RFA for STD Internet Surveillance Grant violates Mayor's Executive Order
Related Links

ACT UP slams chat-room surveillance as "dubious use of taxpayer dollars" 10/29/01

OHR on Anti-Discrimination Issuances & EEO Notices 08/22/01

Summersgill: Proposed Rules for the DC Housing Authority Ignore Mayor's Order 08/22/01

Catania admonishes Corp. Counsel for non-enforcement of Mayor's Executive Order on Human Rights 07/16/01

Summersgill writes Mayor on failures to obey executive order on non-discrimination statements 07/12/01

GLAA testimony: Corporation Counsel has conflict of interest 06/14/01

GLAA responds to Corporation Counsel on Human Rights Act interpretation 05/04/01

Corporation Counsel won't budge on Human Rights Act interpretation 03/06/01

GLAA testifies on Office of Human Rights 02/28/01

GLAA testifies on Corporation Counsel 02/16/01

Text of executive order on non-discrimination 08/21/00

GLAA to Corporation Counsel: Stop Undermining Human Rights Act 06/07/00

GLAA asks Mayor for Executive Order on commitment to Human Rights Law 03/17/00

GLAA testifies on Office of Human Rights 02/25/00

GLAA describes efforts with Corporation Counsel 02/13/98

DC Human Rights Law

GLAA on Human Rights

GLAA on AIDS and Public Health

RFA for STD Internet Surveillance Grant violates Mayor's Executive Order

Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance
PO Box 75265
Washington, DC 20013
202-667-5139

November 30, 2001

Dr. Ivan Walks
Department of Health
825 North Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Dear Dr. Walks:

We are writing to comment on the Request For Applications (RFA): #1003-01 for the "Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Internet Surveillance Grant" released on October 3, 2001 DC Department of Health, Preventive Health Services Administration, Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Control.

We are focusing our attention on the anti-discrimination provisions included in the RFA, an area in which we have demonstrated expertise for more than a quarter-century.

On page 9, Section IV, General Provisions under the heading "Nondiscrimination in the Delivery of Services" it states: "In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352), as amended, no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, nationality, sex or political opinion, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program activity receiving STD Internet Surveillance Grant funds."

This language violates Executive Order 2000-131 issued by Mayor Williams on August 21, 2000, requiring all nondiscrimination policy statements to list all categories protected under the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977.

This section omits any reference to the D.C. Human Rights Act or the following protected classes: national origin, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, disability, source of income, and place of residence or business.

The full non-discrimination statement should be:

NOTICE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION
In accordance with the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, D.C. Code section 1-2501 et seq., ("the Act") the District of Columbia does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, disability, source of income, or place of residence or business. Discrimination in violation of the Act will not be tolerated. Violators will be subject to disciplinary action.

The Mayor's Executive Order requires that all proposed nondiscrimination policy statements must be cleared by the Office of Human Rights. Obviously this has not been done. We understand all proposed regulations are routinely vetted by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, which should have referred the nondiscrimination portions of your proposed regulations to OHR. We have found several other cases where individual agencies and the Corporation Counsel's office have ignored the requirements of the Mayor's Executive Order, a situation we find unacceptable.

Charles Holman, Director of the Office of Human Rights sent a memorandum to you on this point on August 22, 2001. You should refer to that memorandum in correcting this RFA, as well as correcting any and all contracts, grants, RFAs, proposed rules, statements, announcements, forms, directives, notices of job postings, general orders, EEO notices, general orders, departmental directives, etc. currently in use or about to be issued.

Please let us know how you are correcting this violation of the Mayor's order.

Sincerely,

Bob Summersgill
President

cc: The Honorable Anthony Williams
All Councilmembers
Robert Rigsby, Corporation Counsel
Charles Holman III, Director, Office of Human Rights


pageok