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.

Comments(1)

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.

Comments(1)

A BILL

___________

IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________

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)).

Comments(0)