The following letter was sent to each member of the D.C. Council. At a legislative session on May 6, Acting Chair Charlene Drew Jarvis withdrew from consideration a "memorandum of understanding" (MOU) backing the White House plan when it became clear that the MOU lacked sufficient support from councilmembers. However, she called a special meeting the following Friday evening, after new Ward 6 Councilmember was sworn in (and at a time when Councilmember Schwartz was not available). This time, the MOU — with added language indicating areas where the Council and the White House agreed to disagree — was adopted. The matter has now gone to Capitol Hill, where Congress is not bound by the MOU.See response from Councilmember Evans
See response from Councilmember Schwartz
Monday, May 5, 1997
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Councilmember:
We understand that you and your colleagues are scheduled to vote shortly on President Clinton's proposal to assist the District by federalizing several city functions. While we are painfully aware of the District's financial plight, and of the powerful pull of additional federal funds, we must urge that you soberly consider the cost to Home Rule of undue haste in accepting a flawed proposal.
Specifically, we urge you to insist that the criminal law and the sentencing code be left within local control before you accept any proposal. No one has a greater stake in Home Rule than the gay and lesbian community, on whose behalf we have worked with our locally elected officials for over two decades to build our criminal code into what it is today. To replace the District's sentencing guidelines, and to relinquish jurisdiction over our criminal code, is simply too high a price to pay.
As the District of Columbia Coalition on Corrections Reform has stated, “Any changes in District law should come from D.C. voters and elected officials.” We rely on you to defend us, your constituents, against further federal colonization of the District. We have lost too much ground already. It is time for the Council to step up and hold its ground before it becomes entirely irrelevant and twenty years of legislative progress are traded away.
We know the pressures you are under. Please resist them in favor of due deliberation, and avoid agreeing to any proposal that further erodes Home Rule and cedes your own jurisdiction in return for federal help which ought to be forthcoming in any case. Compromise is one thing, but undermining the Council's very reason for existence is another. We are depending on you.
Thank you for your attention and for your public service during these difficult times for our city.
Sincerely,
Rick Rosendall
President
Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington
Councilmember Jack Evans responds
May 14, 1997
Mr. Rick Rosendall
President
Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance
P.O. Box 75265
Washington, DC 20013-5265
Dear Mr. Rosendall [handwritten "Rick"]:
I received your May 5, 1997 letter regarding the "President's Plan."
The consequences of the President's Plan are far-reaching and dramatic. The President's proposals, we believe, are important first steps toward a healthy and fair relationship between the federal government and the District of Columbia. I encourage you to obtain a copy of PR 12-116, the resolution which sets forth the Council's reservations about the President's Plan, and it will be an addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding. I trust that GLAA will monitor closely the progress of the Memorandum of Understanding and of the supporting legislation through Congress.
Thank you for your letter.
Sincerely,
Jack Evans
Councilmember, Ward 2
Councilmember Carol Schwartz responds
May 6, 1997
Rick Rosendall
President, Gay and Lesbian Activists
Alliance of Washington
P.O. Box 75265
Washington, D.C. 20013-5265
Dear Rick:
Thank you for your letter of May 5 regarding President Clinton's proposal to federalize certain city functions. You are absolutely right to emphasize the value of Home Rule in this context. The Council should not be willing to sacrifice jurisdiction over the District's criminal code in exchange for what, in some cases at least, appear to be uncertain short-term financial gains.
During deliberations with the Office of Management and Budget, I and other Councilmembers have consistently underlined the Council's primary responsibility for the citizens of the District of Columbia. In fact, today I did not support the President's Plan. Please continue to keep me informed on any issues which concern you.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Carol Schwartz
Councilmember, At-Large
