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)

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

Comments(0)

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)

COUNCILMEMBER JIM GRAHAM, CHAIRPERSON

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

ANNOUNCES

A PUBLIC HEARING

ON

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.

Comments(0)

Last month Washington, DC Councilman Jim Graham introduced a bill that would ban or restrict young people (everyone under 21) from clubs and music venues in the city. First reported on here in February when we highlighted the amazing committee testimony of Ian MacKaye and Spencer’s thoughts on the underage ban. Since then we’ve been doing some behind the scenes work to stand up for the youth in Washington DC on this very important issue.

In response to the outcry over his bill, Councilman Graham invited community leaders, club owners, and other stake holders in the city to attend weekly meetings to discuss the fine points of his bill and work out compromises that everyone can live with. As the only true representatives of the young people this bill will most affect, NYRA Executive Director Alex Koroknay-Palicz (i.e. me) and NYRA President Scott Davidson have been at these meetings making our views heard.

This has been an excellent experience, and a great opportunity to influence policy directly. There were many important stakeholders present, but most of the time the only people in the room under 30 were NYRA officials. While it was disappointing more young people weren’t present, NYRA’s perspective was invaluable in the discussions that raged in the workgroup. Having a seat at the table showed everyone that young people wouldn’t be silent on the issues that affect their lives.

Because of these workgroup meetings, Graham’s bill is now more acceptable than it ever was before. With the exceptions added we are no longer looking at a ban on everyone under 21. All age shows have been pulled back from the brink of extinction and will be fully allowed for any venue that applies for an “underage endorsement”.

After seeing some progress on the club issue, the discussion took a dire turn when a proposal to make underage drinking in the District a criminal offense. Currently, and for most of DC’s history, underage drinking has been a civil - not a criminal - offense. Individuals who were caught drinking under 21 were given a ticket and fined, but were not thrown in jail and nothing was added to their criminal record. This all would have changed if not for NYRA’s intervention.

The main concern was that club owners were being held accountable and punished for serving drinks to someone underage, but the people buying those drinks rarely faced punishment. These club owners were upset they had to pay the price for someone else trying to break the law and wanted a stronger deterrent to underage drinking within their establishments. NYRA was joined by George Washington University Student Association President Lamar Thorpe in opposing the new change.

The room soon became deadlocked and it was starting to look like the underage drinking criminalization would be added to the bill regardless of our objections. Then Scott Davidson came up with a compromise - criminalize it inside clubs, but leave it decriminalized everywhere else. While not perfect, this was a compromise everyone could accept.

With the bill’s language finalized it will now go to another city council hearing. NYRA intends to follow this bill every step of the way and be present at the hearing. We will inform everyone about the public hearing as soon as we receive information about it. We are making important progress that will yield tangible results for the rights of youth in our nation’s capitol.

Comments(0)

On an unseasonably cold May afternoon, I left my internship a little early to meet some old acquaintances on the steps in front of New York City Hall. Another member of The National Youth Rights Association had heard about Lew Fidler’s bill to end the cell phone ban in New York City schools, and he wanted our organization to send a few members to the press conference. Councilmember Fidler’s speech, like every other speech delivered in front of City Hall, was barely audible only a few rows back.

From what I could make out, Councilman Fidler and the other speakers (who included a number of angry parents and two students) said that the ban on cell phones was dangerous. They emphasized the fact that parents need to be in touch with their children before and after school, how the ban was an example of Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein infringing upon “parents rights,” and how parents had not been included in the decision making process. I thanked Councilmember Fidler for his bill (which will do a great service to New York City students,) but I could not help but think that some of the reasons behind it were misguided. The cell phone ban, like most other restrictions in public schools, is not wrong because it infringes on the rights of parents, it is wrong because it infringes on the rights of students themselves. After the press conference ended, a great many angry students carried signs that read “we are not criminals” and “more books less cops.” I think that with only a few reductionist chants, these students said more about what is wrong with the Mayor’s policy than anything I heard during the press conference.

Over thirty years after the Supreme Court ruled that schools can not be enclaves of totalitarianism, schools continue to be driven more by misguided protectionism and a fear of litigation than by respect for student’s rights or the democratic process. Despite the fact that the socio-economic conditions under which compulsory education laws were first passed have been largely eradicated in The United States, students are punished for choosing not to attend class. Despite the fact that experiments with Sudburys and Free Schools have all but proven the educational theories of people like John Holt and A.S. Neil, their ideas remain far outside of the mainstream.

While their schools ignored Tinker V. Des Moines, or perhaps even operated under the misconception that Tinker V. Des Moines had been overturned in the 1980’s, students from across New York City honored the legacy of Mary Beth Tinker by standing up for justice in the face of ridicule and disciplinary action. Walk outs, letters to politicians, and other acts of resistance lead to a critical mass, and the New York City Council was forced to take action. If only this outrage could be channeled in to a general outrage over ageism in America, the root cause of things like the cell phone ban. If only this outrage were present at Croton-Harmon High School.

(more…)

Comments(3)

I almost feel like I’ve betrayed the unwritten code of grassroot orgs everywhere.

A week ago, I pushed a resolution across NYRA Berkeley Execs. To request and encourage donations of $1 from all membership, once a month. Execs would be everything short of required to donate $5. I posted this to the NYRA Berkeley e-tree, so some of you may know.

On one hand, I’m tired of “placeholder” members. People who sign up, and then don’t come to events or even communicate. They think we have a nice idea and they sign-up, but then I’m faced with unrealistic assumptions when I plan events. “Mandatory” donations will separate the people who want to see something happen and the people who have a nice chuckle at my countless e-mails.

On the other hand, I don’t want to alienate those members. Today, they aren’t interested. Tommorrow, they are. The basic gist is that I don’t like the idea of forced donation.

So I put in some nice clauses. You don’t have to donate. It’s all up to you. If you donate time, that’s good enough for me. I will suck you dry for your time, but I will never take your last dollar.

More reasons: Non-profit doesn’t mean poor. What I would give to have $20 to $30 on hand to make copies at a moments notice. To buy coffee for a member. To pay for transportation to city hall. Just to have!

Stable income is key. If we can budget our money and put some away for rainy days, we’ll be in luck. STABLE!

Is this an ad for sucking money out of your chapter? No. I’m offering you both sides. In the recruiting stages, not so good. But I’m not as concerned with signing up new people as I am with getting people involved and getting stuff done. I want to lower the voting age, and I want to do it now.

Why am I posting it here? Well, either to get your vote of confidence or for you to tell me I’m off my rocker, and I should sack this resolution until I lose everything.

Comments(0)

I can think of a wide array of tasks that NYRA members can do in their spare time. Whether you spend 30 minutes a week or well over 30 hours a week, your time would greatly benefit NYRA.

Instead of watching a television show or playing your favorite video game on one night of the week, you can help NYRA. If you think you cannot help NYRA, then think again!

We currently are needing volunteer support in all of areas of the organization. If you are interested in working with people, then perhaps a job as a Regional Chapter Formation Captain would interest you. The captains work regionally with people who are interested in forming chapters of NYRA. The work is not that hard, and all you need to do is to help as much as you can so they can get their chapter formed. If you are interested, fill out an application and contact Adam King. There are currently three regions in need of chapter formation support.

If you would prefer to work behind the scenes, then you could design and develop parts of our website and forums. There is always something that could be enhanced or updated on our site, and new chapters will be needing websites to promote their chapter. If you are interested, fill out an application.

In addition to all of this, there is even more that you can do to help!

For example, you could help update and embellish the content on the Youth Rights Network.

If none of this is your cup of tea, you can start a chapter of your own in your area, join a local chapter, write brochures, write blog entries, or even donate money to NYRA.

If you have done all of this and still want more, or if you are interested in doing something else, contact NYRA.

There is also a thread on the forums that can keep you updated of opened volunteer staff positions within NYRA. Go here to view this thread.

Instead of complaining about NYRA not doing enough, help out!

Comments(1)