Responses of Kathy Patterson to GLAA 2006 Questionnaire
for DC Council Candidates
| Yes/No | Substance | Record | Championship | Total |
| 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 10 |
Public Safety
1. Will you support funding for mandatory gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) sensitivity and diversity training for all members of the Fire/EMS Department?
Yes, I will. Six years ago, Mayor Williams announced that the Fire/EMS Department’s sensitivity and diversity program would be named after Tyra Hunter, who was cruelly taunted and refused treatment by a D.C. firefighter who discovered that Tyra was transgendered. We need to honor Tyra Hunter’s memory and fulfill the commitment that the Mayor and Fire Chief made to root out prejudice by funding sensitivity and diversity training for members of the Fire/EMS Department. Homophobic comments posted on the Internet by members of the Fire/EMS Department in recent years clearly demonstrate that this training is needed.
2. Will you call on the new Mayor to appoint a new Fire/EMS Department Chief who is committed to rooting out the Department’s deeply entrenched homophobia and transphobia?
Yes. The next chief of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department must lead by example and make clear that all forms of prejudice, including homophobia and transphobia, will not be tolerated. During my 12 years on the Council, I have been known for thorough and exacting confirmation hearings for agency director nominees, and I will bring that commitment to a rigorous confirmation process to the full Council as Council Chairman. I will not only call on the new Mayor to appoint a Fire/EMS Chief who is committed to stamping out homophobia and transphobia, I will also ask any nominee for the Fire/EMS Chief position to make this commitment publicly.
3. Will you support a budget for the Office of Police Complaints large enough to continue to avoid developing a backlog of cases?
Yes, I will – and I have the record to prove it. When I chaired the Judiciary Committee from January 2001 to December 2004, I added funds for the Office of Police Complaints during three out of four budget cycles to ensure that the Office had sufficient resources to do its job properly. I knew that a previous office (the Office of Civilian Complaints, which was abolished in 1995 during the city’s fiscal crisis) had never been effective, in part because it quickly accumulated a large backlog of cases, and I was determined to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
During the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle, I added $50,000 to the Office of Police Complaints budget to support its mediation program, because an effective mediation program is one of the most powerful tools for resolving cases quickly and efficiently.
In the fiscal year 2004 budget, Mayor Williams proposed an $83,000 cut (5 percent) to the Office of Police Complaints budget. This cut included a $60,000, or 32 percent, reduction to the Office of Police Complaints’ mediation and complaint examination functions. I restored the $83,000 to the Office of Police Complaints budget.
Finally, during the fiscal year 2005 budget cycle, I added $130,000 to the Office of Police Complaints budget to fund two investigator positions.
4. Will you oppose legislation creating so-called “prostitution-free zones,” which would give the police, who routinely assume that every transgendered person is a prostitute until proven otherwise, virtually unlimited power to harass our transgendered residents?
Yes – and I moved an amendment in the Judiciary Committee this spring to strike the part of Bill 16-247, the “Omnibus Public Safety Amendment Act of 2006,” that authorizes the Chief of Police to declare an area a “prostitution-free zone” for as long as 10 days. My amendment, which unfortunately was not successful, was based on serious constitutional concerns. This provision would essentially allow police officers to stop anyone they think is a prostitute, and the behavior of the individual would not have to be a factor in an arrest. During the debate, I pointed out that this provision would have a disproportionate impact on transgendered residents, who are often mistaken or profiled as prostitutes.
I worked with Councilmember Catania on a successful amendment to Bill 16-247 that removed overly-broad language stating that a person can be arrested if a police officer observes “that such person has no other apparent lawful reason for congregating in the prostitution-free zone.” Once again, such language could have served as license to harass transgendered residents, and I was glad to take action to remove this inappropriate language.
AIDS and Public Health
5. Do you agree that the drive to make HIV testing routine among District residents should include funding for counseling and referrals to treatment facilities for those testing positive?
Definitely yes. It is important for people to know their HIV status, but is even more important to help people know what to do if they test HIV-positive: how to protect themselves and their partners from infection or re-infection, and how to protect their health through treatment. The need to link HIV-positive people to counseling and treatment is particularly urgent now that there are more effective anti-retroviral therapies that can help keep HIV in check. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at least 50 percent of those living with HIV are not receiving care. This is unacceptable. Those who test HIV-positive must be made aware of the treatment options and helped to gain access to life-prolonging medications.
6. Are you committed to continuing and expanding the District’s condom distribution program?
Yes. Condom distribution is an important method of preventing the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases, including HIV. Although there is valid concern about encouraging premature sexual activity among young people, studies have consistently shown that the provision of condoms does not increase sexual activity. I support continuing and expanding the District’s condom distribution program as part of a broader effort to provide effective sex and HIV education programs and to educate young people about all of the options, including abstinence from sexual activity until they are physically and emotionally ready. I am also working with the Board of Education and Metro TeenAIDS to institute a stronger, comprehensive sex education program in our schools.
7. The District is being forced by the federal government to switch from a unique identifier system to a names reporting system for people testing positive for HIV. Will you support legislation to strengthen our medical privacy laws, such as by creating a private right of action for those whose confidentiality is violated by District government employees or contractors?
Yes. To avoid a very significant loss of federal funds provided through the Ryan White CARE Act, the District must switch to a names reporting system this fall. The violation of confidentiality for those who test positive for HIV can have very serious consequences, including the loss of a job or other forms of discrimination. Moreover, a breach of confidentiality will harm not only those individuals whose information has been improperly disclosed, but will also discourage others from coming forward to get tested for HIV. Encouraging people to get tested and treated for HIV is of prime importance. Therefore, I would support an effort to review and strengthen our medical privacy laws to protect those whose confidentiality is violated by District government employees or contractors.
Human Rights
8. Will you support a budget for the Office of Human Rights (OHR) large enough to allow it to reduce to 270 days the average gap between the time that a discrimination complaint is filed and the time OHR issues a finding of probable cause?
Yes, but I would want to go even further than that. The D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977 sets a 120-day time frame for the Office of Human Rights to determine if there is probable cause to believe that an unlawful discriminatory practice has occurred. The District of Columbia government must faithfully implement the laws that are on the books – our human rights protections must be more than good intentions. Nine months (270 days) is simply too long to wait for someone who has lost his or her job due to unlawful discrimination.
9. Will you block ceremonial resolutions and otherwise decline to honor individuals or organizations that promote any sort of bigotry?
Yes, I will. When the D.C. Council enacted the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, the Council committed this government to fight discrimination in employment, housing, educational institutions and public accommodations on the basis of race, sex, national or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and other demographic categories. The Council must follow not only the letter, but also the spirit of the Human Rights Act. One way we can do this is by blocking ceremonial resolutions and other honors or awards for groups or organizations that promote any sort of bigotry.
10. Are you committed to publicizing and enforcing the provisions of the D.C. Human Rights Act forbidding discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression?
Yes. When I chaired the Committee on Government Operations from 1997 to 2001, I frequently stated that the D.C. Human Rights Act is a model piece of legislation due to the breadth of its human rights protections, but that the Act has little meaning unless it is effectively implemented. The same principle applies to the human rights protections that the Council enacted for gender identity or expression: we must publicize the existence of these new human rights protections, and aggressively enforce them in the areas of employment, housing, educational institutions, and public accommodations. Putting a law on the books is meaningless unless we are committed to enforcing it.
I have a strong record in advocating for effective implementation of the D.C. Human Rights Act. When GLAA pointed out numerous instances in which D.C. government agencies had failed to incorporate parts of the Human Rights Act into their non-discrimination policies and statements, I worked closely with GLAA to persuade Mayor Williams to update and re-issue an executive order requiring District agencies to include all of the protected classes covered in the Human Rights Act in all non-discrimination notices. In August 2000, Mayor Williams issued the executive order, and agency compliance has been much stronger ever since. This is the same approach that I would take with the protections for gender identity or expression: we must ensure that these protections are part of everyday policy and practice.
Marriage and Family
11. Do you support legal recognition of marriages between partners of the same sex?
Yes, I do – and I have consistently stated my support for legal recognition of marriages between same-sex couples since I first ran for office in 1994. In particular, I think that we must strongly oppose and challenge the harmful notion that an expansion of rights for one group (in this case, gay and lesbian partners) will hurt or harm another group (in this case, heterosexual couples).
At the same time, I know that we must be realistic in our efforts to expand the legal rights and responsibilities of same-sex couples. Political realities tell us that the U.S. Congress would repeal a District of Columbia law that legally recognizes marriages between partners of the same-sex. Even worse, the Congress would likely go further by writing a same-sex marriage ban into the District’s Home Rule Charter. Therefore, we must pursue a long-term strategy of securing equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, and I would work closely with community members in pursuing this strategy.
12. Will you support legislation in the District to continue expanding the existing domestic partnership program to include all relevant rights and responsibilities of marriage in D.C. law?
Yes, and I have a very strong record to prove it. In my GLAA questionnaire four years ago, I stated the following: “I also support expanding the benefits available to domestic partners as an interim step on the path to civil unions. For example, the District should pay health insurance premiums to domestic partners of city employees on the same basis as it does for family coverage.”
I’m proud to say that I have fulfilled that promise. Due to legislation that I authored (Bill 16-129, the “Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 2005,”), which became law on April 4, 2006, the District government will now pay the same amount of the health insurance premium (75 percent) for domestic partners that it pays for other family coverage. This is a very important step forward – previously, the District government paid none of the premium for domestic partner coverage, which made the health insurance so prohibitively expensive that very few people used it.
Another important piece of legislation benefiting domestic partners that I introduced and moved through the Council to become law is the “Health Care Decisions Act of 2003.” This Act authorizes a domestic partner to make medical decisions if his or her partner becomes incapacitated, and will prevent the tragic situations in which a life partner who knows the patient’s needs and wishes best is treated like a stranger by medical authorities.
Nor am I content to rest on my laurels. This year, working with GLAA, I introduced Bill 16-590, the “Domestic Partnership Adoption Equality Act of 2006,” which would grant domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities in the adoption of children, and subject domestic partners to the same procedures for Court review of a prospective adoption. The Council’s Judiciary Committee has held a hearing on Bill 16-590, and I expect this legislation to be approved by the Council before the end of this year.
Finally, my unwavering commitment to expand the rights of domestic partners is shown by my efforts to recognize domestic partners in all aspects of law and policy. For example, my legislation to create an Integrated Services Fund for At-Risk Children, Youth, and Families (Bill 16-552, which was enacted as part of the “Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Support Act of 2006”) explicitly included domestic partners in the definition of “family.” I strongly value all families, and I have sought to include domestic partners in all of the rights and responsibilities that apply to families.
13. Will you support the legislative and/or regulatory changes necessary to ensure that the District recognizes civil unions, domestic partnerships and similar legal relationships established in other jurisdictions?
Yes, I will. I believe that we should follow the principles of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 4, Section 1) in this case. The District of Columbia should recognize the legal relationships established in other jurisdictions, just as we want those jurisdictions to recognize the relationships established in the District of Columbia. We would never think of denying recognition to the relationship of a heterosexual couple married in Massachusetts; similarly, we should not deny such recognition to a gay or lesbian couple married in Massachusetts. Ours is a mobile society, and it can cause severe harm to families and children if legal relationships established in one jurisdiction are not recognized in another.
At the same time, we must be careful in our efforts to ensure recognition of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and similar legal relationships established in other jursidictions. The U.S. Congress and federal executive branch are in the hands of individuals who do not respect home rule and use the District of Columbia as a colony for their misguided social agenda. To avoid a backlash in which the Congress acts to restrict the rights of gay and lesbian couples in the District of Columbia, I would consult closely with the community about when and how to move forward.
Public Education and Youth
14. Do you oppose both federal and local voucher programs that fund students in religious schools that are beyond the protections of the D.C. Human Rights Act?
Yes. The federal government and the District government need to invest their resources and their energies into public schools that serve all children. It is likewise important that the District government respect and uphold its own human rights act – which applies to educational institutions – by opposing public funding for schools that do not abide by the D.C. Human Rights Act.
15. Do you oppose the use of either federal or District taxpayer funds to promote “abstinence only until marriage” sex education that undermines safer-sex programs by discouraging the use of condoms and that effectively tells gay and lesbian students that they must remain celibate forever because they may not legally marry?
Yes. It is irresponsible for sex education programs to deny the existence of gay and lesbian youth, who are at particular risk because they may be rejected by family and peers and need sex education that can help protect them. To be effective, sex education programs must be comprehensive and account for the diversity of young people’s behavior at different stages of their lives.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the typical youth first has intercourse at age 17, whereas the median age for those who marry is 25 for women and 27 for men. To reflect the real-life experiences of young people, sex education programs should discuss the merits of abstinence, and the use of condoms in safer sex, and information about contraception. Some youth will be abstinent; some will be sexually active; and some will be abstinent and sexually active at different times. Sex education programs must ackowledge these realities.
Consumers and Businesses
16. Do you support the relocation of the many gay bars and businesses that were displaced by the new ballpark, even if local NIMBYs and homophobes oppose them?
Yes. The city has an obligation to help relocate the businesses that have been displaced by the baseball stadium, because the city’s use of eminent domain to take control of the land disrupted these longstanding businesses and jeopardized the investments made by the business owners and the jobs of the people who worked there. There is a range of businesses – such as an asphalt company and a warehouse – that were displaced by the baseball stadium, in addition to the gay bars and businesses. All of these businesses must be helped to relocate, without regard to the sexual orientation of their owners or the clientele they serve.
17. Will you support legislation to curb the abuses of NIMBYs who are now allowed to file an endless series of baseless complaints to harass or extort bars and restaurants?
Yes, although I would want to hear from all parties in designing a solution. While there are very legitimate rights to petition the government about such matters, it can be very costly and time-consuming for a business owner to wait for many months, and sometimes more than a year, for the ABC adjudication process to finish. There must be better ways to preserve the petition rights of people who have serious and legitimate concerns and conclude adjudicatory matters in a much more timely fashion, perhaps through stricter deadlines for mediations to take place.
Many businesses are supported by residents as well and there should be some more formal way to include those comments in the ABC process as well. In all cases, it is important to strike a balance between legitimate community concerns and the important investments businesspeople are making in our city, and do it in a more timely way.
18. Do you oppose the Youth Protection from Obscene Video Games Act (B16-0125), a clone of other laws that have consistently been struck down by the courts on constitutional grounds?
Yes. The record is clear in this case. When Bill 16-125, the “Youth Protection from Obscene Video Games Act of 2005,” was introduced on February 4, 2005, I was the only member of the Council who did not co-introduce or co-sponsor the legislation.
During the last five years, courts throughout the nation have struck down similar legislation on constitutional grounds; in the last year alone, federal judges in Illinois and Michigan blocked such laws after finding that they ran afoul of the First Amendment. These court rulings followed prior decisions striking down similar laws in St. Louis County, Indianapolis, and Washington State. It is important to give parents the tools to determine what video games are appropriate for their children, but our efforts to do so must comply with the U.S. Constitution.
Record
Your record is part of your rating. Please list any actions that you have taken that may help illustrate your record on behalf of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders.
As detailed above, I have a very strong record of advocacy and accomplishment for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered residents. Residents are lucky to have a D.C. Council that is very supportive of GLBT rights, but I have been more than supportive -- I have been a champion of GLBT rights, having brought many important pieces of policy and legislation from inception to implementation. In these endeavors, I have worked closely with GLAA, and will continue to do so as Council Chairman.
I’d like to highlight five important accomplishments for the GLBT community of which I am particularly proud:
First, I wrote and secured passage of the 1999 law that established the Office of Human Rights as a separate, independent agency. As GLAA had long argued, OHR had suffered from its merger with the Office of Local Business Development into one department. The two functions of Human Rights and Local Business Development were wholly unrelated, if not incompatible, and human rights enforcement languished as a result. My action to separate Human Rights and Local Business Development led to the first appointment of a civil rights professional to lead the human rights agency in more than a decade. The results of this separation have been very positive in terms of a reduced case backlog and the sharp growth in mediation settlements.
Second, I was the leader in protecting the Office of Human Rights against budget cuts during the fiscal crisis, and in adding needed funds during the city’s financial recovery. When I chaired the Government Operations Committee, I added more than $500,000 to OHR’s budget over four years. I have consistently stated that our landmark human rights law needs to be backed up by effective enforcement, and I have acted to ensure that the law is more than an empty promise to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered residents, and to members of other protected classes. I also introduced and secured passage of legislation that conformed our fair-housing code to federal requirements, allowing the Office of Human Rights to receive federal funding to revive fair-housing enforcement that had been dormant for many years.
In 2003, I introduced and won the enactment of an important piece of legislation benefiting domestic partners: the “Health Care Decisions Act of 2003.” This Act authorizes a domestic partner to make medical decisions if his or her partner becomes incapacitated, and will prevent the tragic situations in which a life partner who knows the patient’s needs and wishes best is treated like a stranger by medical authorities.
Also in 2003, I worked with GLAA to secure the passage of an important piece of criminal-code legislation that I introduced: the “Elimination of Outdated Crimes Amendment Act of 2003.” This law repealed a number of very outmoded and inappropriate criminal provisions from the D.C. Code, many of which had not been enforced for decades, such as requiring a glass vestibule to protect streetcar motormen from inclement weather. But more seriously, this law explicitly barred any provisions of common law from being used to criminalize sodomy, thereby eliminating the possible use of a charge that had been used to harass and criminalize gay people in the past.
This year, another major piece of domestic partner legislation that I introduced became law: the “Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 2006.” This law requires the District government will now pay the same amount of the health insurance premium (75 percent) for domestic partners that it pays for other family coverage. This is a very important step forward – previously, the District government paid none of the premium for domestic partner coverage, which made the health insurance so prohibitively expensive that almost no one used it. I’m proud to have turned a program that was largely symbolic into something that offers real benefits for real families.
And I’m not finished! Before this year is over, I intend to see the enactment of Bill 16-590, the “Domestic Partnership Adoption Equality Act of 2006,” which I introduced earlier this year. This legislaltion would grant domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities in the adoption of children, and subject domestic partners to the same procedures for Court review of a prospective adoption.
A final accomplishment beyond the five noted is passage of the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act, a critical civil liberties bill to regulate police actions during First Amendment demonstrations, and one strongly supported by GLAA. I was grateful for the advocacy and partnership, and proud of what we accomplished together.
