1.BACKGROUND: A bill before the Council requires that meetings of “public bodies” be open to the public when there is “any gathering of a quorum of the members.”
QUESTION: Is that the correct threshold? If you do not think it is, what threshold do you suggest? Please explain the reason for your position.
My answer: This question is somewhat ambiguous. A quorum for City Council meetings is 7 (9 for emergency action). Very commonly public hearings are held with only one or two Councilmembers present. If the bill referred to in this question is designed to close off such meetings then it represents a huge step backwards, making our legislative process even more opaque than it is now. So-called breakfast meetings should be open to public observation even if only two Councilmembers are present.
2.BACKGROUND: The D.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is supposed to provide District citizens, lawyers and organizations with a way to get access to public information about how D.C. Government is functioning. There is widespread unhappiness—even anger—with how D.C. agencies routinely brush aside FOIA requests, thereby defeating the purpose of the law. The Council is now considering Bill 18-777, the “Open Government Act” to establish an Open Government Office to oversee how D.C. agencies actually handle FOIA requests and to improve the processing of such requests; the bill also streamlines rule-making procedures to make them more transparent.
QUESTION: Do you support adoption of the Open Government Act? Are there changes you advocate? Please feel free to discuss why or why not. My answer: I support the apparent intent of this bill to defend the integrity of the FOIA process, especially in light of its continual disrespect by Peter Nickles. But the devil is in the details. If elected I would consult legal advice regarding its provisions (I am not a lawyer, rather a human rights and peace activist as well as an environmental scientist). My tentative critique on this bill: The establishment of an Open Government Office with power to sue is a positive step, but since its Director is appointed by the Mayor (with consent of the Council) undue concentration of power may result with potential politicization of this Office. A more accountable structure would be a Board of Directors with voting power, with community representation recommended by a grassroots process involving the ANCs and community organizations supporting tenants and workers (e.g., DC Jobs with Justice, Empower DC, TENAC). P.S. The subversion of the FOIA process by Peter Nickles, DC’s Attorney General must be strongly opposed. I testified against Nickels’ confirmation:
http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org/testimony/nickles_confirmation.
3.BACKGROUND: Unlike other Americans who pay federal income taxes, citizens of the District currently are denied both a United States representative and two United States senators. In addition, Congress routinely passes laws—or changes District laws—affecting local matters in the District (e.g., a suicide fence on a D.C. bridge; D.C. gun laws).
QUESTION: What concrete steps do you favor with the aim of achieving both full voting representation in the House and Senate and full local control over local issues?
My answer: DC Statehood is the only permanent way to gain these rights now enjoyed by citizens of the 50 states (I do not include retrocession to Maryland since that option would dilute our representation as well as fail to fulfill the historic struggles of the people of the District for their full civil and human rights). I have been active in the DC Statehood struggle since moving to DC in 1976 and joining the DC Statehood Party, which merged with the DC Green Party to create the DC Statehood Green Party in 1998. I have been a member of Stand Up! for Democracy in DC Coalition, DC Statehood Now, and the DC Human Rights People's Movement (DC Human Rights City Campaign/AFSC). My testimony and articles on this issue include: The Synergy of Struggles: DC Statehood and Human Rights (2002) (http://www.redandgreen.org/Information/Statehood_and_Human_Rights.htm); THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL IMPACT OF DC STATEHOOD (http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org/testimony/statehood_economic_impact) and http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org/testimony/51st_state_commission The disempowerment of our residents driven by our urban structural adjustment programs in the last 15 years has been a major factor in weakening our longstanding struggle for DC Statehood. Therefore, the struggle for DC Statehood must be waged on multiple fronts, including challenging our District government to implement policies that empower our residents by enhancing their economic, social and environmental human rights (see documentation on my campaign website, www.davidschwartzman.com). And of course this struggle must be built on a national as well as international level. The shocking denial of our human rights must become widely known.
4.BACKGROUND: The District Council approved, by a vote of 11-2, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, and the Mayor signed it into law. Following the expiration of the congressional review period, the law took effect, making it explicitly possible for two persons to get married without regard to gender, while also protecting the right of churches, synagogues and mosques to refrain from performing marriages they disagree with.
QUESTIONS: A. Do you support the existing Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality law? My answer: Yes, without reservation. B. Do you support putting existing marriage equality rights to a public vote by referendum?
My answer: Emphatically no! Basic human rights as specified in D.C.’s Human Rights Act should not be subject to referendum. C. Separately, would you support putting existing employment anti-discrimination rights to such a vote? My answer: Again, emphatically no!
5.BACKGROUND: A majority of the Council has rejected proposals to use civil injunctions against alleged gang members as a way to deal with the District’s situation, because of expressed concerns about police harassment of targeted youth and demonstrated ineffectiveness of such injunctions in other jurisdictions. Meanwhile, there is evidence that a comprehensive education-and-outreach approach was effective in reducing gang-related violence in D.C. (the program has since been ended). A majority of the Council also rejected a stricter youth curfew for the summer months for similar reasons. In both cases, other Councilmembers favored the rejected measures because they felt the benefits outweighed any negatives.
QUESTIONS: A. What is your position on (i) using civil injunctions against alleged gang members and (ii) juvenile curfews?
My answer: I am opposed! I demonstrated and lobbied with DC ACLU to oppose this approach. Funding for a comprehensive education-and-outreach approach should be restored. Existing funding to such groups as the Peaceoholics should be subject to full Council review to curb well-demonstrated abuse. The blatant politicization of the Peaceoholics by the Fenty campaign should likewise be investigated.
B. Please explain your position on the roles of law enforcement, education, and community social services in dealing with the District’s juvenile crime problem.
My answer: The criminalization of our youth must end. Juvenile crime in our community is largely a result of child poverty (now over 30% prevalence). .We must eliminate child poverty asap. Our Mayor and the Council have yet to effectively confront this egregious human rights violation against our children. Here’s what I propose: Lets create green collar jobs for our unemployed, especially our youth with apprenticeship programs in our high schools. Raise the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefit to above poverty level, provide mental health and substance abuse treatment for all in need, job training for 21st Century Jobs. Substantial funding can be found by curbing corporate welfare and making our tax structure both progressive and more capable of funding essential needs. We can only eliminate the proven disparities in education across the District by eliminating poverty as we know it. A very insightful article on this subject by the late Tom Blagburn is found at: http://www.statehood4dc.com/schwartzman/hopefordcschools Finally, community police partnerships are demonstrably effective. We need an independent Civil Review Board to hold our Police Department fully accountable for potential abuse and violation of civil liberties and rights. I testified on these issues at a City Council hearing: http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org/testimony/public_safety_civil_liberties
6.BACKGROUND: Many “disorderly conduct” arrests by D.C. police end in no conviction, either dismissed by the judge or with the prosecutor refusing to prosecute—a waste of police and judicial resources. Current D.C. law on disorderly conduct (code sections 22-1307 & 1321) is confusing and overbroad. This view was confirmed by two cases decided by the D.C. Court of Appeals this year. D.C. police at times make illegal arrests falsely claiming “disorderly conduct” simply because the police object to some lawful statement or action by the citizen involved (thereby violating constitutional rights of free speech, assembly and/or petition).
QUESTION: What changes, if any, to the disorderly conduct law do you advocate addressing these problems and protecting District citizens against unconstitutional arrest? Please explain your answer.
My answer: Yes, it is clear that the disorderly conduct law has been abused by police. Much more carefully constructed laws covering minor infractions of public order may be warranted but mental disturbances and substance abuse in themselves should be treated as a public health issue, not a crime. Provision of substantial treatment for such abuse should be an available option to all. Submitted by David Schwartzman, davidschwartzman.com, dschwartzman@gmail.com My bio: http://www.statehood4dc.com/schwartzman/bio ACLU Questionnaire Submitted online June 30, 2010
