Councilmember Grosso and Councilmember Cheh introduced this bill on January 19, 2016.
By: Matthew Nolan, Intern*
Each year, many of us review our calendars eagerly anticipating federal holidays. When we were in school we looked to see if we had any days off during a particular month. Though Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is one of those days that we get off; we are often blinded by our excitement for a welcome respite that we do not reflect on the meaning and the legacy behind the day.
This year, January 18th honors, and celebrates Dr. King’s tireless efforts to advance racial and social equality. This day should reflect the ideals of service, courage, truth, and justice; the very ideals that have become synonymous with Dr. King. Here at Team Grosso, we strive to uphold all of these values, but that is simply not enough. The purpose of this day is to get everyone to pledge to these values through continued acts of service.
Although much around the world has changed, we still need to take many steps forward if we are to realize Dr. King’s dream. To honor his legacy, Team Grosso will participate in the Tenth Annual MLK Peace Walk on Monday, January 18th at 11:00a.
Team Grosso is challenging you to do something, not just on MLK Day but beyond, to uphold the ideals and values of Martin Luther King, Jr. Below, we have listed a few events taking place around the city, that we hope you will consider. Wishing you a safe and happy weekend!
Tenth Annual MLK Peace Walk and Parade 2016
Monday, January 18, 2016
9:30am-1:00pm
2500 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave., SE
Beautification Day at the MLK Memorial
Saturday, January 16, 2016
10:00a-1:00p
MLK Memorial
1964 Independence Ave., SW, 20227
MLK Day of Service to Clean up Pope Branch
Monday, January 18, 2016
9:00a-12:00p
Fairlawn Ave., SE & M Place, 20020
MLK Day of Service with City Year
Monday, January 18, 2016
8:00a-1:00p
Ballou High School
Hart Middle School
Simon Elementary School
*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.
Thank you, Chairman Mendelson. I would like to thank you for scheduling and holding this series of hearings. Your approach to constructing a witness list and timing the hearings on this bill allow everyone to hear diverse perspectives on the “Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015” and get us to the most informed place as we move forward.
At this point, we are all aware that, as introduced, Bill 21-415, “The Universal Paid Leave Act” will establish a fund to enable workers in the District of Columbia or individuals paying into the fund to receive some amount of paid leave for a qualifying event such as birth or adoption of a child, caring for a sick family member, or for self-care. The fund will be supported by payments from employers, the self-employed, and certain individual employees.
As Chairperson of the Committee on Education, I believe that investing in our families will benefit the lives of all of our residents and our city’s children. This bill will help workers take the time they need to support their families or themselves without having to make the hard choice between a paycheck and their immediate health needs. Numerous studies and data have shown that forms of paid leave are good for people of all ages and help to retain a strong and productive workforce.
The economic data we need in order to come to a final conclusion on this legislation is extremely complicated and how we apply those numbers is contentious. We are here today to get as much information as we can to inform the process and ensure that we are aware of exactly what the fiscal and economic impact of this bill will be.
I believe that the long-term effects will be good for our businesses and the economy of the District of Columbia. It will increase a person’s likelihood to return to work after a qualifying event, therefore decreasing the costs associated with employee turnover. It will make the District of Columbia a city where people want to work and have children, and it will give all of our businesses a competitive edge by offering progressive benefits packages at a lower cost than they can now.
During the drafting process and since the first hearing, my office and many others have been using tax data, employee numbers, the data from California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, and the preliminary findings of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research which has been studying our current paid leave policies in the D.C. Government. The introduction of this legislation has enabled many of our fiscal partners, who are here today, to create more sophisticated models and deeper sets of numbers, so that we as legislators can determine what is feasible.
As written, the bill has over ten variables that if adjusted would lower the cost of the bill or the burdens on employers or residents. In our conversations about the proposed legislation, I have heard many of the concerns and believe there are shifts that can be made and we are analyzing all of them closely.
As the bill moves through the process at the Council, I am committed to continuing to work closely with our Chief Financial Officer, the Council budget office, Chairman Mendelson, businesses, advocates, and experts to complete the details of what options we have for providing the best amount of paid family and medical leave for the maximum number of D.C. workers.
We have a lot of work to do to get to a final piece of legislation that everyone can be proud of and take responsibility for and that will help all of our workforce and qualifying residents to take the paid time off that they need without creating a new and extreme burden on our businesses.
With that, I want to thank everyone who is here today or is submitting testimony for the record. I appreciate the time that you have all taken, regardless of your position on the bill, to study it and provide us with your feedback.
I look forward to the testimony and engaging in a robust dialogue with the witnesses. Thank you.
In December, following a Council hearing on street harassment, Councilmember Grosso sent a letter to the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities asking them to consider funding grants to artists to address the problem with public art. In January, the Commission's executive director responded. You can read both letters below.
Councilmember Grosso recorded a quick video update on his decision to oppose the “Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Clarification Emergency Amendment Act of 2016”--you can read more about his position after the jump.
This legislation amends the Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014 to clarify that the prohibition of consumption of marijuana in a public space also includes private clubs. It also requires the Mayor to revoke any license, certificate of occupancy, or permit held by an entity that knowingly permits a violation of law concerning the consumption of marijuana in a public space.
I have been a strong proponent of marijuana decriminalization, legalization and regulation in D.C. since I became a member of the Council in 2013. I co-introduced the decriminalization law and actively supported the passage of Initiative 71. But I also introduced measures in 2013 and 2015 to tax and regulate the sale of retail marijuana in D.C. as I strongly believe that it is important for us to setup an equitable system governed by clear rules and regulations if we are truly to limit arrests and dissolve the underground market. As you may know, D.C. is currently under a congressional rider which prohibits the Council and Mayor on moving forward on any measures to tax and/or regulate the legal sale of retail marijuana. I strongly oppose Congressional leadership interfering with D.C.’s ability to govern itself and believe that at times it’s appropriate for us to defy Congress and do what’s right for D.C. residents.
I opposed this legislation because I believe it was a step toward doing just that. My interest in marijuana decriminalization and legalization laws has always been about social justice and ending the arrests and racial disparity in terms of enforcement. In the absences of available venues outside of a private residence for individuals to consume marijuana products legally, the disparity will continue. Further, this matter is currently being debated in the Committee on Judiciary via permanent legislation and I believe the Council should have the opportunity to fully debate before extending this emergency. I believed that my colleagues and I could work together with the Executive to craft an approach to this issue that is measured. Unfortunately, the bill passed today by a vote of 9-4.
I will continue to work on this issue as the full Council prepares to consider this measure at the February 2, 2016 Legislative Meeting. Thank you again for reaching out with your concerns.
Councilmember David Grosso announces the scheduling of a public hearing of the Committee on Education on B21-0350, “Substitute Teacher Leave Clarification Amendment Act of 2015.” The hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 29, 2016 in Room 123 of the John A. Wilson Building.
Councilmember David Grosso, chairperson of the Committee on Education, and Chairman Phil Mendelson, chairperson of the Committee of the Whole announces the scheduling of a joint public hearing on B21-0508, “School Attendance Clarification Amendment Act of 2015.” The hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 21, 2016 in Hearing Room 500 of the John A. Wilson Building.
Responses from DCPS/DGS to a letter Grosso sent regarding the management and completion of certain small capital projects at School Without Walls at Francis Stevens, along with original letter.
Councilmember David Grosso's letter to Mayor Bowser on his priorities for the Fiscal Year 2017 District of Columbia budget.
As the year draws to a close, Councilmember Grosso provides a brief video update, reflecting on his work in 2015. It was his first year as Chairperson of the Committee on Education, and his third year in office.
For Immediate Release
December 18, 2015
Contact: Keenan Austin
(202) 724-8105
Grosso Condemns Congressional Meddling in Omnibus Budget Bill
Washington, DC -- Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) issued the following statement on the omnibus spending bill to prevent a federal government shutdown:
“It is disappointing that once again the District of Columbia loses at the hands of political gamesmanship in Congress. Congressional leadership has wrongly interfered with D.C.’s ability to govern itself by attacking the rights of women and families to make their own decisions about pregnancy and blocking the local elected officials from deciding our own drug laws including the legalization of marijuana,” said Grosso.
“It is past time for Congress to stop treating D.C. as a petri dish for members' ideas, and allow the residents to have self determination.”
For Immediate Release:
December 15, 2015
Contact: Darby Hickey
(202) 724-8105
Grosso Introduces Resolution Calling on Congress to Adopt Comprehensive Gun Control Legislation
Washington, D.C.--Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) introduced a Sense of the Council resolution calling on Congress to act swiftly and decisively to protect all Americans from further gun violence by enacting sensible and comprehensive gun control measures. The resolution has full Council support with all members joining as co-introducers. In addition, the resolution demands that Congress refrain from adopting legislation that would restrict the District of Columbia government's ability to legislate the regulation of firearms.
"Yesterday marked the third anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre where a gunman tragically murdered 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut. Since then, Congress has failed time and time again to pass gun reform laws," Grosso said. "I introduced this resolution because Congress has a responsibility to protect all Americans. They can demonstrate their commitment to protecting the safety and well-being of all Americans by reforming the woefully inadequate gun laws that currently exist."
Everytown for Gun Safety reports that there have been 161 incidences of school shootings across the nation since 2013. In the past 349 days of this year, there have been 355 mass shootings in the United States.
"This is a call to action," said Grosso. "It is time for Congress to adopt practical and comprehensive gun control measures."
###
It’s a wet, chilly December morning in the nation’s capital, but the mood is upbeat in the Wilson Building, the seat of city government in Washington. D.C. Here council member David Grosso is about to unveil his latest campaign finance reform bill.
“I’m excited to be here this morning for this press conference,” he told a crowd of supporters. Grosso called the press conference to introduce what he calls fair elections legislation: a bill that would establish public financing for local candidates to counteract big money in city elections.
“For me this is about lifting up the voice of the everyday voter and making sure that individuals in the District of Columbia feel that they have the same power as the big corporations have,” he said.
[David Grosso announces campaign finance reform legislation.]
David Grosso announces campaign finance reform legislation.
Office of Council Member David Grosso
Earlier, Grosso told me he modeled his legislation after a public financing law in Connecticut, and he noticed that Seattle voters passed a measure establishing publicly funded vouchers that voters can hand out to candidates. Maine voters updated their public financing system too. Grosso said there is a common theme across it all.
“The Supreme Court has ruled; I think the Congress members aren’t doing much of anything at all, so they’re really kind of stuck," he said. "So, all these local jurisdictions are starting to say, 'Hey, we can try to tackle this on our own.'”
Nick Penniman wants to help those local jurisdictions. He heads a campaign finance reform group called Issue One. He wants to help local lawmakers like Grosso introduce legislation on things like public financing of elections, ethics, and lobbying reform. His plan? Develop boilerplate reform legislation for local politicians.
“We want to be able to give them great models that they can pull off the shelf, slap their name on, file and begin fighting for reform at the state and local level,” he said.
There’s just one problem. A few problems, actually, according to Richard Briffault. He’s an expert on campaign finance law at Columbia University. Voters can have mixed feelings about public financing of elections.
“I mean public funding has often been criticized as welfare for politicians," he said. "You get politicians saying the public’s money should go to schools or police, and not to campaigns. And that’s a popular stance.”
And then you have to get candidates to accept public money and the restrictions on private fundraising that usually come with it.
“Public funding is not going to work, in the sense of becoming taken on by significant candidates, unless there’s a significant amount of money,” Briffault said.
Still, Briffault notes, it’s not a bad idea to pick your battles, and focus on cities and states where there’s an appetite for campaign finance reform. For Nick Penniman of Issue One, his ultimate goal is national reform.
“What we’re trying to do is build momentum at the state level so that we can eventually surround Washington with victories and with energy that Washington won’t be able to bat away anymore,” he said.
Penniman said this is like the Gilded Age, the time around the turn of the 20th century when a hyperconcentration of wealth and political corruption led to major campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
Earlier this fall, after discussions with advocates and community members, Councilmember Grosso sent letters to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Human Services out of concern that some policies are unnecessarily creating barriers for residents when they need to access identity documents. In particular, Grosso was concerned about the ability to get identity cards or driver's licenses for D.C. foster youth in placements outside of D.C., homeless residents, returning citizens, and low income residents who may have trouble producing certain documents or paying certain fees.
In response to Grosso's letters, both DMV and DHS took immediate steps to improve or clarify their policies, and began discussions to update others. You can read the letters below--first Grosso's letter to DMV and the response from Director Babers, second Grosso's letter to DHS and the response from Director Zeilinger. The Councilmember thanks these agencies for their willingness to engage on these issues and make changes to their policies.
For Immediate Release:
December 9, 2015
Contact: Darby Hickey
(202) 724-8105
Committee Approves Grosso’s Bill to Improve Health of LGBTQ Residents
Washington, D.C.--Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) joined his colleagues on the D.C. Council Committee on Health and Human Services in a unanimous vote to approve the LGBTQ Cultural Competency Continuing Education Amendment Act of 2015. Introduced by Grosso and Councilmember Yvette Alexander in April, the legislation requires medical professionals, renewing their licenses in D.C., to take two credits of cultural competency training focused on patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender nonconforming, queer, or questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“During the hearing on this bill, we heard truly heart breaking stories from LGBTQ residents about mistreatment they experienced at the hands of medical providers,” said Grosso. “In particular, our transgender friends and neighbors face disrespect and misunderstanding in medical settings, and this bill will continue our work to correct this serious problem.”
As many as one in five transgender people in D.C. have been denied medical care due to their gender, according to research released by the D.C. Trans Coalition last month in the "Access Denied" report. Locally and nationally, higher instances of chronic conditions among LGBTQ individuals have been documented, including higher rates of STDs and HIV, suicide attempts, mental illness, and some cancers.
“Quality medical care is often a life or death issue, and it is always a human right,” said Grosso. “I am grateful to Committee on Health and Human Services Chairperson Alexander for moving this legislation forward, for the health and well-being of our residents.”
###
Thank you, Chairman Mendelson. I would like to thank you for scheduling and holding this hearing today and for your thoughtful approach to constructing a witness list that will allow us to hear diverse perspectives on the “Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015.”
At this point, we are all aware that as introduced, Bill 21-415, “The Universal Paid Leave Act” will establish a fund that will enable workers in the District of Columbia to receive up to 16 weeks of paid leave for a major life event such as birth or adoption of a child, caring for a sick family member, or for self-care. The fund will be supported by payments from employers, the self-employed, and certain individual employees.
Since I became a Councilmember, I have been exploring ways to support our working families. In 2014, I introduced legislation that was later incorporated in the Budget Support Act that allowed for D.C. government employees to be eligible for 8 weeks paid leave. At that time, I made the promise to continue the work started on paid leave and to study how we could expand this policy to all workers in the District of Columbia.
As Chairperson of the Committee on Education, I believe that investing in our families will benefit the lives of all of our residents and our city’s children. This bill will help workers take the time they need to support their families or themselves without having to make the hard choice between a pay check and their loved one’s immediate needs. Study after study has shown that forms of paid leave are good for children, parents, and the elderly.
The long-term effects of this bill are good for our businesses. It will increase a person’s likelihood to return to work after a qualifying event, therefore decreasing the costs associated with employee turnover. It will make the District of Columbia a city where people want to work and live, and it will give all of our businesses a competitive edge for offering progressive benefits packages at a lower cost than they can now.
Prior to introduction and since, I have met or spoken directly with the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Hospital Association, the Restaurant Association, the Hotel Association, Georgetown University, Trinity College, small business owners, union leaders, and individuals to review all of the variables of the legislation. In these meetings, the conversations have been thoughtful, and open from all parties to find ways that we can explore to make this legislation possible for as many employees as we can and with low cost burdens to our employers.
During the drafting process, my staff and I worked to model the implications of such a robust program to provide for our families and residents. We looked at tax numbers, employee numbers, and the preliminary findings of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research which has been studying our current paid leave policies in the D.C. Government. I understand the desire of constituents and business leaders to have more sophisticated models and deeper sets of numbers, but the fact is that pulling, analyzing, and compiling this data is technical and complicated and it is not until legislation is introduced that we can set the wheels in motion for sound research.
As written, the bill has over ten variables that if adjusted would lower the cost of the bill or the burdens on employers or residents. In our conversations about the proposed legislation, I have heard many of the concerns and believe there are shifts that can be made and we are analyzing all of them closely.
As the bill moves through the hearing process at the Council, I am working closely with our Chief Financial Officer, the Council budget office, Chairman Mendelson, businesses, and advocates to fill out the details of what options we have for providing the best amount of paid family and medical leave for the maximum number of D.C residents, while ensuring that we are covering low income workers who are least likely to have access to any form of paid leave.
Today, we start the public conversation about the proposed bill and the variables that are problematic for some or are supported by others. The hearing process is one that is essential for having an open and transparent conversation, so that we can speak frankly and have our positions placed on the record. This is the beginning of an engaging process with all parties; it may take time and at times we may not agree, but I do believe that in the end, we will have a working program that our city can be proud of and D.C. can continue being a national policy leader.
It is important to note that I am not naïve and have not taken up this proposal lightly. It was not quickly drafted or without serious thought. I knew two years ago that this process would not be easy. With serious thought come reservations about the consequences – both intended and unintended – for everyone this bill will affect. Frankly, the consequences that matter the most to me are the ones primarily affecting our residents: the infants who are born prematurely, the mothers forced back to work two weeks postpartum, and the sick or injured elderly parents with little to no access to quality care.
I do not take the effects this bill will have on businesses lightly and that is why we are here today, asking you how we can be industry leaders and make systematic changes to the way we treat the people who work in the District of Columbia.
Yes, I have heard some of you say “we are moving fast and we are getting ahead of the rest of the nation on paid leave” and to that I ask: are we really moving that quickly or are we actually way behind? Why should we not lead on policies that support businesses, expand industries and also allow working families to care for themselves and their loved ones?
With that, I want to thank everyone who is here today or is submitting testimony for the record. I appreciate the time that you have all taken, regardless of your position on the bill, to study it and provide us with your feedback.
I look forward to the testimony and engaging in a robust dialogue with the witnesses.
By Martin Austermuhle, December 2, 2015, WAMU
Business groups representing just about every industry in the District — from hotels and restaurants to retailers and builders — strongly criticized a proposed paid-leave bill during a D.C. Council hearing on Wednesday, but struggled to offer alternatives or possible changes to the measure when pressed by legislators.
The groups said the bill — which would offer virtually all D.C. workers up to 16 weeks of paid family leave, with the costs covered by a per-employer tax on employers — would dramatically increase operating costs for local businesses, many of which would stop hiring or leave the city altogether.
"This bill would kill D.C. jobs," said Harry Wingo of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce. "This would revive D.C.’s reputation as a high-tax, business-unfriendly place," offered Charles Miller of the Federal City Council. “At the end of the day, you can’t take leave from a job you don’t have or doesn’t exist," warned Cailey Locklair Tolle of the Maryland Retailers Association.
Others worried about the potential for abuse, criticized the lack of specifics on how much the measure could cost different businesses and organizations, and said that D.C. would be jumping far ahead of the three states that currently offer paid leave — both in how much time is given and who would pay for it.
But the consistent drumbeat of criticisms drew pointed questions from Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who pressed the groups to offer alternatives to the bill — or outline specific changes they would want seen to make the bill more agreeable.
In one particularly animated exchange, he asked Wingo a series of questions about whether the business community could support the overall concept of paid leave for workers. "Do you agree that benefits are beneficial to employees? Is it best for employers if they pay no benefits to their employees?"
Changes likely
Mendelson's questioning seemed to reflect the political reality surrounding the bill, which was introduced in October. With a majority of the Council already supporting the measure — and polling showing it has drawn wide support from residents — he said earlier this week that whether the bill passes isn't the question, but rather what would be included in a final version.
As currently written, the bill would require all private employers to contribute to a fund from which leave benefits would be paid. Workers making up to $52,000 a year would have their full salary covered, while those making more would see a declining percentage of everything above the $52,000 covered. The top pay-out would be $3,000 per week.
"This bill is for people who have to make heartbreaking choices," said Council member Elissa Silverman (I-At Large). She said it would help people take time to care for newborns or ailing relatives, some of whom currently have no paid leave at all.
But in moving towards that goal, Council member David Grosso (I-At Large) — who with Silverman introduced the bill — said the sweeping measure wasn't set in stone. "As written, the bill has 10 variables that would lower the costs on businesses," he said, offering critics a chance to offer changes.
And some business leaders did. Jim Dinegar of the Greater Washington Board of Trade said he would want the issue addressed at the federal level, to avoid creating a regional imbalance where one jurisdiction would offer paid leave while others didn't.
Kathy Hollinger of the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington said leave should be limited to workers who have been on the job for at least one year, and asked that provisions requiring employers to notify their workers of paid-leave rights be simplified.
And Steve Hoffman, who owns a local insurance company that has operated in the city since 1906, asked that the leave be cut to eight weeks — and that it be paid for in part by the employee taking the leave. Without some changes, he worried the increased costs would force him to move — or close.
"We've always felt the need to stay and pay back a city that has given us so much," he said. "But if the [bill] passes in its present form, we will have to consider leaving the District because we compete against not only D.C. agents, but also agents across the country."
Containing costs
It was concerns like those that prompted Mendelson to ask proponents of the bill — who largely spoke in personal terms about the bill — to address the costs of implementing paid leave.
"There is a cost to this," he said to a panel of advocates for the bill. "There's no question [paid leave] would help children, families and low-income folks. It could change a whole lot of social problems we have. That's not the issue. I need you to speak to the cost."
"We have to wait until we get the actual calculations of what it would cost to provide this benefit," said Ed Lazere of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, speaking to a reality that hung over the hearing throughout the day — no final calculations on the bill's costs have been produced, nor has a study funded by the U.S. Labor Department on a number of paid-leave proposals for D.C. been finalized.
But even without those specifics in place, Lazere pushed back on the argument that it would drive businesses to close or into the surrounding states.
"After raising the minimum wage, they don't tend to lose employees, they don't tend to move. Businesses are flexible, they can respond to the added costs through a variety of means," he said.
Proponents also said that the bill could actually serve to help small businesses that can't currently afford to offer any leave, and pointed out that more and more large businesses are instituting paid-leave policies as a means to attract and retain top talent.
At one point, Silverman noted that Wingo of the Chamber of Commerce once worked for Google, which recently implemented an 18-week paid-leave policy. She also pointed out that Miller of the Federal City Council doubles as a senior attorney at Covington and Burling, a powerhouse legal firm that also offers 18 weeks of paid leave.
That raised another concern on the bill — what happens with businesses and organizations that already offer paid leave? John Cavanaugh, speaking on behalf of the Consortium of Universities, noted that the city's 10 universities were extremely concerned with how the measure would affect the leave they already offer.
"The consortium strongly supports the concept of paid leave, and has several types of paid leave in effect as evidence," he said. "The consortium opposes the unfunded mandate that will cost institutions in the District $15 million per year to implement a one-size-fits-all program that may not address the needs of our employees."
The diverse groups that could be affected by the paid-leave bill will have a chance to continue weighing in over the next few months, as Mendelson has said he will call at least two more hearings before any further action is taken on the proposal.
And despite uncertainty over what form the bill could ultimately take, Council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) — who supports the measure — said that even having the debate is a positive step forward.
"I doubt the legislation will emerge in same form, but it starts the conversation," she said. "It’s a conversation that’s long overdue."
Today, Councilmember David Grosso and Chairman Phil Mendelson introduced the “School Attendance Clarification Amendment Act of 2015.” This legislation amends the District of Columbia’s compulsory school attendance laws based on lessons learned from the implementation of the South Capitol Street Memorial Amendment Act of 2012 and the Attendance Accountability Act of 2013. Many elements of the bill came from the work of the interagency Truancy Taskforce, which has been meeting over the past year to improve D.C.’s response to school attendance.
For Immediate Release
November 30, 2015
Contact: Darby Hickey
(202) 724-8105
Grosso to Reintroduce Legislation Increasing Power of Individuals in D.C. Elections
Washington, D.C.—At the D.C. Council’s December 1 Legislative Meeting, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) will reintroduce legislation to establish a system allowing for public financing of elections in the District of Columbia. The legislation comes after Grosso successfully advocated for the dissolution of the FreshPAC and introduced a bill to close the loophole allowing unlimited fundraising by Political Action Committees during non-election years. This legislation is the latest in a series of elections and ethics reform bills that Grosso has introduced since joining the Council in 2013, including an earlier proposal for publicly financed campaigns.
“Public financing of campaigns would give greater voice to all voters and reduce the disproportionate influence of big donors in D.C. politics,” Grosso said. “We must ensure that everyone has an opportunity to participate in and positively influence the political process, regardless of how much or how little they are able to contribute, or if they do not contribute at all.”
Grosso’s legislation proposes to:
- Create a new, independent office at the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability to provide robust oversight of campaign finance laws and public financing of elections.
- Provide public dollar matches for campaign donations to candidates of $100 or less.
- Require candidates to meet a certain threshold of small donations from D.C. residents in order to qualify to receive public financing.
At 8:30am, Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Councilmember Grosso will join the D.C. Fair Elections Coalition for a press conference on the proposed public financing of elections bill in advance of its introduction at the Legislative Meeting. The press conference will be held in room 120 of the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington D.C.
###