Chamber. I'm calling to order this
meeting. Legislative meeting of the
council of the district of columbia.
this is the 28th legislative meeting of council period 26.
and I believe all the members are participating in person.
I think well, we'll see. We'll determine a quorum in a
minute. This is an additional meeting.
that is to say, it's not a regularly scheduled meeting.
the next regular meeting of the council legislative meeting will
be on may 5th. We always begin our legislative
meetings. With a moment of silence.
I would ask that members on the dais, as well as everyone in the
chamber, respect a moment of silence, an opportunity for
reflection. Madam secretary, would you
please call the roll? Council member allen here.
councilmember bonds here. Councilmember crawford here.
councilmember felder, present. Councilmember frumin.
present. Councilmember henderson here.
councilmember louis. George here.
here. Chairman mendelson.
present. Councilmember nadeau.
here. Councilmember parker here.
councilmember pinto. Present councilmember robert
white. Councilmember robert white,
councilmember trayon white, sr. Present.
mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. Thank you, madam secretary.
the agenda says consent agenda. I'm going to assume it's a non
consent agenda unless there's objection.
and so we will proceed to first reading and vote on proposed
bills. We have bill 20 6-461 entitled
the juvenile curfew amendment act of 2026, reported out of the
committee on judiciary and public safety, chaired by
council member pinto councilmember.
pinto. Thank you, mr. Chairman.
as discussed in the cao today, we have before us the permanent
version of the juvenile curfew amendment act, and we must
continue ensuring that our kids are engaged in positive
activities and keep them safe from dangerous situations.
again, over the last eight months, this tool to allow mpd
to declare specific juvenile curfew zones and extend the
applicability to 17 year olds has proven to be successful in
keeping youth, residents, visitors and others safe and
preventing harm. We have seen an uprise in
so-called teen takeovers, and we need to similarly be responsive
with new tools ourselves. Curfew violations in dc do not
result in arrests and the curfew zones themselves only apply to
groups of eight or more unsupervised kids under the age
of 18. And I want to reiterate that.
so people know that even when a zone is declared, kids in
smaller groups are still free to be in those spaces and enjoy
them as they can with any other space across the city.
I also want to note two questions that have come came up
earlier in the discussion. One is that the national guard
is not authorized to make arrests, and two to
councilmember louis george's questions of opc complaints.
there has been one that I'm aware of, which is the one
instance that happened over this past weekend that we are
tracking closely. And concerned about.
so I won't repeat everything I said about the at the cao of the
importance of this bill, but I do think that as all adults
throughout our city, whether you're on the council or whether
you work in an agency, whether you're a parent, a teacher,
anyone who works with young people, we all should be on the
same team that it is incumbent on all of us to do everything we
can to support and invest in our young people, and to set clear
standards of safe behavior to keep them safe.
and I know that we're all committed to that goal.
and so I ask my colleagues to support this bill today.
thank you, councilmember. The agenda states that you are
moving an amendment nature of a substitute.
yeah. So thank you very much.
I was moving an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
but after close collaboration and work with councilmember
crawford and mayor bowser, I'm happy to say that we have come
to a compromise and I'm withdrawing this as today,
councilmember crawford and I have found a workable solution
to move this legislation forward with one combined ans and so I'm
going to be accepting her as friendly, but I'll defer to her
to to speak to some of those elements.
and then I'll have some some other comments.
but I want to thank councilmember crawford for her
partnership and her leadership on this important issue.
then I'm going to recognize you, councilmember crawford.
thank you, mr. Chairman. And procedurally, I'll also have
an amendment to the ins that councilmember pinto and I worked
on. After I speak to the ans, I have
no idea what you just said. Okay, so I'll start with the
ans. So first I'm moving to an ans to
build 26 461. This ans is the result of
spending a significant amount of time listening to residents who
are concerned about safety, to advocates and importantly, the
young people themselves. What we heard was not one sided.
everyone wants to and deserves to feel safe in their community.
but we also have to recognize that feeling safe can be
experienced differently by different members of our
community. Too often, efforts to create
safety for some can unintentionally create harm for
others. This ans reflects an effort to
take that feedback seriously and strike a more thoughtful
balance. First, the ans streamlines and
clarifies authority. It consolidates the mayor's and
chief of police powers into a single framework and removes
duplicative processes. It also eliminates eliminates
the ability for business improvement districts and main
street organizations to petition for curfew zones.
as korea notes, expanding that type of authority to individuals
and entities that are not elected risk reinforcing spatial
injustice and neighborhood tensions between youth and their
community leaders, particularly when decisions about who belongs
in certain spaces are not made with youth input or broader
community accountability. Second, this ans removes the
ability to impose temporary citywide extended curfew hours
starting as soon as 8 p.m. The intent here is to keep curfew as
a targeted tool. We know from the committee's
committee report and mpd that these curfew zone extensions are
most often used to respond to specific gatherings, like teen
takeovers, where there is credible intelligence about time
and place. If we are at a point where we
need a citywide restriction of that magnitude, that is an
emergency and the mayor already has emergency authorities for
that. This ans makes that distinction
clear. Third, this ans also updates the
language of the statute by replacing the term juvenile with
youth. That is a deliberate shift away
from terminology rooted in the criminal legal system and toward
language that reflects how we should be engaging young people
as members of our community to be supported, not just manage or
penalize. Fourth, it strengthens notice
requirements, but I'll address this more in my subsequent
amendment because we made some changes here.
fifth, it establishes guardrails on enforcement.
we've seen and heard from youth serving community organizations
that increase reliance on police interaction, particularly for
black youth, can exacerbate disparities and erode trust,
even when policies are intended to improve safety.
the ans makes clear that young people cannot be stopped or
dispersed simply for being present, for being in small
groups, or for reasons that do not actually constitute a
violation of the curfew or existing law.
one more minute, chairman. Without objection, these are
common sense protections that ensure enforcement is tied to
behavior, not perception. And finally, this ans recognizes
something that the research is very clear about.
enforcement alone does not address the underlying
conditions driving these gatherings.
if we are telling young people where they cannot be, we should
simultaneously be a part of creating spaces where they can
be. So this ans requires youth
programing. When a curfew zone is in effect,
but it does so in a practical way.
it does not assume the district must stand up entirely.
new programing overnight. The district can work with
community based organizations, and as the mayor noted in her
letter, the district already offers a range of late night and
youth focused activities through dpr and community partners.
the af. The ans also ensures that young
people can travel to and from those activities without being
penalized, and that their voices are included in shaping what
those opportunities look like. So at its core, this ans shifts
the approach from one that relies primarily on restriction
and enforcement to one that is more targeted, transparent, and
grounded in engagement. It keeps curfew as a tool, but
uses it more precisely and pairs it with the kind of supports
that we know actually make a difference.
and finally, I want to thank rania dinkins, my legislative
director, and lauren mendoza of ogc, for the time and
consideration that they spent on drafting this ans and
councilmember pinto and her team and the executive for working
collaboratively with me on this. So I move this amendment and
urge my colleagues to support. So let me see if I understand
what we're doing here procedurally.
so you circulated an amendment in nature of a substitute
yesterday. Yes.
that's what you're moving. And then you're going to move an
amendment to that? Yes.
and the amendment at 1230? Well, I have two.
I have one at 1230 and one at 129.
this is the 1231. This is to the permanent bill.
okay. Because the 1230 is to the
permanent bill, which is what we have before us.
yes. Okay.
so what we have now before us is the amendment nature of a
substitute. Now, you want me to recognize
you for an amendment to that? Unless.
councilmember pinto. I didn't know if you had
something else that you were adding.
I think we want to get the amendment.
we want to get on the floor. What?
we're going to get on the floor. But you don't get to give a
whole nother four minute speech. I was just going to hit the
points in the notice for the amendment speech.
all right. So so that all members
understand councilmember pinto has moved the committee print.
councilmember crawford has moved an amendment initiative, a
substitute. And I'm now recognizing you to
move an amendment to that. A n s yes.
so this amendment, which I circulated at 12:30 p.m., makes
the following changes in collaboration with councilmember
pinto. It updates the findings section
of the code to include a mention of team takeovers and the rise
in social media use to. To disseminate this information,
it reverts the citywide curfew hours back to what the hours
were prior to the first emergency, which passed in july
20th, 2025. So that is midnight on weekends
and during the summer months. It defines youth to add clarity
to the term extended youth curfew zone, it only requires
the new components of the zone notice, including a plain, plain
language description of lawful activities and details about
alternative youth events to be posted online instead of on the
physical signs. It allows the police to issue
verbal warnings. No sooner than 30 minutes before
the start of curfew, and then it requires the chief of police to
consider several statistics concerning youth, specifically
before determining whether to designate an extended youth
curfew zone, aligning with the most recently passed language in
b 26 460. So that is what is before us.
I'll recognize councilmember pinto.
I will just say, you know, thank you again to councilor crawford
for working so closely with us on this and to ensure that this
language adopts the intention that you were trying to do, and
also ensures that it is workable for mpd and for the community.
and so I will be accepting both the a n's and the amendments to
the a n's as friendly to the underlying permanent.
okay. Now the only way something is
friendly is if there's no objection, I can ask if there's
any objection. Is there any objection to the
amendment to the a n's hearing? None.
it is accepted. Now, that's what was circulated
at 1230 by email today at 12:30 p.m.
that's accepted. Without objection.
we have the a n's as amended before us.
is there a discussion on that? Similarly, I'm accepting the a
n's as friendly. I can ask.
objection. Yes.
council member tran yeah I have a question in regards to the
amendment you sent. I guess.
129. That is to the emergency which
is not before us. Okay.
it's confusing on which what what are we.
which one are you talking about? What time frame?
1230. 1230.
wait, because that's the question I have is about the
next one. So.
so my question is, is there any objection to the amendment
nature of a substitute, as amended?
hearing none, that is accepted. So now we have the print as
amended. Is there discussion?
and sorry, to make matters more complicated, I have one oral
amendment. Oh.
not yet. Oh never mind, that's on the
emergency. We have the amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended before us.
no, we have the bill as amended before us.
the bill as amended before us. Councilmember allen, do you want
to be recognized? I do, thank you.
I want to thank councilmember crawford for the work to put
this in and to put it as together.
I'll be very frank. This is what should have come
out of the judiciary committee to begin with.
the committee would allow curfews citywide.
it would give an unaccountable organizations the ability to
request curfews, no requirement for alternative programing.
I've said consistently that a narrow, precise and time limited
curfew can be a tool, but it simply cannot be the only tool
that our city has or uses. Part of the reason that we are
here is the result of a lack of investment in the very teens
that we are, that are the subject of this conversation.
so what scenario of allowing citywide policies saying that
they cannot gather in public space makes sense.
it's that kind of overly broad provision that would not allow
me to vote for the committee print without councilmember
crawford's important and substantial changes.
when pushed, we have seen dpr put together meaningful and
positive experiences. I can note that around greenleaf
rec center and randall rec center, the activities taking
place inside were largely very positive, and I think there's a
lot of lessons learned about what happened when the events
ended, and a lot of lessons learned that dpr can continue to
work on. But unquestionably, I heard
positive feedback from young people who were at the events
and inside. We also can't limit this just to
dpr. We know that we have incredible
community organizations that can partner and I think councilor
crawford's legislation does that.
I have to note, though, this is the same system, the same dpr
that closes most of its rec centers at the exact hours that
we are concerned about. So the city has been lacking
with imagination and creativity to reach the very people it's
concerned about. I think councilmember crawford's
amendment changes. This requires the city to
provide and promote alternatives whenever they want to be able to
use this tool. And again, I'm grateful for the
work that councilmember crawford and her team did to put this in
and put it before us today. Thank you.
thank you, councilmember henderson.
thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me just say at the top that
I'll be supporting this measure today.
as former mayor marion barry said in 1995, when he first
signed this original curfew legislation into law, that this
is a tool, one that I think has been useful.
one of the interesting things about american life is that
there's some collective things that have happened in all of our
upbringings, regardless of where we grew up, but mainly for those
of us who were raised in cities, one of those was the parental
and community expectation that when the street lights came on,
kids needed to be headed towards the house.
but somewhere along the way, in 2026, that has become a bit
controversial. And I know that growing up today
is different than growing up, as many of us did in the 90s and
early 2000. But some of those dangers still
exist in dc you all had gogos in new york city.
there were skating rinks in columbus, georgia, where I went
to high school. There was the mall and all of
these scenarios, all of these businesses closed.
at a certain point, there were no more movies to be played, no
more starbucks coffees that you can buy.
and even if you were at someone's house, eventually,
carl's mom didn't want us in her den anymore because she was
trying to go to bed. At some point, the activities
ended and folks had to go home. Now, a curfew cannot be the only
thing. And that's why I sent a letter
to the mayor's office back in march asking for the district's
plans to engage the district's youth this summer and spring,
especially given so many other events that will be going on.
they responded a few weeks ago, dpr did roll out a very
successful and engaging teen spring jam and programing.
during spring break, I followed up with dpr about how things
went, what it took to pull that off from a resources standpoint,
because while it may seem seamless, it actually required
lots of staff manpower and also questions around what this looks
like from a sustainability standpoint so that we could
continue to plan for some of these in the future.
I've also started a conversation with some of our bid leaders
about how they can adapt some of their spring and summer
programing to offer something geared toward teens and their
general lineup. They were open to those
conversations, and we have a follow up meeting with some
youth serving organizations to further brainstorm in coming
weeks. The expanded curfew legislation
that we're voting on today is not a panacea.
it is a tool. It is a tool that mpd has not
employed every day. They have not employed every
weekend. And I will certainly admit that
the coordination between dpr and pd and metro transit pd, when
these sponsored events in need to be refined, but also we need
to continue working with parents and community members as well.
in terms of what are our expectations around young people
when they're in public spaces and what happens in the evening
times. But there are events going on
all the time, even this weekend on kingman island, there's going
to be a teen band summit, featuring eight bands from
teens. Suggest these spaces to your
young people in your life separately.
I do want to call on dc public schools this summer to work with
high school student government organizations to work through
some of the issues such that safe third spaces like football
games and basketball games are not closed off as options next
school year. Because I feel like that has led
to where we are today. And with that, I will stop and
say, I hope that we can move this forward today.
thank you. Thank you.
councilmember henderson. Councilmember felder.
thank you, mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, everyone.
first and foremost, I would like to take a moment to thank
council members pinto and crawford for their leadership on
this matter. It's also important to reflect
on how we got here as a city. Last summer, the council voted
to implement the juvenile curfew emergency amendment act of 2025.
we did so because there was a clear need for intervention in
order to mitigate the rise in levels of violence and vandalism
that we were seeing from youth in the district.
now, as a native washingtonian, I remember what it was like
being a teenager in our city. And here's what I know to be
true. Teenagers want to have fun.
teenagers want to spend time with their families and friends.
teenagers want to keep a little bit of money in their pockets,
and teenagers want to explore new places across our city.
we also took advantage of the city's kids ride free program,
the summer youth employment program, and activities
happening in our local neighborhoods and recreation
centers. Many of those same programs
still exist today, and some have expanded.
now, in addition to the troubling videos of youth
captured at navy yard, which let me be clear, those videos are
not a reflection of all of our youth.
there are also videos of law enforcement interactions with
youth that are extremely concerning and should be
investigated, which is why I support this bill today because
it makes no sense for us to put any of our youth in harm's way.
now, here's the reality. This bill is not a tool, but
it's not. Or rather, this bill is a tool,
but it's not the only tool. If we all can agree that there
needs to be a holistic approach when creating more constructive
ways for our youth to gather in a positive and productive
manner, we also can agree that the government cannot substitute
in the role of being a parent, and that at some point, there
needs to be a broader discussion about what parental
accountability looks like in the district of columbia.
as city leaders, we have a responsibility to protect our
residents of all ages, and that includes making the best
informed decisions on behalf of our young folks.
while I'm in favor of extending the juvenile curfew, I also look
forward to working with my council colleagues and community
members to develop a holistic approach that includes
programing and activities that that allow our youth to
congregate and safe and productive environments.
and I too look look forward to my colleagues supporting this
bill as well. Thank you, mr. Chairman.
thank you. Councilmember felder.
councilmember robert white. Thank you, chairman.
I want to thank councilmember pinto and councilmember crawford
for working on an amendment while while the amendment in the
nature of a substitute does improve the legislation, it
still doesn't address a fundamental fact, which is that
the curfews are not working right.
so people want to be able to go out, go out to dinner, feel
safe. We all deserve that.
but as my colleague said, we started these curfews last
summer for the better part of a year.
we've had the curfews and the things that we're pointing to
saying, these are the reasons we need.
the curfews are things that have happened while we've had
curfews. If it's not working, why would
we keep doing this? But to make it worse?
and this is why the strategy matters, right?
the proposed budget that we got last week cuts over $6 million
from the department of behavioral health, including
school based behavioral health. Is this going to make it better
or worse? It's going to get worse.
the budget the proposed budget cuts $35 million from the
department of human services, including for family support
services. This is going to make it worse.
the proposed budget we received last week cuts over $5 million
from the department of parks and rec, which we're saying is going
to come save the day. This makes the issue worse.
but on the other side of the ledger it adds $90 million for
mpd. How is it that we always have
the money to incarcerate and handcuff, but we don't have the
money to prevent? The reason I'm voting no is
because I'm not going to be part of a system that always says, we
have the resources for consequences, but not the
resources for prevention. We can't keep going in this
circle and expect anything other than what we have.
and not only will it get worse, the cost will go up.
when we don't invest in these spaces.
dpr mental health, family services parenting doesn't get
better. Outcomes don't get better, they
get worse. And then they're going to say,
you know what we need? We need more police.
it is insanity. So I understand the political
pressure to not be seen as soft on crime, but at some point we
have at least got to be logical. This is not logical.
and we cannot forget that these young people are seeing this
conversation. They're seeing us pointing
fingers at them saying, look, these young people, what they're
doing, the vast majority of them are not involved with them, but
they're getting the same finger pointed at them.
they're using the same resources, and they're seeing
the resources go to consequences.
this cannot be the way that we operate.
this cannot be the way that we govern.
so while I do want to see an end to the bad behavior that happens
in these groups, I've got to recognize that this is not a
path to a better outcome. It is a reinvestment in the
outcome that has gotten us here. And I don't be a part of it, so
I can't vote for it. Thank you.
chairman. Thank you.
councilmember white councilmember nadeau.
I know. You know, I'm looking for who
else wants to be recognized. Councilmember.
nadeau. You have the floor.
we can't hear him. Councilmember.
nadeau. Hold on a second.
ask her to check her. Can you check your mic?
councilmember. Nadeau because we can't hear
you. You're not muted.
say something. I'm talking.
can you hear me? Oh, yes.
it's beautiful. Oh, wonderful.
I'll take it. Maybe I should quit while I'm
ahead. No.
just kidding. Okay.
thank you chairman. Other colleagues today have
explained how this policy is not effective, harms our kids, and
disproportionately impacts black and brown children.
so I'm not going to repeat that. We need to be serious about
safety and not play politics with our communities and kids.
as a mom of two kids and one who has significant resources, even
I struggle with parenting sometimes.
but one thing I've learned, especially as my kids get older,
is that kids need to be treated with respect, they need to be
heard, and more than anything, they need the adults responsible
for them. And I consider that all of us to
be there for them when they're struggling and to help them make
good choices for themselves and for those around them.
this bill doesn't do that, in my opinion.
instead, it doles out punishment and makes things worse.
maybe not immediately, because I know a lot of people think that
we have to be tough and that we get results that way, but
there's just way too much evidence about the long term
negative impacts on kids in our communities.
with these types of policies, for me to ignore it.
and this may be my last year on the council, but that makes it
all the more important to me that I do not contribute to
taking our city down the wrong path when it comes to our youth.
in 2016, I introduced the legislation that established the
current out of school time office that offers kids after
school and summer programs, and later I introduced legislation
that would have expanded out of school time programing to all
d.c. Public schools and charter school students, with an
emphasis on access for youth who are at risk, low income and
criminal justice involved. I supported creation, expansion
of violence interruption programs in my ward and district
wide, finding money in the budget to make sure those
programs continue and expand. We make choices in how we spend
our money. The mayor has also made choices.
the mayor's proposed fy 27 budget cuts, over $6 million
from the department of behavioral services, including
school based behavioral health, $35 million from the department
of human services, including for family support services and $5
million from the department of parks and rec for site based
programing. Her budget adds $6.5 million to
youth rehabilitative services, including for secure detention
of youth. And as council member allen
mentioned, 90 million for mpd. She's now choosing with her
emergency declaration last week to double down on what does not
work youth curfews. Even as she takes away funding
from the programs that we know do work, and this legislation
before us today does the same. For months, we extended the
emergency curfew legislation, and each time we said we needed
to work on a comprehensive plan that includes the programs and
initiatives I listed, and that we need a permanent piece of
legislation that could get a hearing and vetting.
I've said no to the emergency extensions, but have always been
open to a comprehensive solution.
the bill before us today is not it.
I thank my colleagues for attempting some improvements on
this bill by adding programing and checks on the curfews.
it is not enough though. What we have here is a rebranded
version of the tough on crime laws of the past.
a curfews first approach that's ineffective because it fails to
support our youth. I can't in good conscience vote
for something that is tried and proven as bad policy.
thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you.
councilmember nadeau councilmember louis george.
thank you. Chairman.
adding and utilizing this tool. While this city is currently
under federal occupation is dangerous.
it is dangerous for our young people.
it is dangerous for our community as a whole.
and the risk, the risk does not outweigh the perceived benefits.
what we have seen since these expanded juvenile curfews have
gone into effect this weekend. Videos and headlines circulated
showing officer pulling away young women forcefully off a
bike riding pass that was two not in a group of eight.
two young women pulled off their bikes.
we've received reports and videos of officers and armed
guards threatening youth with pepper spray and paint guns,
things we vow to get rid of after the george george floyd
era of protest and actions that were taken.
and yet these things pepper spray and paint guns are being
utilized in this moment to threaten and enforce these
curfews. I've also heard reports of
officers outside of the randall teen center event.
this is from youth saying they were being herded toward the
youth curfew zone in navy yard, where they would be in violation
of the curfew. And we've seen videos of
national guard troops and officers interrogating youth
coming off the metro in southeast as early as 4 p.m.
we've seen it with one officer even taunting a metro rider.
we're going to get you before they even came up the escalator.
this is what our young people are experiencing, and this is
what we are telling them that their government believes is
necessary for them to be safe. And this is what we're telling
them, their their government and their community thinks about
them as young people without fully formed brain cells.
they are the ones who have to be curfew and police.
now, this is a city that has first amendment protests happen
every single day, and our officers are trained at handling
first amendment protests every single day and can plan for it.
so I'm not sure why we can't do the preventative planning like
we do for first amendment protests, without having to put
a curfew in place. That puts our young people at
this risk. This type of coordination
between federal forces and mpd is a threat to young people, but
it is also a threat to home rule.
no other city has national guard troops, federal agents who are
not trained in de-escalation and enforcing curfews for their
youth. We are the capital city and we
are a testing ground. And if we want autonomy, we have
to handle our own enforcement. And until we can do that, we
should not be utilizing a tool that continues to put our young
people at risk and allows us to passively allow for autonomy to
be treaded on in this moment. Now we're being asked to vote on
a permanent version, despite evidence that the expanded
curfews are escalating and not ameliorating the situation.
and it's not surprising because research from juvenile curfew
laws in other jurisdictions, ten more seconds have shown that
curfews did not result in fewer instances of the youth involved.
crime, public disturbances or high risk behaviors.
so we know the things that work, and there are alternatives to
this bill. This is not the right time to
use this tool, and I would urge my colleagues not to support
doing so. Thank you.
thank you. Councilmember.
councilmember. Trayon white, sr.
thank you, chairman. We all know that doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is
insanity. Since 2025, we've practiced this
model of juvenile curfew and it hasn't worked consistently week
after week, month after month. We've seen the youth gathering
without real intervention and prevention.
in 2024, during the secure dc omnibus amendment act of 2024, I
offered an amendment that passed the council.
but when we got the budget in 2025, that particular part was
taken out and not funded, and that amendment asked for a real,
comprehensive plan to address public safety in washington, dc,
which we still don't have. We are throwing things to the
wall, hoping that it sticks and hopes that we can create a safe,
lovable, friendly, walkable environment for district
residents. We've heard the quote that when
youth don't feel loved from the village, they will burn it down
to feel its warmth. And we're seeing their actions.
we must meet them where they are, hear their needs, and use
our $22 billion to address their issues.
we have seen consistent divestments in youth, young
adults services all across the district year after year.
they say they want recreation centers.
I consistently put money in ward 8 for recreation centers will
happen. Even this council voted to take
money out of two recreation centers just a month ago, and a
ward that has the most issues and the most youth out of
anywhere in washington dc. We cannot wait until young
people end up in the justice system to decide that we care.
we need real investment in our youth through literacy,
recreation, mentorship, mentorship, interns, access to
careers and spaces where they can grow and be productive.
I admire councilmember crawford's amendments to create
more wraparound services and intentional how policing is
done, but I'm concerned we are not going further enough.
we have more money than we ever had in dc history, yet we're
doing the least than we ever did.
I heard a quote by marion barry. Marion barry believed in
investments on the front end. When we had a $9 billion budget.
today we have a $22 billion budget in less for more.
so I'm going to vote no in support of this bill today and
hopes that we can come back to the table to create a real
solution to address our youth issues, which not just a youth
problem, but also an adult problem, because we are raising
our young people directly and indirectly.
thank you, chairman. Thank you, council member.
further on the. On the bill, councilmember
parker thank you, mr. Chairman. We have all seen the scenes
across the district, large crowds, fights, breaking out,
officers chasing young people through the streets.
and there is no question that the behavior is troubling and
demands a serious response. What I grapple with is the
debate feels overly simplified. It's either yes, give us a
curfew or no, let's do nothing. But I want to be equally clear
about something. Declining to extend the curfew
is not the same as excusing what we are seeing play out in the
streets of the district. We can hold two truths at once.
the behavior is unacceptable, full stop.
and this policy is not the right solution.
as a long term application. Instead, I'm hoping we can
finally assemble a youth agenda that centers on expanding
recreational outlets, job, mental health, and
accountability. I voted for the curfew last year
on an emergency basis to give the government time to implement
a long term, sustainable strategy.
you may remember then chief pamela smith said they needed
more time to implement a long term solution.
a year later, we are back in the same place.
the incidents are continuing and the curfew has not delivered
what we were promised. This tells me their approach is
not working now. I think folks are well, but I
think we ought to be a little bit more creative.
I genuinely worry that more young people are being stopped
and are at risk of being pulled into the justice system, and if
we the only way we can make this policy more effective is to
punish more kids than. We should question whether the
policy is the right one to begin with.
and let me also say this government.
government cannot substitute for parents, families and guardians
have a fundamental responsibility to guide and
supervise their children. I'm going to say that one more
time because it takes a village. Families and guardians have a
fundamental responsibility to guide and supervise their
children. That role cannot be outsourced
to a city wide curfew or to the government.
and so while I do not plan to support a further extension of
the curfew, I do not plan to vote for a permanent application
of the curfew. I am inviting my colleagues, the
mayor's team, for us to all sit down to come up with a youth
centered agenda that will really address the root causes of what
is playing out. And I saw something also, I
think it was in the mayor's letter that, oh, when you say
root causes, that's really code language for doing nothing.
no, actually it's addressing the root causes so that we can have
a real solution that works and takes hold.
if we have applied more and more curfews and we're seeing more
and more young people being detained by cops or running
around on national tv by the national guard, that is not only
an embarrassment to the district, it lets us know this
policy is not working. I digress, I will not support
this, but again, I stand ready to work with my colleagues to
come up with a solution that actually works.
thanks. Thanks.
you okay? Believe me.
further on, the. The force has amended
councilmember frumin. Thank you very much, mr.
chairman. I joined in with many of my
colleagues who are focused on addressing root causes and
investment in our children. I think that is critically
important. I think we're doing better than
we're giving ourselves credit for.
I think that the city has invested significantly.
we can do more, much more. But I don't think we should run
it down as if we've not done anything in this space.
I find this discussion. I feel like there are straw men
that have been set up here about a curfew or not a curfew, and
that the curfew that gets described is something that is
more draconian than the thing that is on the table, honestly.
and this idea that where there are groups of people who have
come together, large groups and have made clear that it's about
behaviors that are going to be negative, the idea that we
wouldn't step in and say, no, you can't do that.
you got to go someplace else. You can't be in that kind of a
grouping. I think it.
I don't understand why we would not empower ourselves to do
that. I am struck by what
councilmember crawford has come up with in terms of the
refinements to this bill, and I think so impressive that three
months in that you played this kind of a leadership role on
this. I think the bill that we're
going to vote on is much, much better than what we have seen
before and goes to those radioactive spots and tries to
get at it and improve it. And I think that that's
important. But we also can't just sit on
our hands when we have these kinds of gatherings that go
south in the way that they have. And I also think while there
have been bad episodes and I am deeply troubled by the things
that we saw in the recent episodes, it's not the same as
it was before the curfew. I mean, when the curfews got put
in place, the behaviors went down and there weren't arrests.
I don't think we should pretend that that is not the case.
when the curfew went away briefly, there was concern about
it flaring up. But it isn't that this has
absolutely not worked. This has frankly worked pretty
well. And to the extent that we keep
it surgical in the way that council member crawford has, has
moved this bill, it can be a positive tool.
but going back to where I started, we can't for a minute
think this is the end of what we do.
we need to be lifting up these kids, but we also need to be
protecting our communities and our kids.
so I will be supporting this bill.
further, further on the bill, as amended.
sure. To my community does midnight
basketball. Let me just say that.
I urge colleagues to vote for this.
I would note that over the last number of months, there have
been some members who have expressed concerns about the
curfew language and the committee in its markup made
some changes. And then today we have accepted
unanimously further changes so that the bill that's before us
does reflect concerns that members have articulated.
I think it's fair to say that the bill that is before us, as
amended, is an improvement and has addressed done everything
that we can think of to address concerns that have been raised
by individual members. I want to note as well that many
years ago, I chaired our committee on the judiciary, and
one of the concerns I had was juvenile violence, because when
juveniles are committing criminal acts, I think that's
actually sort of more terrifying to residents than adults.
that may not make sense, but I think it is more terrifying.
and the issues that we dealt with, the issues that I dealt
with were very different than what we're dealing with right
now. Now, I'm not saying there aren't
the same kinds of criminal acts by some juveniles that there
aren't today, what there were before, but we're dealing with a
phenomenon that didn't exist ten years ago or 15 years ago, and
that's these large gatherings that seem to be fueled by social
media. And we're struggling as other
cities are struggling with. How do you address these large
assemblies, assemblies, two kind of word gathering is two kind of
word, two kind of a word. How do we address?
yes, I'm hearing in my ear takeover.
how do we address these takeovers?
and I get it that we do not want to be criminalizing juvenile
behavior, but we have to address these gaps, these large
takeovers. And that's what this legislation
is about, is addressing something that hasn't happened
in the past, something that is very, very present and that
we're seeing other jurisdictions struggling with.
I'm thinking of national harbor last year, which I believe is
private property and therefore was able to do what we can't do,
which is to just simply ban. Individuals from the property.
and we can't do that. So this is our own attempt.
and as I said, what is before us now is different, maybe very
different than what was before us when we first debated this
last summer on a vote that I think was at the time, 8 to 4,
maybe 9 to 4. No, because there were only 12
members. And so I would urge that members
support this bill, as amended. That's before us.
if there's no further discussion, roll call.
the secretary will call the roll.
the vote is on this. The vote is on bill 20 6-461, as
amended. Councilmember crawford.
yes. Councilmember crawford votes
yes. Councilmember felder yes.
councilmember felder votes yes. Councilmember frumin.
yes. Councilmember frumin votes yes.
councilmember henderson yes. Councilmember henderson votes
yes. Councilmember lewis george no.
councilmember louis george votes no.
chairman mendelson. Yes.
chairman mendelson votes yes. Councilmember nadeau no.
councilmember nadeau votes no. Councilmember parker no.
councilmember parker votes no. Councilmember pinto yes.
councilmember pinto votes yes. Councilmember robert white no.
councilmember robert white votes no.
councilmember trayon white, sr. No.
councilmember trayon white, sr. Votes no.
councilmember allen yes. Councilmember allen votes yes
and councilmember bombs. Yes.
councilmember bonds votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are eight
yes's and five no's. The bill, as amended, is
approved. First reading.
we will turn. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask if
we can take a five minute recess.
if there's no objection, we'll take a five minute recess.
the time is 352, let's say till 4:00.
five minutes. I believe our five minutes are
up. I'm not sure why everybody is
laughing. So we are reconvened.
we had a brief recess. Just to recap.
we have voted on the one bill that was for first reading, and
we are now turning to emergency legislation, which on the agenda
as circulated, I'll note, was originally the consent agenda.
we have as the next item, the juvenile curfew, sunset
emergency declaration, resolution of 2020 6pr 26 586
councilmember pinto. Thank you, mr. Chairman.
I think at this point everyone is familiar with the juvenile
curfew amendment act that this would extend the emergency,
which is especially important because it's sunsetted on april
15th. And we want to prevent a gap in
the law. I thank my colleagues for
passing the permanent version, but as that goes through a
process, it's going to take a little bit of time to implement.
and so we want to make sure that there's no gap.
I also want to note the mayor did declare a public emergency
last week, but that expires on may 1st, which is before our
next legislative meeting. And cannot continue.
another piece I will say is I'm moving an oral amendment to this
bill, which is unrelated, but very important.
this is to address a passed bill from the fall that was attached.
so the oral amendment removes the sunset for the volunteer
services act. As a reminder, the volunteer
services act allows the office of attorney general to use
volunteer legal services, which is especially important this
year and in every year. And we want to ensure that that
authority continues if we do not pass this oral amendment and act
today, that authority will sunset.
and the reason for being is it was tied to our temporary from
the fall, which sunsetted on april 15th.
and so I hope there's no objection to me making an oral
technical amendment to remove the sunset entirely from the
volunteer services act. Did I hear you say so?
moved. So moved.
we have the declaration before us, and I think I will speak
next. So this is the state of play we
have on this agenda. The permanent bill, juvenile
curfew amendment act, and we now have before us this emergency
version of that, eight members voted for the permanent bill,
first reading, as amended. As I noted earlier in
discussion, a number of changes have been made to the curfew
measure. So what we adopted last summer
is not what is before us now. We've made what I think many
members would characterize as improvements to deal with
concerns about whether all we're doing is just criminalizing
youth, or whether we're actually trying to look at this more
holistically with different strategies, or recognizing that
there need to be different strategies.
but I want to add what I also said, which is that we're
dealing with something that is new and different, and it is
these large gatherings, takeovers, I think was the way
one colleague put it, that we haven't seen before.
so we're struggling with finding new tools to deal with these
gatherings or takeovers. I am concerned that as members,
know, we are not alone in this discussion.
and by that I mean there are folks who are not friends to the
district who are looking very intently at what we are doing or
what we are not doing, and I'm not interested in giving them
any talking points or ammunition, which is a reason
why I have tried to make clear to colleagues that this issue
and this vote is important, because it's not just about how
we deal with these gatherings, which is the paramount concern,
but it's also whether we are self-inflicting some wounds on
ourself, which we don't need, given all of the other fights
that we are having with regard to the district and its ability
to operate as we know best. I've been a little oblique, but
I think people understand what I'm saying.
so that is very concerning. And I would add as well that I'm
not interested in wha I would call a twisted message, which is
that we as a majority, the council is saying we want this
curfew and there will be a second reading.
so there's opportunity for more improvements to it.
if members want that. And then struggling with this
emergency and whether we go forward with the emergency.
so having said all that, with 13 seconds left, I'm going to move
to table this to the next legislative meeting.
so there's a motion to table. I can't remember.
is it debatable. It's debatable as to time.
so the motion is to table to the next legislative meeting.
I will call for a vote. Mr. Chairman, when is the next
legislative meeting scheduled? The next legislative meeting is
may 5th. I will tell you that somebody
has suggested maybe even you suggested maybe it wasn't you.
somebody else suggested looking to see if we could have a
meeting before then. That's not a commitment like
next week. Could be.
I'm not trying to be glib. I'm just saying next legislative
meeting, mr. Chairman. And as you know, I this issue, I
feel this issue is very important, not just because of
the issue of the juveniles, but the issue, maybe I should say
youth, not just because of this issue of how we deal with these
youth takeovers, but also. How this is looking to folks who
are not our friends. Councilmember bonds as to the
time. Yes, as to time.
chairman, I'm wondering if the time if we need maybe an
additional 15 minute recess today so that we can move
forward. We continue to kick the can down
the road and wondered if the time could be set 15 minutes
from now. Point of clarity 15 minutes from
now to do what? I'm looking okay, I can look at
the clock. Why don't we say.
4:48 p.m. Today? Councilmember essentially
saying, can we recess? And we just had a five minute
recess that lasted for 34 minutes.
yeah. I, you know, sometimes I feel
that, you know, we kick the can and the can doesn't move very
far and we kick it again. And it may be a half of an inch.
and we continue to put off what we cannot put off.
this is our community. And if we have to be here till
midnight, we do that sometimes with our hearings on subject
matter. This is subject matter.
so I think we should try to come to a consensus, because this is
like the fourth time we've talked about this, and we could
not reach conclusion by putting it off for days for us to go
away and have dinner and have breakfast the next day, and meet
and chat and do the things that we do.
and I'm just suggesting if it's important to our community,
let's treat it with the importance that it has.
you said that we don't follow robert's rules of order.
we follow something else, what they do in congress.
well, in congress, they keep at it until they reach whatever
that crescendo is. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
this part of the motion is not debatable, mr. Chairman.
all right. So.
well, he gave me the floor. That is why I was debating it.
so I'm going to ask councilmember, are you making a
motion to recess for 15 minutes? I'm making a motion regarding
the time. Yes.
well, no, you're making a motion to recess.
let me be clear on this. So a motion to table to a time
certain is debatable as to the time certain.
a motion to reset. No, you're not a motion to
recess does take precedence over a motion to table.
so it would be an order. You want to give me a little
more push on it. Okay.
to recess. To recess for 20 minutes, which
is debatable. And I hope nobody else debates
this, but I will argue that we should not.
we have. If you don't think there were
discussions to try to work this out during the five minute
recess, there were discussions so we could have another 20
minute recess. And I can guarantee you that
there will not be further progress today.
so I would urge members not to vote or to recess for another 20
minutes. The vote will be on the motion
to recess. All those in favor, say aye.
all those opposed say no, no, no, no.
the nos have it. Cool.
so we have the motion to mute my mic, man.
somebody need my mic. That's crazy.
motion to table to a time certain.
which is to the next legislature chairman.
I asked for roll call on last vote.
it was ignored. Question is that it does not
have to be the next legislative session.
it could be within this session. Time is time, 24 hours.
make that whole day. And that's what I'm trying to
get to. Okay, so on the motion to table
to the next legislative meeting, mr. Chairman.
yes, I just wanted to speak to your motion.
I don't support tabling this discussion.
I think that it's very important.
we want to make sure that we keep our young folks safe.
and I think by voting today shows our seriousness as a
council. And I will urge my colleagues to
not support the table but move forward today.
oh, the discussion that's in order is as to when the date
certain, which is the next legislative meeting.
so the vote is on the roll call. Chairman.
madam secretary, call the roll. The vote is on the motion to
table to the next legislative meeting.
council member felder no. Councilmember felder votes, no.
councilmember frumin. Yes.
councilmember frumin votes yes. Councilmember henderson no.
councilmember henderson votes no.
councilmember lewis george. Yes.
councilmember lewis george votes yes.
chairman mendelson yes. Chairman mendelson votes yes.
councilmember nadeau no. Councilmember nadeau votes no.
councilmember parker yes. Councilmember parker votes yes.
councilmember pinto no. Councilmember pinto votes no.
councilmember robert white yes. Councilmember robert white votes
yes. Councilmember trayon white, sr.
no. Councilmember trayon white, sr.
votes no. Councilmember allen yes.
councilmember allen votes yes. Councilmember bonds no.
councilmember bonds votes no. Councilmember crawford yes.
councilmember crawford votes yes.
mr. Chairman, there are seven yeses and six nos.
the motion to table passes that's going to conclude the
business for this legislative meeting.
the time is 4:39 p.m., and this meeting is adjourned.