During the 2006 primary election in Minnesota, 17-year-old Jesse Hunter voted for his first time. Unlike many of his peers, the teenager got an early beginning to fulfilling his civic duties as a citizen. However, he was soon charged with voter fraud – a class one felony in his state. Hunter was too young to legally vote (“Polling Officials”). Alex Koroknay-Palicz, one of the leaders of the movement to lower the voting age, believes that the teenager should not be charged with a crime. Koroknay-Palicz explains that “many adults take the right to vote for granted … yet for exercising the central civil right in this country, Jesse is being charged with a felony” (qtd. in “Polling Officials”). To avoid similar cases of limiting political interest, the voting age should be lowered because in the past several years, many teenagers have worked and paid taxes, volunteered in their communities, and voiced their opinions.
The evolution of voting rights has been a continuous process over the past two centuries. Originally, only white males over the age of 21 could vote in government elections; women and African Americans were disenfranchised for several decades (“History of the Voting Age”). It was not until 1971 that the voting age for federal elections was lowered from age 21 to 18 (“Constitution of the United States”). During World War II, “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote” was a popular expression that explained many people’s objection to disenfranchised teenagers being conscripted to serve in a war. The movement to lower the voting age to 18 continued for 12 to 13 years into the Vietnam War (“Online Conversation”). After the voting age was lowered to 18, smaller movements began to emerge to lower the age even more.
Within the past few years, several state and local bills have been introduced to lower the voting age. For example, Sen. John Vasconcellos of California recently introduced a bill to lower the age to 14 in state and local elections. Although the bill would have only given teenagers partial votes, it was not approved (Garcia B7). In 2002, the city council of Cambridge, Massachusetts, approved a bill to lower the voting age to 17 for local elections (Flaherty A18). In addition, legislators have also introduced bills in Berkeley, California, and in New York City, New York, to lower the age in municipal elections (Epstein 346). Many of these bills have been inspired by politicians who are committed to increasing the rights of their younger constituents.
Compared to a handful of other countries, the voting age in the United States is abnormal. Government officials in Austria and Isle of Man, a subordinate country of the United Kingdom, recently lowered their voting ages to 16 in April of 2007 and November of 2006, respectively. Other countries with a voting age lower than 18 include Nicaragua, which drastically lowered its age from 21 to 16 in 1984; Israel (17 in local elections); Netherlands (16); parts of Germany (16); and a few others (“The World Fact Book”). Developed countries throughout the world are beginning to recognize the importance of the youth vote, but most government officials in the United States still fail to do so.
Teenagers elect to work part time for a variety of reasons: to help pay for their bills or to even provide for their families in some situations. According to a 1995 study, “80% of 16 and 17 year-olds work at some point before graduation” (“Studies”). Considering that the number of teenagers between the ages of 12 to 17 was at 32 million in 2000, that is a substantial amount of teenage workers (“Teen Market Profile”). Because of the number of working teens, it has become apparent that teenagers have a significant amount of buying power and influence on the consumer market. In 2005, it was estimated that teens collectively spent $159 billion of their own money (“TRU Projects Teen Spending Total”). In addition to these figures projected by TRU, the authors of the “Teen Market Profile” also found that teenagers have an average $4,500 in available spending money each year (“Teen Market Profile”). The teenage segment of the population continues to contribute to the economy each year by working and spending the money they earn.
Most teenagers, whether employed or not, are required by the IRS to pay taxes, just like adults. In states with sales taxes, all consumers must pay an additional percentage of their purchase for the benefit of their state and local governments. The mean sales tax of the country is at a rate of 6.8 percent (“Frequently Asked Questions”). If the annual spending rate of teenagers is computed with the sales tax rate, teenagers spend nearly $11 billion in sales tax alone each year. Working teens are also subjected to federal and state income taxes and FICA taxes, the taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare. These teenagers do not have any representation in how their money is spent, but they are still required to pay these taxes. However, some opponents believe that they do not have a “stake in democracy because they typically do not own property or pay taxes on a full-time income” (Vermeer). This is a classic case of the infamous “taxation without representation” from the American Revolutionary War during the eighteenth century.
Teenagers are continuing to volunteer in their schools, churches, and communities. Recent studies have shown that the volunteer rates of teenagers have increased two-fold in the past few years. The rates of teenaged volunteers are largely consistent with that of the adult population (“Volunteerism dipped for first time”). However, there are some critics who believe that teenagers are not active in their communities, and that they are not aware of the “key issues affecting society” (Diekmeyer). The rates of teenage volunteerism continue to rise, and it is proof that teenagers are active citizens.
By the time a student becomes 16 years old, he or she has likely completed a civics course and voiced his or her opinions about several different issues. In North Carolina, all students are required to complete a course in civics and economics. The course teaches students about the government, how it works, the importance of informed voting, and other relevant issues (“Social Studies”). Oftentimes, these courses include political debates among students and teachers. From an early age, students are encouraged to participate in the KidsVoting program, a program that allows students to cast mock votes for government officials. In 1996, one of the earlier years of the program, more than 45 million students turned out to vote. The implementation of the program has also shown a correlation to an increase of parents turning out to vote (Simon). In addition to learning about government in the classroom, many students are involved as leaders of clubs and community organizations, where they can voice their opinions and gain firsthand experience of leadership.
Teens work and pay taxes, volunteer in the community, and voice their opinions; therefore, the voting age should be lowered to 16. If the government and other concerned citizens are interested in increasing interest, turnout for young adults, and developing better relationships between parents and teenagers, the voting age should be lowered. To show the effectiveness of a lower voting age, several states or even municipalities should lower the age to vote. If legislators are resistant, action should be taken to allow students to vote in local school board elections. The school board has the most control and influence on teenagers, and it is necessary that they have representation on this government body. Other countries have lowered their voting ages, and it is now time for the United States to do the same.
Works Cited
“Constitution of the United States.” The National Archives Experience. 2007. The National Archives Experience. 24 Apr 2007 http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html.
Diekmeyer, Peter. “Raise the voting age to 30.” Diekmeyer Report. 2002. Diekmeyer Report. 25 Apr 2007 http://www.peterdiekmeyer.com/020708.html.
Epstein, Robert. The Case Against Adolescence. 1st. Sanger, C.A.: Quill Driver Books, 2007.
Flaherty, Julie. “Voting Rights for 17-Year-Olds.” The New York Times. 27 Mar 2002: A18. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Group Databases. A.C. Reynolds High School Lib., Asheville, N.C. Gale Group. 24 Apr 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com.
“Frequently Asked Questions.” The Sales Tax Clearing House. 2007. The Sales Tax Clearing House. 29 Apr 2007 http://thestc.com/FAQ.stm.
Garcia, Ken. “Courting the Youth Vote.” San Francisco Chronicle. 10 May 2004: B7. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Group Databases. A.C. Reynolds High School Lib., Asheville, N.C. Gale Group. 24 Apr 2007 http://galenet.galegroup.com.
“History of Voting.” ActiVote. 2007. ActiVote. 24 Apr 2007
Home2/History_of_Voting/history_of_voting.html>.
“Online Conversation: Law, Diversity, and the Vote.” Youth Citizenship. 2007. American Bar Association. 24 Apr 2007
citizenship.html>.
“Polling Officials Allowed 17-Year-Old to Vote.” National Youth Rights Association. 10 Oct 2006. National Youth Rights Association. 23 Apr 2007
media/10-10-06VoterFraud.pdf>.
Simon, James. “Nurturing democracy, citizenship and civic virtue: The Kids Voting program revisited.” Journal of Social Studies Research. 1998. Kansas State University. 24 Apr 2007 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3823/is_199804/ai_n8787072/print.
“Social Studies.” North Carolina Standard Course of Study. North Carolina Public Schools. 29 Apr 2007 http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/socialstudies/scos/.
“Studies: Light 1995; Steinberg and Cauffman 1995.” Evansville Courier 10 Aug 2003: B3.
“Teen Market Profile.” Magazine Publishers of America. 2007. Mediamark Research, Inc. 24 Apr 2007 http://www.magazine.org/marketprofiles.
“The World Fact Book.” CIA - The World Fact Book. 2007. Central Intelligence Agency. 25 Apr 2007 https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/.
“TRU Projects Teen Spending Total for 2005 at $159 Billion.” Merchandise Group. 30 Dec 2005. Merchandise Group. 24 Apr 2007 http://www.merchandisegroup.com/.
Vermeer, Susan. “Voting Age.” Citizenship Education. May 2004. Education Commission of the States. 24 Apr 2007 http://www.ecs.org.
“Volunteerism dipped for first time since 9/11, study shows.” CNN. 15 Apr 2007. CNN. 25 Apr 2007 http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/15/volunteer.rate/.
There are a lot of pretty disgusting news stories out there proving more and more how little youth are regarded in society. This, however, has got to be one of the worst.
Divorced parents clash over 12-year-old son’s circumcision
A former Medford man who converted to Judaism wants his 12-year-old son to do the same. That requires circumcision — something the mother adamantly opposes.
The divorced couple has been battling over the issue for three years, including whether the boy wants to undergo the procedure. So far, Oregon courts have squarely sided with the father, who has custody.
Well, good for the dad for making a personal religious choice. How’s about, oh, letting his son make his own personal religious choice instead of just expecting him to fall like a domino when you snap your fingers? Oh, but you’ve got one problem. His mother doesn’t want it. You two play tug-of-war with your son’s foreskin, without seeming to seriously care what the boy himself has to say about it. You two fight over what he has to say. Shut up and let him speak. It’s HIS body, not yours!
That doesn’t surprise Kathy T. Graham, associate dean for academic affairs at Willamette University College of Law.
“The primary custodial parent is the one that makes the decisions about religion and education and about matters of child-rearing,” Graham said.
Other family law experts agree, but say the courts should at least look into the situation to make sure the surgery is in the best interests of the child.
“You’re talking about not just religious instruction or whether you’re going to send the child to parochial school or public school,” commented Lawrence D. Gorin, a Portland attorney. “This is a matter of permanent change of bodily structure. And it’s irreversible.”
That’s right! We’re not talking just a matter of education. We’re talking a medical procedure! We’re essentially talking about people who find a harmless piece on their child’s body and think “I don’t like it, take it off”, as if the kid were just a lifeless piece of meat. Sickening. (more…)
As was reported in a previous NYRA blog entry, NYRA participated in several work group sessions with DC City Councilmember Jim Graham. Graham wanted to introduce an ageist bill, but was willing to listen to some of what we had to say, and the final draft of the legislation was significantly better than what Graham was going to introduce before. While NYRA appreciates Councilmember Graham’s willingness to let us participate in the legislative process, we are still opposed to his bill for a number of reasons.
Last night several NYRA members attended a public committee hearing at which Graham’s bill was discussed at length. Towards the end of the hearing, NYRA Executive Director Alex Koroknay-Palicz, NYRA President Scott Davidson, and ACLU of the National Capitol Area Legislative Council Stephen Block testified against the bill. Mr. Block’s testimony focused on the provision in the bill that makes underage drinking a criminal offense in certain places. The remarks that Koroknay-Palicz and Davidson delivered to the committee focused mostly on the aspects of the bill that make it more difficult for those under eighteen to enter bars and clubs.
Councilmember Graham introduced his bill in response to the tragic death of Talesha Ford, a seventeen year old woman who was shot at a DC night club. In addition to making clubs safer, the bill will keep young people out of many bars and nightclubs. NYRA feels that instead of violating the civil rights of potential victims, the government should work to keep dangerous criminals out of these establishments. As Alex Koroknay-Palicz said in his testimony “…the person we need to blame is the man who pulled that trigger. The shooter is and was an adult. If this bill was enacted then, it would have done nothing to stop him from being at that club. His stray bullet would have just hit someone else and a different family would now be mourning.”
The hearing lasted about four hours, and most of the people who testified supported it. Much of the testimony did not deal directly with the issues with which NYRA was most concerned. NYRA brought a number of young people to the hearing, but they had left by the time NYRA representatives testified.
NYRA does support certain aspects of this bill. We think that having clubs submit security plans and allowing clubs to directly hire off duty police officers are excellent ideas.
Before the Committee on Public Works and the Environment
of the Council of the District of Columbia
Testimony of
Alex Koroknay-Palicz
On behalf of the
National Youth Rights Association
on
Bill 17-88
The Protection and Safety of Underage Persons Amendment Act of 2007
April 18, 2007
I’d like to thank Councilman Graham for organizing the workgroup meetings to discuss this bill over the last few weeks. For the most part they were very productive and I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to participate in them. I echo the wish of others at the workgroup: these meetings shouldn’t stop once this bill is passed. Thanks to the impressive work workgroup, this bill has been improved greatly over the initial draft.
That being said, I am not happy with this bill and the membership of the National Youth Rights Association is not happy with this bill. The focus of this bill is on teens when the focus should be on violence. The focus of this bill is on Taleshia Ford; this bill blames Taleshia Ford for being in the club that day, and it blames Taleshia Ford for getting hit by a stray bullet. This bill blames the victim and all of her peers for a heinous crime, when the person we need to blame is the man who pulled that trigger. The shooter is and was an adult. If this bill was enacted then, it would have done nothing to stop him from being at that club. His stray bullet would have just hit someone else and a different family would now be mourning.
This bill loses sight of what its real goal should be: to stop violence and make our clubs safer for all people. The one part of this bill that does address violence directly is the requirement that clubs submit a security plan and obtain proper training for their security personnel. This is a wonderful idea and most people at the workgroup were supportive of it.
My issue with it, however, is it does not go far enough.
At the workgroup meetings, the majority of those present reached the conclusion that only a handful of clubs would apply for this underage endorsement, many of whom being clubs that are safe venues to begin with. The unsafe venues will, no doubt, just impose an 18-year-old limit and avoid the security plan requirement altogether. This inevitability was laughed off at the meetings, but this is the central weakness of this bill. The dangerous clubs won’t have their security plans monitored, and the safe clubs will.
There is something intrinsically wrong with that.
At several points during the workgroup meetings I, and others, suggested that we should simply require ALL clubs submit a security plan. Each time that was suggested, I noticed many nods of approval and even a few fist-pumps from the people around the table in agreement, yet this suggestion was seen as a distraction from this bill and never allowed to be discussed in depth.
I think this is exactly what we should be discussing. Violence at clubs is a problem that affects all people regardless of their age. One dead 18-year-old is no better than one dead 17-year-old. I believe it was the representatives from Peaceaholics who pointed out that having properly trained security personnel at the clubs is one of the best ways of defusing violent, confrontational situations. If this is such a good solution, why limit it to a handful of clubs that apply for an underage endorsement?
All clubs – regardless of the age of their patrons – should submit a security plan.
If we do that, we would be, in effect, requiring all clubs in the city to get an underage endorsement and there would no longer be a need for the 18-year-old age requirement. All clubs would be treated the same.
A key benefit of this is it covers cases where teens under 18 sneak into clubs without the underage endorsement. This is the danger a two-tiered system creates. If we are going to legislate a class of safe clubs and a class of dangerous clubs, teens will somehow, someway, find a way into those dangerous 18 and over clubs who don’t have to submit a security plan. If all clubs have trained personnel at the door, then this is much less of a worry.
Finally, I’d like to end by pointing out the lack of youth input into this process. The workgroup meetings were wonderful, but there was no representation by those who this bill seeks to govern the most: teens under 18. The only semblance of “youth” present were from my organization, the National Youth Rights Association.
Whether it is this bill, or our schools, or the curfew, or any other issue that affects the daily lives of youth – their voice is not listened to when it should be the most important. There has not been enough effort to bring their voices into government and there has not been enough good faith to listen to their voices when they do speak. It is my hope that DC can follow the example of countries like Austria and Brazil and truly apply their slogan of “Taxation without representation” by lowering its voting age to include young people in this process more directly.
Perhaps then we could get down to the real business of making our city safer for all people – regardless of age – instead of proposing bills that distract us from that worthy goal by punishing teens for the crimes of adults.
To amend Title 25 of the District of Columbia Official Code to prevent the entrance of persons under the age of 18 into alcoholic beverage control licensed nightclubs, or into licensed establishments with entertainment endorsements during curfew hours, with certain exceptions, including accompaniment by a parent or legal guardian; to allow certain nightclubs and licensees with entertainment endorsements to apply for underage endorsement, to include a written security plan with specific requirements; to establish grounds for denial, suspension or revocation for two primary tier violations; to clarify that licensees shall maintain ownership and control of a venue, including responsibility for security, when renting or providing a venue to promoters or for special events; and to allow licensees to hire individual off-duty officers directly.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this act may be cited as the “Taleshia Ford Memorial Amendment Act of 2007”.
Sec. 2. Title 25 of the District of Columbia Official Code is amended as follows:
(a) Section 25-782 is amended as follows:
(1) A new subsection (a)(1) is added to read as follows:
“(a)(1)(A) No licensee under an on-premises retailer’s license, class CN or DN shall permit a person under 18 years of age to enter the licensed establishment.
“(B)(i) No licensee with an entertainment endorsement, shall permit a person under 18 years of age to enter or remain in the licensed establishment from 11:00 p.m. on any Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, until 6:00 a.m. on the following day, and from 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. on any Saturday or Sunday.
(ii) During the months of July and August, the restriction shall be from 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m, Monday through Sunday.
(C) This subsection shall not apply if the establishment receives underage endorsement, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of this paragraph; or if the person under 18 years of age is:
(i) Accompanied by a parent or legal guardian;
(ii) Involved in an emergency;
(iii) A paid employee of the licensee;
(iv) A person providing entertainment, with or without remuneration;
(v) Working with a government agency as part of a licensee compliance check; or
(vi) Attending a social gathering where alcoholic beverages are neither sold nor served at the licensed establishment. A social gathering for persons under 21 years of age shall only be held after all alcoholic beverages have been secured and written notice has been provided by the licensed establishment at least seventy-two hours in advance to both MPD and ABRA.
(D) A licensee, other than an establishment that permits nude dancing, may submit an application for “underage endorsement”, for review and approval by the Board. An initial application may be submitted at any time. Thereafter, underage endorsement shall be placed on the applicant’s license and subject to renewal with the license. Such application shall include:
(i) The specific age category to be admitted;
(ii) A written security plan which shall include at least the following elements:
aa. A statement on the type of security training provided for, and completed by, establishment personnel, including conflict resolution training; procedures for handling violent incidents, other emergencies, and calling MPD and ABRA inspectors; and procedures for crowd control and preventing overcrowding;
bb. The establishment’s identification checking and patron search procedures; and
cc. Procedures for ensuring that only persons 21 years or older are served alcohol.
(iii) In determining whether an application is adequate for approval, the Board may consider:
aa. The licensee/applicant’s incident record; and
bb. The type of programming to be presented at the licensee establishment.
“(E) Two “tier-one” violations within a two-year period, or a pattern of violent incidents related to the operation of the establishment, will be grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation of “underage endorsement”.
“(F) Notwithstanding this subsection, the holder of a class CN or DN retailers license, or the holder of a any retailer’s license with an entertainment endorsement, may submit an application pursuant to paragraph (D) of this subsection for a one-day underage endorsement. The application may be submitted as soon as possible but no less than 10 calendar days prior to the event. If the application is not submitted within 10 calendar days prior to the event, the Board shall not accept the application. The Board has no authority to grant such a request more than six (6) times in a calendar year.”. (2) Subsection (b) is amended by striking the phrase “violating subsection (a)” and inserting the phrase “violating subsection (a) or (a)(1)” in its place.
(3) A new subsection (f) is added to read as follows:
“(f) A violation of either subsection (a) or (a)(1) shall constitute a primary tier violation under Section 25-830(c)(1).”.
(b) A new section 25-797 is added to read as follows:
Ҥ 25-797. Limitation on Transfer of Responsibility for Licensee Security
“(a) The holder of an on-premises retailer’s license may rent out or provide the licensed establishment for use by a third party or promoter for a specific event provided that the licensee maintains ownership and control of the licensed establishment for the duration of the event, including modes of ingress or egress, and the staff of the establishment, including bar and security staff.
“(b) Under no circumstances shall a licensee permit the third party or promoter to be responsible for providing security or maintain control over the establishment’s existing security personnel.
(c) A violation of this section shall constitute a primary tier violation under Section 25-830(c)(1).”.
(c) Section 25-1002 is amended by adding a new paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) to read as follows:
“(4)(A) A licensee may, without force or violence, confiscate any identification that it has reason to believe is a fraudulent identification document presented for the purpose of entering a licensee establishment or purchasing alcoholic beverages.
(B) The licensee shall submit the identification so confiscated to a law-enforcement officer at the police district in which the establishment is located within forty-eight hours of its confiscation.
(C) A law enforcement officer shall provide the licensee a receipt for each identification received pursuant to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(D) A licensee shall not be liable for any civil damages for confiscation of identification under this paragraph other than personal injury, unless it is proven the licensee acted in bad faith or maliciously.
“(5)(A) The processing fee for the filing of an underage endorsement application, including a one-day permission, shall be one hundred and fifty dollars ($150). The initial and annual fee for an underage endorsement shall be three hundred ($300), to be charged in addition to underlying license fees and the processing fee of an underage endorsement application. The Board shall establish an appropriate fee for a one-day underage endorsement.
(d) Section 25-1002(c)(4)(D) is amended to read as follows:
“(D)(i) No person under the age of 21 shall be criminally charged with the offense of possession or drinking an alcoholic beverage under this section, unless it is alleged that the crime occurred within a licensee establishment, but shall be subject to civil penalties under subsection (e) of this section.
“(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, but subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph, whenever any person has attained the age of 21, or whenever all juvenile court proceedings relating to that person have been terminated, whichever is later, any person who was arrested for, or criminally charged by information with, any offense under this section when under the age of 21 may petition the court for an order completely expunging from the official records all records relating to the arrest, information, trial, conviction, or dismissal of the person.
“(iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, all records relating to the arrest, information, trial, conviction, or dismissal of the person, shall be completely expunged upon the person’s satisfactory completion of a diversion program established by the Mayor, or when the person reaches 21 years of age, whichever first occurs.”.
(e) Section 25-798(b) is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
“(f)(i) Notwithstanding any provision in this subchapter, a licensee or licensees, independently or in a group, may directly hire an individual, off-duty MPD officer to patrol the surrounding area of an establishment for the purpose of maintaining public safety, including the remediation of traffic congestion and the safety of public patrons, during their approach and departure from the establishment.
“(ii) An officer hired pursuant to this paragraph shall not enter or remain inside a licensee establishment unless the officer is responding to a call of alleged criminal activity within the establishment.”.
Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement.
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement provided by the Chief Financial Officer as the fiscal impact statement required by section 602 (c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02 (c) (3)).
Sec. 4. Effective date.
This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), and shall remain in effect for no longer than 90 days, as provided for emergency acts of the Council of the District of Columbia in section 412(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 788; D.C. Official Code § 1-204.12(a)).
Bill 17-88, The “Protection And Safety Of Underage Persons Amendment Act of 2007”
WEDNESDAY APRIL 18, 2007 AT 6 P.M.
Room 412, John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
Councilmember Jim Graham, Chairperson of the Committee on Public Works and the Environment, will convene a public hearing on Bill 17-88, the “Protection and Safety of Underage Persons Amendment Act of 2007”. The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 412 of the Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016. This hearing has been abbreviated to provide notice to the public.
Chairperson Graham introduced Bill 17-88 on February 6, 2007. Chairperson Graham convened a working group to discuss, and find consensus on, various aspects of the bill, as introduced. The public hearing will include consideration of the results of the working group’s collaboration, in the form of a draft, revised version of the introduced bill. Copies of the draft, revised bill may be obtained by contacting the Committee office, or the office of Councilmember Jim Graham.
The Committee invites the public to testify or to submit written testimony, which will be made a part of the official record. Those who wish to testify should contact Mrs. LaDorsa Willis at (202) 724-8195 before 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 17. Witnesses should bring 16 copies of their testimony to the hearing. Individuals will be permitted 3 minutes for oral presentation; individuals representing organizations or groups, 5 minutes.
If you are unable to testify at the public hearing, written statements are encouraged and will be made part of the official record. Copies of written statements should be submitted to Mrs. LaDorsa Willis, Committee on Public Works and the Environment, Room 116, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20004, or electronically at lwillis@dccouncil.us, by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 19, 2007.
A piece in the Barre Montpelier Times Argus was a breath of fresh air. Even if only an oped, it is still nice to see the pro-youth point of view being published. Let’s have a look at this, shall we?
The rights of young people have been in the news lately. In Montpelier, student posters decrying public indifference to Darfur were censored by school administrators. In Barre, young people have been warned they can be arrested – solely because of their age – if they venture out at night.
Right off the bat, we see two vomit-inducing strikes at innocent young people. For one, students are not allowed to publicly renounce genocide in school? That’s what this is. It’s not like the school admins saw it that way. They figured the students were riled up about something or other and wanted to silence them to keep from being annoyed. That’s one possibility. After all, students are the inferiors of the situation. They don’t matter, right?
And let’s not forget good old Barre. A curfew? Why, because a few residents were offended and scared at the idea of those “horrible” young people being outside at night doing horrible things? Oh, right, they made up some junk about it being in place to prevent crime. After all, everyone knows teens out at night can only be out to destroy property or rape someone. Or is it to protect teens from being mugged or raped? These people need to make up their minds. In any case, we have yet another town enacting a curfew, the feel-good band-aid to cover up a municipality’s real problems and blame a scapegoat. That’ll get your votes!
To think these things are happening in perhaps the most freedom loving state of the union is even more disturbing! (more…)
On Thursday, the members of the School Leadership Team at Reynolds High School debated electronic devices and cell phone usage policy. Despite the efforts of of the student council president and I, the committee voted to ban all cell phone usage during class changes, effective next year. We were able to convince them to allow cell phones during lunch, however, which is better than nothing.
An assistant principal and a few other teachers thought it would be best to leave the current policy as it is because the new rules will be unenforceable. However, they were outnumbered. At one time during the meeting, some members were even talking about adding a scrambler to the cell phone tower, but they realized that that would be unfeasible. It would be too dangerous during a crisis situation where the administrators would have to use their cell phones.
That night, I spoke to the Buncombe County Board of Education about the personal email accounts. Richard Greene, the chair of the board, seemed to be willing to reconsider the ban.
Age of Reason is a group blog for the National Youth Rights Association, maintained by our members to help educate and inform the public about youth rights.
Why don't you 
Comments(1)
