of the LGBTQ community,” said Grosso.

According to the Joint Commission field guide, “Advancing Effective Communication, Cultural Competence, and Patient- and Family-Centered Care for the LGBT Community,” LGBTQ patients face barriers to equitable care, such as refusals of care, delayed or substandard care, mistreatment, inequitable policies and practices, little or no inclusion in health outreach or education, and inappropriate restrictions or limits on visitations. These factors contribute to higher instances of chronic conditions among LGBTQ individuals; higher infection rates of STDs and HIV; higher prevalence of suicide attempts, mental health illness such as anxiety, depression, and addiction; and higher instances of some cancers.

“LGBTQ health disparities are real and this is a contribution to our efforts to narrow those disparities in the District of Columbia. I am proud that my colleague from Ward 7, Health and Human Services Committee Chairwoman Yvette Alexander joined me in co-introducing this bill. Together, we will continue to ensure the LGBTQ community enjoys a greater quality of life in the District of Columbia,” said Grosso.

###

Comment

Comment

Grosso Will Vote “No” on D.C. Jail Healthcare Services Contract

For Immediate Release
April 10, 2015

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun
(202) 724-8105

 

Grosso Will Vote “No” on D.C. Jail Healthcare Services Contract

Washington, D.C. –- Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) released the following statement today on his plan to break with his history of abstaining from votes on contracts before the D.C. Council:

"On Tuesday, the Council is scheduled to vote on a contract to provide healthcare services to inmates across D.C. Department of Corrections facilities.  I will vote "no."  This decision was not made lightly; sometimes one strong, principled stance outweighs another principled stance. And, after careful consideration and a review of Corizon Health, Inc.'s well-documented history of failing to provide adequate medical care to inmates across the country, I must take a strong stand.

"In my time on the Council I have championed good government and ethics reform. I believe the Council's role in voting on contracts over $1 million can be used as a vehicle for corruption and I have consistently voted "present" on those contracts. Despite this practice, it has always been my contention that Council oversight of the contracting and procurement process is critical. Even if the Council was not required to vote on contracts, I would still work diligently to prevent this company from operating in the D.C. Jail given their objectionable track record.

"Awarding this contract would be an absolute failure of government to protect the health and well-being of District of Columbia residents who are in jail. Corizon's history of failing to provide necessary medical care, allowing extreme delays in medical services to persist and operating substandard facilities cannot and should not be ignored. The circumstances surrounding this contract are too egregious to overlook.

“Just as I have worked to encourage greater government transparency, accountability and heightened ethics standards, I have also grounded all of my work on the Council in the principles of human rights.  Our inmates, just like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity.  Those in D.C. corrections facilities have a human right to the highest standard of healthcare and safeguarding those rights is imperative.  Therefore, I am obligated to take this deliberate, important and principled stance against this contract.”

###

Comment

Comment

Video: Announcement of New Policy Ending Routine Shackling of Youth in Court

On April 3, 2015, Councilmember Grosso joined Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie and Attorney General Karl Racine to announce a new D.C. Superior Court policy what would end the indiscriminate shackling of youth being tried in Family Court. Grosso has worked on this issue since he learned about it in the course of passing his "Limitations on the Use of Restraints Amendment Act of 2014" which ended the shackling of pregnant inmates and detainees in D.C. adult correctional and juvenile detention facilities.

You can watch the announcement thanks to OCT/DCC:

Comment

Comment

Victory: D.C. Family Court to Stop Routine Shackling of Youth

Today, Councilmember Grosso joined Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Kenyan McDuffie and Attorney General Karl Racine to announce today a policy change at the D.C. Superior Court pertaining to youth shackling. The routine and indiscriminate shackling of youth appearing in the Family Court division is coming to an end with the issuance by Chief Judge Lee Satterfield of an administrative order. The Chief Judge's order instructs judges and court personnel to remove the shackles from juveniles after they arrive in a court room for a hearing, unless there is a clear need for the youth to remain in restraints due to danger of harm to the youth or others, or danger of flight. This order is the result of close collaboration between the Chief Judge, Councilmembers, Attorney General, Public Defender Service, and the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services.

Grosso became involved in this issue after successfully passing his "Limitations on the Use of Restraints Amendment Act of 2014", which prohibited the use of shackles on pregnant women and girls in D.C. jail or detention centers. He visited the courts, met with the U.S. Marshals and the Chief Judge, and saw the practice of shackling youth with his own eyes. Grosso and his staff will keep a close eye on implementation of the new administrative order to ensure that youth are not being needlessly shackled. Councilmember Grosso is prepared to introduce legislation if necessary to safeguard the human rights and due process of youth in the courts if the new policy does not live up to its expectations.  You can view the order below.

Comment

Comment

Grosso letter to CFO on property tax assessments and agency response

Councilmember Grosso often sends letters to agencies with additional questions after their performance oversight hearings. On March 4, 2015, Grosso sent a letter with questions about residential and commercial property tax assessments to the Chief Financial Officer, and received a response on March 26, 2015. We thank the CFO for the quick response, and both letters are below--first the Councilmember's followed by the CFO's response.

Comment

Comment

D.C. suggestions for Indiana non-discrimination law reform

As Indiana considers ways to fix its religious discrimination bill, the Human Rights Act of the District of Columbia provides excellent language that Indiana could use to ensure that LGBTQ individuals are not the targets of religious discrimination. It is important to note that Part E, relating to educational institutions, had a religious exemption passed by Congress. The Council recently removed that religious exemption, which is currently under Congressional review.

§2-1402.01 Subchapter II, Prohibited Acts of Discrimination. Part A. General:

(a)   Every individual shall have an equal opportunity  to participate fully in the economic, cultural and intellectual life of the District and to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life, including, but not limited to, in employment, in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, in educational institutions, in public service and in housing and commercial space accommodations.

§2-1402.11 Part B. Employment:

(a)   It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearances, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, or political affiliation by any individual:…

§2-1402.21 Part C. Housing and Commercial Space:

(a)   It shall be unlawful discriminator practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, disability matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, or place of residence or business of any individual:…

§2-1402.31 Part D. Public Accommodations:

(a)   It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business of any individual:…

§2-1402.41 Part E. Education Institutions:

It is an unlawful discriminatory practice…for an educational institution:

(1)    To deny, restrict, or to abridge or condition the use of, or access to, any of its facilities, services, programs, or benefits of any program or activity to any person otherwise qualified, wholly or partially, for a discriminatory reason, based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, or disability of any individual;…

Comment

1 Comment

Grosso Calls for Ban on D.C. Travel to Indiana

For Immediate Release
March 30, 2015

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun
(202) 724-8105

 

Grosso Calls for Ban on D.C. Travel to Indiana

Washington, D.C. – Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) is calling for a ban on the use of public funds for travel to the State of Indiana after Governor Pence legalized and defended anti-LGBTQ discrimination. Governor Pence signed legislation on Thursday, March 26, 2015, which legalizes discrimination based on religious beliefs.

“Discrimination has no place in the District of Columbia, and our public employees should not be forced to travel to a place that prides itself on fueling anti-LGBTQ animosity. The blatant bigotry on display by Governor Pence and the legislature leads me to believe that Indiana is not a safe place for our public employees to travel. Our government should not support any jurisdiction that displays such bigotry, and the Mayor should ban all publicly financed travel to Indiana and stand firmly with our LGBTQ public servants and residents,” said Grosso.

“The District of Columbia has a strong record of support for our LGBTQ residents and employees by protecting all individuals from discrimination. My ‘Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act’ that is currently being challenged by Republicans in Congress, would ban this kind of religious discrimination by private employers for employees seeking abortion services. Religious discrimination rephrased as ‘religious freedom’ is still discrimination, whether it is discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity—it has no place in the District of Columbia.”

Grosso has a strong record of support for the LGBTQ community including support for repeal of the discriminatory Armstrong Amendment, which allowed for religious discrimination in higher education; banning so-called conversion therapy for LGBT youth; and support for LGBT homeless youth support services, among many others.

###

1 Comment

Comment

D.C. Jail health services contract should not be awarded to for-profit company

For the past two years, I have introduced and supported legislation to advance and promote the human rights of every District of Columbia resident.  I understand that improvements to our various sectors cannot be achieved in a vacuum.  Real change demands government accountability, transparency and openness. 

To this end, I have been a fierce advocate for ethics reform, particularly as it relates to the Council’s role in voting on contracts over $1 million.  I believe that this authority can be viewed as a vehicle for corruption, enabling lawmakers to exert undue influence over the contract procurement process, and I have voted “present” on all contracts to promote and encourage a commitment to good government.  I have also engaged in oversight monitoring the performance of government contractors and the integrity of procurement processes through other avenues. However, there are times when circumstances arise that are too egregious to ignore, warranting immediate action.

After significant research, including a visit to the D.C. jail, meetings with advocates and a meeting with the CEO of Corizon, I determined that awarding the D.C. Jail contract for healthcare services to Corizon, would violate the human rights of D.C. residents who are incarcerated.  The World Health Organization’s Constitution enshrines the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.  This right includes access to timely and quality healthcare.  Unfortunately, Corizon has repeatedly failed to meet this standard. 

The company, a Tennessee-based for profit, has a well-documented history of failing to provide necessary medical care, allowing extreme delays in medical services to persist, and operating substandard facilities.  Over the past five years there have been over 1,000 lawsuits filed against Corizon for neglect and abuse.  Additionally, Maine, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Minnesota have all ended their contracts with Corizon for poorly delivered healthcare services.  Just recently, the New York City Council publicly challenged Corizon and questioned whether it was time to end the healthcare services contract, which Corizon holds at Rikers Island.

The examples of Corizon’s deplorable services are innumerable and while it may be argued that prison healthcare is in general need of reform, the District of Columbia cannot disregard the ample evidence of gross systemic deficiencies.  Awarding this contract would be an absolute failure of government to protect the health and well-being of District of Columbia inmates.  Even if the Council did not vote on contracts, I would work diligently to stop this one from going forward. The gravity of the circumstances have required me to take a strong stand.

Comment

Comment

Grosso: Senators’ Hypocrisy Shocking but Not Surprising

For Immediate Release
March 19, 2015

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun
(202) 724-8105

Grosso: Senators’ Hypocrisy Shocking but Not Surprising

Washington, DC -- Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) issued the following statement in response to the introduction in the Senate of disapproval resolutions targeting two D.C. human rights laws, the Reproductive Health Non-discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 and the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014:

“It is truly disturbing that Senators Ted Cruz and James Lankford are so interested in defending the right to discriminate. My bill to prevent discrimination against people in the workplace by employers regarding their employees’ reproductive health choices protects residents, especially women. The Human Rights Amendment Act, which I strongly supported, fixes an exception to our city’s robust non-discrimination laws to ensure that all educational institutions treat students fairly, and is in line with a 1987 court decision. It is my strong belief that the First Amendment of the Constitution safeguards both the exercise of an individual’s right to practice religion as well as an individual’s right to be protected from religions.

Equally galling is that just last month Mr. Cruz introduced a bill to allegedly defend states’ rights to set their own laws regarding marriage. On his website, Mr. Cruz describes himself as “a passionate fighter for limited government.” Yet here we find him actively undermining the unanimous votes of D.C.’s elected officials.

I am sick and tired of the grandstanding and political pandering of members of Congress who see meddling in D.C. affairs as an easy way to win partisan points. These Senators wouldn’t dare propose a bill to overturn laws in Texas or Oklahoma. Tactics like these highlight the need for legislative and budget autonomy for the District of Columbia.

In D.C. we stand for the human rights of workers, students, women, LGBT folks, and all people. There is no human right to discriminate. Senators Cruz and Lankford should sort out their ideological confusion and respect the District of Columbia’s self-governance.”

###

 

Comment

Comment

Grosso’s Bill Eliminates Civil Statute of Limitations in Child Sex Abuse Cases

For Immediate Release
March 17, 2015

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun
(202) 724-8105

Grosso’s Bill Eliminates Civil Statute of Limitations in Child Sex Abuse Cases

Washington, D.C. – Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) introduced the Childhood Protection Against Sexual Abuse Amendment Act of 2015. This legislation would eliminate the statute of limitations for the recovery of damages arising out of sexual abuse that occurred when a victim was a minor.  Additionally, the bill creates a two-year window for individuals whose claims were previously time-barred.

“There are few actions more depraved than sexual violence or abuse against children,” said Grosso. “Because most victims of childhood sexual abuse do not come forward until much later in their adult lives, we need to ensure that the statute of limitations is not a barrier to justice.  A person who victimizes a child should never be able to hide behind time.”

Currently there are seven states that no longer have a civil statute of limitations for claims of childhood sexual abuse.  Last week, the Utah state legislature passed similar legislation, removing the statute of limitations for civil actions against perpetrators of child sex abuse.

###

Comment

Comment

Sex work, human rights and law enforcement

By Darby Hickey, Legislative Assistant*

After decades of the ‘war on drugs’ and an obsession with ‘broken windows’ or ‘quality of life’ policing, our country seems to finally be reaching consensus against our over-reliance on incarceration. The devastating effects of mass imprisonment and biased policing are evident around the U.S. and certainly in the District of Columbia. Recent efforts to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, reform the practice of asset forfeiture, and overhaul our approach to juvenile justice have all resulted from this shift in perspective. Our city has begun to look at criminal justice through a lens of human rights, and the country is doing so as well. We are reworking our policies to recognize and address the underlying factors of why people engage in certain activities. We are grappling with the reality that some criminal penalties are worse for our communities than the behaviors that the penalties target. In light of all of this, it is worth reconsidering our policies and practices regarding sex workers and others involved in commercial sex.

On February 15, the Washington Post reported on a new round of arrests of people involved in commercial sex, resulting from online stings conducted by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The MPD official quoted in the article stated, “We could probably do this every weekend and get the same numbers.” This echoed statements made by Assistant Chief Newsham in 2012 that MPD “can’t arrest our way out of” prostitution. In a recent exchange of letters between Councilmember Grosso and MPD Chief Cathy Lanier, the Chief wrote that while “there are very complex individual and socio-economic factors related to sex work, [MPD’s] options related to this are limited [i.e. arrests].”

Missing from the Washington Post article, like most discussions about sex work, is any consideration of the economics of commercial sex. It was also disappointing that the Post failed to interview any sex workers or advocates for this community, who likely would have noted that it is an income-generating activity. People engage in sex trade not out of some deviant mind-set, but as a means of survival--a way to pay rent, put food on the table, buy clothes for kids, and meet other needs. Arresting a sex worker doesn’t address any of these problems and, in fact, it usually exacerbates them.

Many people in D.C. and around the world have argued that a better approach to the complexities of commercial sex would be to focus directly on the individuals involved, and treat them as fully deserving of basic human rights. A human rights response to commercial sex would reframe the discussion—issues of violence against sex workers, police misconduct, public health, and stigma become the focus and sex workers and their activities stop being ‘the problem’.

A key part of a human rights approach is listening to the individuals involved in commercial sex. As Councilmember Grosso emphasized during the public hearing last year on the Sex Trafficking of Minors Prevention Amendment Act, “We must listen and respond to these diverse experiences with compassion and respect, not with arrest or judgment. Youth trading sex for money are already asking for access to low threshold, voluntary services for housing, healthcare, education, legal assistance and more.” The same goes for adult sex workers.

Yet some police officials state that arresting individuals trading sex for money is the best way to link them to such services. For example, in the MPD response to oversight questions from the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chief writes, "arrest is often the tool by which MPD can take the juveniles into custody... so that the juvenile can be connected with a service organization."

This misses the reality that an arrest itself can be traumatizing. In fact, police crack downs, whether on the streets or online, usually make it harder for outreach groups to contact people engaged in commercial sex who may need help. And it ignores the deep-seated mistrust of police and other authorities that exists in these communities. For example, research in Chicago revealed that young people involved in sex trade named police and healthcare officials as the main sources of violence and abuse in their lives.

We should not be arresting a sex worker or a minor engaging in sex trade in order to force them into services or to cooperate in a criminal investigation—a phenomenon noted in a City Paper article just last month. This goes against all we have learned about victim-centered approaches to violence and abuse. That is why Councilmember Grosso argued that the “Sex Trafficking of Minors Prevention Amendment Act” should prohibit police from arresting young people involved in sex trade.

A human rights-based practice would ensure that MPD is adopting proactive community policing. Police should be seeking to build relationships and trust, responding positively and with sensitivity to service calls, not seeking to get an arrest or conviction at all costs but addressing the needs of the survivor.

One place to start would be for MPD to not treat sex workers (or those assumed to be such) as “criminals” when they are victims of violence and are seeking redress. This problem was found to be pervasive in D.C. in a 2008 community-based research project. Respondents reported being told they “got what they deserved” for being sex workers when they were raped, stabbed, or otherwise attacked. This finding is supported by research in other jurisdictions across the country from New York to Los Angeles to New Orleans. A recent report by WAMU highlighted that this remains an issue today.  

Another aspect of a human rights approach to people involved in sex trade has already been partially implemented in D.C.—the policy of MPD that condoms are not to be used as evidence of engaging in prostitution. The community-based research referenced earlier and a subsequent study by Human Rights Watch found that while officially MPD and prosecutors rarely included condoms as evidence, they were used as pretext for arrests or confiscated or destroyed. There was also a widespread perception among residents that possessing more than three condoms would result in a prostitution charge. In 2009, MPD clarified that this was not the case, issued a policy statement to officers, and distributed informational materials throughout the community.

Unfortunately, this important step by MPD had two exceptions—in cases involving human trafficking or minors. Yet individuals in situations of coercion, including young people under the age of 18, are especially in need of access to condoms. Ensuring access to condoms helps reduce the harms they are facing, and the philosophy of harm reduction is based in a human rights framework.

As Councilmember Grosso has consistently stated, MPD needs to think outside the box on this and other issues and change policies and practices accordingly. A great start would be for MPD to shift from a stance that “people experiencing police misconduct should come forward” to one where leadership proactively seeks to identify patterns of mistreatment and abuse. Another step would be engaging with the community, rather than dismissing concerns about how police are interacting with residents. It is also the responsibility of the Council, the Mayor, and residents of the city to do a better job of understanding the human rights issues involved in commercial sex. We have come to recognize and reduce the harms of criminalization in many policy areas from drugs to schools to immigration. The time is now to reconsider the framework in which we handle commercial sex.

*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.

Comment