��ݮtv

As many expected, the D.C. Council approved the Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act on Tuesday during the second reading of the bill. 

D.C. Councilmember Trayon White (D-Ward 8) stood as the sole “present” vote. 

Subsequently, unanimous approval of accompanying emergency legislation paved the way for the Secure DC’s prompt implementation. Again, Ward 8 Councilmember White voted “present.”  

In the moments before making these votes, White reflected on his coming of age and the effects of mass incarceration on Black families. He told his colleagues that successfully curbing crime means addressing its underlying causes, not further criminalizing the marginalized masses. 

“Most of my friends didn’t make it because of the absence of leadership in our community [that was caused by] incarceration,” White said on Tuesday. 

“We haven’t done enough to address public safety in this city. I introduced [legislation] for returning citizens and it’s sitting  on the shelf,” White continued. “I introduced record sealing and it’s sitting on the shelf. I introduced a 30-page public safety document and it’s sitting on the shelf. I introduced a number of measures, including new recreation centers, and we haven’t done enough.”

A Grassroots Organizer Questions Councilmember Pinto’s Community Engagement

In the weeks leading up to the vote, grassroots organizers coalesced around an effort to secure the removal of what some people, including April Goggans, consider the bill’s more punitive and pro-law enforcement measures. 

for , said that face mask bans, drug-free zones, pre-trial DNA collection and police transparency rollbacks sparked concern among Black and brown ��ݮtvians of various ages and political leanings about an infringement on their civil liberties. 

Her engagement strategy involves meeting up with District residents who don’t frequent the John A. Wilson Building. She also has pivoted her attention to countering what she calls an anti-crime narrative among many community members that demeans young people and ties George Floyd-inspired police accountability measures to the District’s crime crisis. 

“This fight is about reducing the most racist, most harmful provisions of the bill in a way that honors the experiences of Black and brown folks in D.C.,” Goggans said. “You have to make sure there’s information [out there] about what’s in the bill and how it impacts folks’ everyday lives, not just those who get to go to the council building. It’s a narrative shift back to the facts.” 

Last week, Goggans attended a Citizens Advisory Council meeting at Metropolitan Police Department’s Seventh District station in Southeast. She said that’s where D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2), architect of omnibus bill and D.C. Council judiciary and public safety committee chair, listened to community members as they weighed in on the Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act. 

As Goggans recounted, Black community members of various professional backgrounds and political leanings expressed angst about elements of the legislation that they felt unfairly targeted Black and brown ��ݮtvians. She told The Informer that Pinto didn’t enthusiastically embrace perspectives that challenged her notion of what would keep D.C. safe. 

“Some of the things that Councilmember Pinto said are talking points given by the recall [Councilmembers Charles Allen and Brianne Nadeau] folks, the police union, and Mayor Bowser,” Goggans said. “While we had this increased police presence, we had the highest number of police complaints. It’s clear that the proponents of this bill really want individuals to sacrifice the safety of some for the safety of all.” 

After Much Delay, a Vigorous Debate in Another Council Hearing Room 

By the time council members engaged in spirited discussion about the bevy of amendments for Secure DC on Tuesday afternoon, proceedings moved from the council chambers (Room 500) to Room 412 of the Wilson Building after the chamber’s audio system malfunctioned. 

The council approved, by an 11-2 vote, an amendment that White introduced to prevent the omission of police officers’ names from documents during adverse action proceedings. 

Pinto and were the two votes against the amendment, with Pinto saying that concerns about police officers’ employment rights precluded her from supporting it. 

Parker stood in support of White, saying that removing officers’ names and badge numbers from reports impedes efforts to keep the public informed about alleged police misconduct.  D.C. Councilmember Anita (D-At large) followed up, telling her colleagues that residents need to know which officers are facing termination for misconduct. 

D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) later decried past efforts by the Fraternal Order of Police to help officers evade accountability for burglary, domestic violence, drunk driving, dealing in stolen property, and other offenses. 

The D.C. Council shot down, in a 3-10 vote, another Ward 8 Councilmember White amendment that jobs and behavioral health interventions in drug-free zones. Pinto asked her colleagues not to support White’s amendment due to questions about fiscal impact. At large Council member Robert White (D) stood in support of his Ward 8 colleague, once again telling his fellow council members that drug-free zones are redundant in a jurisdiction where drug sales and use is already illegal. 

 D.C. Councilmember Janeese Lewis George chimed in to express opposition to the amendment. She said that, because the original drug-free zone statute will likely face constitutional challenges, it’s best to keep it in its original form and “let the chips fall where they may.” 

Mendelson later followed up, saying that White’s amendment would impede the work of the and other relevant agencies. 

An amendment by Ward 8 council member White the Executive Office of the Mayor to develop and publish a Comprehensive Public Safety Plan met a different fate. Pinto accepted it as friendly. 

She also accepted an amendment by D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (I-At large) that would expand the study about pre-trial detention so that it covers juvenile detainment.

Pinto introduced an amendment not only what would be included in the CCJC’s study about pre-trial detention, but requiring the council’s nomination of a crime victim to the D.C. Sentencing Commission. 

An by D.C. Councilmember Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1) specified what information would be included in CJCC’s report about D.C.’s witness protection program. During the council breakfast preceding Tuesday’s legislative meeting, Pinto said that Nadeau and her are still working to overcome the hurdles in this amendment, specifically coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Later, during the legislative meeting, Nadeau accepted Pinto’s amendment to her amendment that would keep the CJCC report private.  

The council approved, on a 12-1 vote, Lewis George’s (D-Ward 4) amendment to from $500 to $1,000. Pinto was the sole “no” vote. Pinto also accepted an amendment by Lewis George that with the goal of protecting those wearing masks for reasons related to religion, First Amendment activities, and employment

The council approved, in a 10-3 vote, an amendment by Pinto that adjusted a DNA collection provision of Secure DC by until after someone is charged for violent felony or sexual assault misdemeanor and a judge determines probable cause. 

In making her case for DNA collection, Pinto spoke about situations where law enforcement agencies weren’t able to capture a rapist until they committed the act a couple of times, including on a child.  While D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (I-At large) acknowledged the severity of that case, he didn’t deem it sufficient to jeopardize Black people’s civil liberties. 

He, along with Lewis George (D-Ward 4) and White (D-Ward 8) counted among those who stood in opposition to Pinto’s amendment.   

Organizers who flooded Room 412 snapped their fingers in approval as McDuffie told colleagues that approving the amendment, and the DNA collection provision in its entirety, would legitimize, not only the mass collection of Black DNA, but unwarranted investigation of people who hadn’t been convicted. 

Pinto introduced a series of (ANS), including one that adds the Office of the D.C. Auditor, the Office of the Attorney General, and the D.C. inspector general to the list of entities that can receive confidential records of current and former Department of Youth and Rehabilitative Services Youth. 

Another ANS by Pinto allows the retaining of audio/video footage taken from transit corridor surveillance systems, only if it’s needed for evidence in a criminal proceeding. 

On Monday, Pinto, responding to an Informer inquiry at D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson’s press briefing said that she continues to engage a wide range of constituencies throughout all of D.C..’s eight wards. That engagement, she said, inspired aspects of the Secure DC Omnibus Act that expand workforce development opportunities for residents in the D.C. Department of Corrections. 

“That’s why we’re not just doing training [in hospitality], but requiring that the Department of Corrections connect with employers,” Pinto said. “I will continue to hold myself to the highest standard in this regard. I host events all times of the day — morning, afternoon, late in the evening. I try to make myself as accessible to as many people as I can.”

Executing a Ground Strategy

While Natacia Knapper acknowledges that Pinto has honored requests to meet with organizers, she told The Informer that, even with organizers’ input, the Ward 2 council member rarely deviates from her viewpoint on matters of criminal justice and accountability. 

“Councilmember Pinto has remained very steadfast in her belief that this bill is going to meet the safety needs of D.C. residents,” said Knapper, senior organizer with the “It’s been a challenge to get her to understand the deep and violent impact that this will have on people with lived experiences.” 

For months, ACLU-DC has been following the progression of the Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act,  along with other public safety bills that Pinto and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) championed.  

Earlier this year, organizers joined the “Don’t Throw Us under the Crimnibus,” a coalition focused on securing changes to the Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act. On Feb. 6, members of that coalition numbered in the dozens during the first reading of the Secure DC legislation. 

However, Knapper said that ACLU-DC has been working behind the scenes well before then, taking treks to the Wilson Building. 

During the latter part of January, ACLU-DC organizers stood alongside, ,, , , , , and the during a “lobby day” that took place days before the first reading of the bill. 

They conducted another “lobby day” last week in anticipation of this week’s legislative meeting. 

Knapper told The Informer that, by late February, the collective of organizers and advocates had spoken with every council member but Frumin. Frumin later told The Informer that he and staffers met with ACLU-DC representatives, though he couldn’t specify the date of the most recent meeting. 

In speaking about other council members, Knapper commended McDuffie, who pushed back against Pinto’s attempt to include pre-trial DNA collection in the Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act during the first reading on Feb. 6.  

“Seeing the level of support from Councilmember McDuffie on the dais was powerful to those who felt heard,” Knapper said. “The entire council has been good at taking meetings. There are people who have continued relationships with council members throughout this process.”