Before the Committee of the Whole
of the Council of the District of Columbia
Testimony of
Larry T. Pretlow II, President
On behalf of the
DC Chapter of the National Youth Rights Association
on
Reforming the Youth Advisory Council
July 10, 2010
First of all, thank you to Chairman Gray and the Council for holding this hearing and inviting the youth of the city to come and share their views on issues that affect us all. As President of the DC Chapter of the National Youth Rights Association I understand all too well the difficulties young people have in being heard and being taken seriously. This is a wonderful opportunity and I thank the Council for extending this invitation to the youth of the city.
As we have seen so far here today, young people have many views, many needs, and many desires from their elected officials. Too often issues affecting young people are decided without their input or involvement. Often without them even knowing what is going on until it is too late. This hearing is a wonderful opportunity not just for young people to express themselves, but for the DC City Council to understand the desires of this very important part of their constituency.
This idea of young people sharing their concerns with the council is so great, I’d like to see it happen more often than every few years. DC needs a permanent avenue for soliciting the opinions of young residents and for giving them direct influence over the laws and rules that govern their lives. Giving young people a permanent place within city government will benefit DC youth and DC government alike.
Since 2002 DC has had a Youth Advisory Council. Some of our members have served on this council and it serves an important function, however there are several structural reasons that prevent the Youth Advisory Council from doing the most amount of good for the city and for our youth. If the DC Youth Advisory Council is to be a credible representative of our city’s youth, it needs to be able to speak freely and independently. As it is currently housed within the mayor’s office, YAC is currently unable to do this. Pressure has been placed on the YAC to prevent it from speaking out against the mayor or his policies. As long as the YAC continues to be under the power of the mayor’s office it will never be able to speak freely or be a true voice for youth. Therefore NYRA-DC strongly urges that the Youth Advisory Council be made independent of the mayor’s office.
I am concerned also whether the Youth Advisory Council is truly representing the needs and wishes of the District’s youth. Many youth are not even aware of the Youth Advisory Council and fewer yet regularly communicate with their representatives on the Council. I myself am running for ANC commissioner in Ward 8 and know that there is nothing that connects a representative to the people better than running for office and campaigning for votes. To make the YAC truly representative of DC’s youth, NYRA-DC strongly urges that Youth Advisory Council members be elected once a year by DC students, the elections could be administered by DC’s high schools.
Finally, there is nothing more dis-empowering than to be promised an opportunity to be heard, express your views, and impact the lives of District residents and then be ignored. As you can see here today there are many youth who have opinions about DC laws because so many of DC laws affect them. To truly be given an opportunity to represent the interests of youth, the Youth Advisory Council must be given real, substantive decision making ability on the DC City Council. Unlike other DC residents, young people under 18 cannot vote for the Mayor, cannot vote for the Council, cannot vote for ANC, or any other office in the city. They are taxed, but are not represented. To ensure the Youth Advisory Council is fully able to represent our youth, NYRA-DC strongly urges that the YAC be given one vote on the DC City Council.
Our city knows what it is like to not control its destiny. Our city knows what it is like to face taxation without representation. Our city knows what it is like to have a non-voting delegate. Please do not disenfranchise young people the way that DC is itself disenfranchised. Please do the right thing and give our youth a real voice, a real say, and a real vote. Thank you.
Larry T. Pretlow II
President
National Youth Rights Association of the Greater Washington, DC Area
Phone: 301-979-5881
E-mail: Larry@dc.youthrights.org
Website: http://dc.youthrights.org
My law professor said something today that resonated with me.He said:
You only possess the rights that you assert.
In other words, liberty is no longer (if it ever truly was) the default in our society.
In a nation that ever increasingly exhibits aspects characteristic of a police state, in the era of the PATRIOT Act, it is more important than ever that citizens of all ages actively engage themselves in the protection of their fundamental rights.
Young people are especially vulnerable to constitutional rights violations, as many of us believe that we lack the clout or resources necessary to fight back.This mentality stymies the youth rights movement, and is as incorrect as it is dangerous.True, young people lack some of the traditional indicators of social power, such as substantial financial means, and, in the case of those under eighteen, the right to vote.But lack of cash-on-hand and even the lack of the right to cast a ballot do not render youth powerless.Youth have significant power indeed, if channeled correctly.
Every person, young or old, rich or poor, has a voice—the ability to speak out.The question is: do we use it?
Merely complaining about an issue, as many who claim to be a part of the youth rights movement do, is at the very best unproductive, and at the worst destructive to the cause.We must do more than complain.
Simply writing a letter about an issue, or timidly discussing a rights violation, while certainly more constructive than complaining, still doesn’t fit the bill.We must do more than hide behind paper and social convention.
We must speak.
But is one person’s voice enough?The answer is almost always no.We must speak as a group—a unified force.In order to do this, we must find like-minded individuals to rally around us.For, certainly, the voice of one hundred is greater than the voice of one.
And so I call upon young people everywhere to unite for the cause of equality.Turn complaints into campaigns, and mobilize whatever resources that may be at your disposal.Form a group you can rely upon, a group sizable enough to attract attention, and make yourselves heard as a unit.This is the single most powerful way to effect change, whether the forum be a school, a city, a state, a nation, or the world.Unite as many, yet speak as one—this is my charge to you, readers.
If you don’t like a school policy, advocate against it with the full force of the student body.If the police in your city are harassing young people, remind the mayor that his job depends on the satisfaction of his constituents, or future constituents as the case may be.If a law discriminates against youth, fight it as a collective voice, all the way to the courts if necessary.
Do these things, and you will find yourself a formidable change agent in a world that worships the status quo.As my law professor so wisely stated:
You only possess the rights that you assert.
So go assert them, together with as many allies as you can attain.
I gave the keynote address at the Hewlett Model Congress in Long Island, NY on April 14, 2000. It was my first major speech, so I wanted to practice it first. I did a practice run at AU with NYRA-AU and my friends in the audience. One of my friends was from Long Island and had attended the previous year’s Model Congress. She said everyone there played “the dot game” during long boring speeches. So I slipped in a reference.
At 4 o’clock this afternoon, NYRA-Southeast Florida filed their lawsuit against the city of West Palm Beach, Florida. After months of attempting to negotiate with the city council to repeal their unconstitutional curfew law, the chapter has now taken their battle to federal court.
NYRA is making history!
This is the first time a NYRA chapter has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the rights of youth. This is also, as far as we are aware, the first time a youth-led civil rights organization has filed a lawsuit against a curfew law anywhere in the country.
Earlier this month the Rochester, NY curfew law was struck down in court, now it is our turn!
NYRA-SEFL is working with veteran civil rights attorney Barry Silver who successfully fought West Palm Beach on another matter. Jeffrey Nadel, chapter president, is confident Silver will beat the city once more. First the curfew in Rochester fell, soon West Palm Beach’s curfew will fall as well, and NYRA is leading the charge!
Could this be the case that makes it to the US Supreme Court? Could NYRA-SEFL v. West Palm Beach be remembered for all time as the case that eradicated all curfew laws? Only time will tell.
NYRA members have led successful efforts against curfews in New York, Missouri, New Jersey, Washington, DC and elsewhere around the country. This is NYRA’s first effort through the courts.
If you want to help, please write a letter to the editor of the West Palm Beach Post and tell them what you think of NYRA-SEFL’s suit against their curfew law: letters@pbpost.com (be polite though)
Councilmember Jim Graham Councilmember Tommy Wells
A BILL
________
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________
To amend, on an emergency basis, the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995 to establish new curfew hours for the summer months.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this act may be cited as the “Youth Summer Curfew Emergency Amendment Act of 2007”.
Sec. 2. The Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995, effective September 20, 1995 (D.C. Law 11-48; D.C. Official Code ‘ 2-1541 et seq.), is amended as follows:
(a) Section 3(1) (D.C. Official Code ‘ 2-1542(1)) is amended to read as follows:
A(1) ACurfew hours@ means:
A(A) For the period from September 16 through June 14:
A(i) From 11:00 p.m. on any Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, until 6:00 a.m. on the following day; and
A(ii) From 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. on any Saturday or Sunday; and
A(B) For the period from June 15 through September 15:
A(i) From 10:00 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, until 6:00 a.m. on the following day; and
A(ii) From 11:00 p.m. on any Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, until 6:00 a.m. on the following day.@.
(b) Paragraph (5) is amended by striking the phrase Aunder the age of 17 years@ and inserting the phrase A17 years of age or younger@ in its place.
(c) A new section 3a is added to read as follows:
ASec. 3a. Notice and enforcement of summer curfew hours.
A(a) Within 5 days of the effective date of the Establishment of Summer Curfew Hours Emergency Amendment Act of 2007, the Mayor shall inform the public of the implementation of the curfew hours established by section 3(1)(B) by posting a notice on the District government and Metropolitan Police Department websites, and publishing a notice in a newspaper of general circulation.
A(b) The Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department shall instruct all patrol officers that appropriate care should be taken when enforcing the curfew hours to ensure proper safety and welfare of the minors remains paramount.@.
Sec. 3. Applicability.
Section 2(a) shall apply as of the 10th day after the effective date of this act.
Sec. 4. Fiscal impact statement.
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement of 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. 5. 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)).
My school’s youth rights club recently distributed a survey in history classes to see where students currently stand on various youth rights issues. We ended up getting back 742 responses, approximately half the school. First, we attempted to recreate a recently published survey that showed that many more students consider themselves capable of voting than consider others their age capable of voting. Our results definitely confirmed this. 60% of students said they were capable of voting, but only 25% trusted must high school students to vote.
Another interesting result was that students actually bought into the voting age as something other than arbitrary. 50% of 14-year-olds, 51% of 15-year-olds, 55% of 16-year-olds, 64% of 17-year-olds and 89% of 18-year-olds considered themselves capable of voting.
Surprisingly, the most acceptable age restriction to students who responded was the driving age (70%), followed by dress codes (50%). Least acceptable were restrictions on free speech further than those applied to adults (12%). 31% believed that schools should require mandatory community service, 25% believed that curfews can be justified, 27% believed random drug testing should be allowed on students and 29% for random locker checks. 96% of students believe that schools should provide education on current events.
All in all, I was impressed by the results. Respondants in general didn’t seem to consider ageist restrictions justified, and many gave youth rights-friendly answers. I was especially impressed with the results for students’ free speech and privacy rights, which were very important to people who answered the survey. However, to some extent, students surveyed did believe what they hear about themselves and their peers in terms of voting ability.
Following this, on May 1, we invited Alex Koroknay-Palicz to lead three discussions at the school on curfews, voting age and student rights. A number of students came during their lunch periods and one teacher brought a government class to two of the discussions. While it was a fairly small group, everyone was very involved and interested and the discussion was extremely active. More details and photos are here: http://www.youthrights.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11030&page=2
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.
Why don't you 
