If we could have order in the chamber, I'm going to order this meeting, legislative meeting of the Council of the District of Columbia.

This is the 28th legislative meeting of Council Period 26.

And I believe all the members are participating in person.

I think.

Well, we'll see.

We'll determine a quorum in a minute.

Um this is an additional meeting.

That is to say it's not a regularly scheduled meeting.

The next regular meeting of the council legislative meeting will be on May 5th.

Uh we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence.

I would ask that uh members on the dais as well as everyone in the chamber, respect a moment of silence, uh, an opportunity for reflection.

Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Councilmember Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Falder.

Present.

Councilmember Fruman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Here.

Chairman Mendelson.

Present.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinto, present.

Councilmember Robert White.

Councilmember Robert White.

Councilmember Trayon White?

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

The agenda says consent agenda.

I'm going to assume it's a non-consent agenda, unless there's objection.

And so we will proceed to first reading and vote on proposed bills.

We have Bill 26-461 entitled The Juvenile Curfew Amendment Act of 2026, reported out of the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, chaired by Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

As discussed in the COW, today we have before us the permanent version of the Juvenile Curfew Amendment Act.

And we must continue ensuring that our kids are engaged in positive activities and keep them safe from dangerous situations.

Again, over the last eight months, this tool to allow MPD to declare specific juvenile curfew zones and extend the applicability to 17-year-olds has proven to be successful in keeping youth residents, visitors, and others safe and preventing harm.

We have seen an uprise in so-called teen takeovers, and we need to similarly be responsive with new tools ourselves.

Curfew violations in DC do not result in arrests.

And the curfew zones themselves only apply to groups of eight or more unsupervised kids under the age of 18.

And I want to reiterate that so people know that even when a zone is declared, kids in smaller groups are still free to be in those spaces and enjoy them, as they can with any other space across the city.

And two, to Councilmember Lewis George's questions of OPC complaints, there has been one that I'm aware of, which is the one instance that happened over this past weekend that we are tracking closely and concerned about.

So I won't repeat everything that I said about the cow at the cow of the importance of this bill.

But I do think that as all adults throughout our city, whether you're on the council, whether you work in an agency, whether you're a parent, a teacher, uh anyone who works with young people, we all should be on the same team.

That it is incumbent on all of us to do everything we can to support and invest in our young people and to set clear standards of um safe behavior to keep them safe.

And I know that we are all committed to that goal, and so I ask my colleagues to support this bill today.

Thank you, Councilmember.

The agenda states that you are moving an amendment nature of a substitute.

Yes, so thank you very much.

Um I was moving an amendment in the nature of the substitute, but after close collaboration and work with Councilmember Crawford and Mayor Bowser, I'm happy to say that we have come to a compromise and I'm withdrawing this ANS today.

Council Mr.

Crawford and I have found a workable solution to move this legislation forward with one combined ANS.

And so I'm going to be accepting her AS as friendly, but I'll uh defer to her to to speak to some of those elements.

Um and then I'll have some some other comments.

Um, but want to thank Council Mark Crawford for her partnership and her leadership on this important issue.

Uh then I'm gonna recognize you, Councilmember Crawford.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and procedurally, I'll also have an amendment to the AS that Councilmember Pinto and I worked on after I speak to the ANS.

I have no idea what you just said.

Okay.

So I'll start with the ANS.

Um so first I'm moving in an ANS to Bill 26461.

This ANS is the result of spending a significant amount of time listening to residents who are concerned about safety, to advocates, and importantly the young people themselves.

What we heard was not one-sided.

Everyone wants to and deserves to feel safe in their community, but we also have to recognize that feeling safe can be experienced differently by different members of our community.

Too often, efforts to create safety for some can unintentionally create harm for others.

This AS reflects an effort to take that feedback seriously and strike a more thoughtful balance.

First, the ANS streamlines and clarifies authority.

It consolidates the mayors and chief of police powers into a single framework and removes duplicative processes.

It also eliminates the ability for business improvement districts and main street organizations to petition for curfew zones.

As CORS RIA notes, expanding that type of authority to individuals and entities that are not elected risks reinforcing spatial injustice and neighborhood tensions between youth and their community leaders, particularly when decisions about who belongs in certain spaces are not made with youth input or broader community accountability.

Second, this ANS removes the ability to impose temporary citywide extended curfew hours starting as soon as 8 p.m.

The intent here is to keep curfew as a targeted tool.

We know from the committee's committee report and MPD that these curfew zone extensions are most often used to respond to specific gatherings like teen takeovers where there is credible intelligence about time and place.

If we are at a point where we need a citywide restriction of that magnitude, that is an emergency, and the mayor already has emergency authorities for that.

This AS makes that distinction clear.

Third, this ANS also updates the language of the statute by replacing the term juvenile with youth.

That is a deliberate shift away from terminology rooted in the criminal legal system and toward language that reflects how we should be engaging young people as members of our community to be supported, not just managed or penalized.

Fourth, it strengthens notice requirements, but I'll address this more in my subsequent amendment because we made some changes here.

Fifth, it establishes guardrails on enforcement.

We've seen and heard from youth serving community organizations that increase reliance on police interaction, particularly for black youth, can exacerbate disparities in a road trust, even when policies are intended to improve safety.

The ANS makes clear that young people cannot be stopped or dispersed simply for being present, for being in small groups, or for reasons that do not actually constitute a violation of the curfew or existing law.

Uh one more minute, Chairman.

Without objection.

These are common sense protections that ensure enforcement is tied to behavior, not perception.

And finally, this ANS recognizes something that the research is very clear about.

Enforcement alone does not address the underlying conditions driving these gatherings.

If we are telling young people where they cannot be, we should simultaneously be a part of creating spaces where they can be.

So this ANS requires youth programming when a curfew zone is in effect, but it does so in a practical way.

It does not assume the district must stand up entirely new programming overnight.

The district can work with community-based organizations, and as the mayor noted in her letter, the district already offers a range of late-night and youth-focused activities through DPR and community partners.

The AS the ANS also ensures that young people can travel to and from those activities without being penalized and that their voices are included in shaping what those opportunities look like.

So at its core, this ANS shifts the approach from one that relies primarily on restriction and enforcement to one that is more targeted, transparent, and grounded in engagement.

It keeps curfew as a tool, but uses it more precisely and pairs it with the kind of supports that we know actually make a difference.

And finally, I want to thank Ranaya Dinkins, my legislative director, and Lauren Mendonza of OGC for the time and consideration that they spent on drafting this ANS and Councilmember Pinto and her team and the executive for working collaboratively with me on this.

So I move this amendment and urge my colleagues to support.

So let me see if I understand what we're doing here procedurally.

So you circulated an amendment nature of a substitute yesterday.

Yes.

That's what you're moving.

And then you're going to move an amendment to that.

Yes.

That is circulated at 1230.

Well, I have two.

I have one at 1230 and one at 129.

This is the 1230 one.

This is to the permanent bill.

Okay.

Because to 1230 is to the permanent bill, which is what we have before us.

Yes.

Okay.

So what we have now before us is the amendment nature of a substitute.

Now you want me to recognize you for an amendment to that.

Unless Councilmember Pinzo, I didn't know if you had something else that you were adding.

We want to get on the floor.

We're going to get on the floor.

But you don't get to give it a whole nother four-minute speech.

For the amendment speech.

All right.

So so that all members understand.

Councilmember Pinto has moved the committee print.

Councilmember Crawford has moved an amendment in nature of a substitute, and I'm now recognizing you to move an amendment to that ANS.

Yes.

So this amendment, which I circulated at 12:30 p.m.

makes the following changes in collaboration with Councilmember Pinto.

It updates the findings section of the code to include a mention of teen takeovers in the rise in social media use to s to disseminate this information.

It reverts the citywide curfew hours back to what the hours were prior to the first emergency, which passed in July 25 2025.

So that is midnight on weekends and during the summer months.

It defines youth to add clarity to the term extended youth curfew zone.

It only requires the new components of the zone notice, including a plain plain language description of lawful activities and details about alternative youth events to be posted online instead of on the physical signs.

It allows the police to issue verbal warnings no sooner than 30 minutes before the start of curfew.

And then it requires the chief of police to consider several statistics concerning youth specifically before determining whether to designate an extended youth curfew zone, aligning with the most recently passed language in B26460.

So that is what is before us.

I'll recognize uh Councilmember Pinto.

Um I will just say, you know, thank you again to Councilmember Crawford for working so closely with us on this and to ensure that this language adopts the intention that you were trying to do and also ensures that it is workable for MPD and for the community.

And so I will be accepting both the ANS and the amendments to the ANS as friendly to the underlying permanent.

Okay.

Now the only way something is friendly is if there's no objection.

I can ask if there's any objection.

Is there any objection to the amendment to the ANS?

Hearing none, it is accepted.

Now that's what was circulated at 1230 by email today at 1230 p.m.

That's accepted without objection.

We have the ANS as amended before us.

Is there a discussion on that?

Similarly, I'm accepting the ANS as friendly.

I can ask if there's objection.

Yes, Councilmember Tranmite.

Yeah, I have a question.

Um regards to the amendment you sent.

Um twenty-nine.

Uh that is to the emergency, which is not before us.

Okay.

Which one are you talking about?

What time frame?

1230.

Uh wait, because the question I have is about the next one.

So my question is is there any objection to the amendment nature of a substitute as amended?

Hearing none, that is accepted.

So now we have the print as amended.

Is there discussion?

And sorry to make matters more complicated.

I have one oral amendment.

Oh, not yet.

Oh.

Never mind.

That's on the emergency.

Um we have the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended before us.

No.

We have the bill as amended before us.

The bill as amended before us.

Councilmember Allen, do you want to be recognized?

I do.

Thank you.

I want to thank Councilmember Crawford for the work to put this in and to put it AS together.

I'll be very frank.

This is what should have come out of the Judiciary Committee to begin with.

The committee print would allow curfews citywide.

It would have given unaccountable organizations the ability to request curfews.

No requirement for alternative programming.

I've said consistently that a narrow, precise, and time-limited curfew can be a tool, but it simply cannot be the only tool that our city has or uses.

Part of the reason that we are here is a result of a lack of investment in the very teens that we are that are the subject of this conversation.

So what scenario of allowing citywide policies saying that they cannot gather in public space makes sense.

It's that kind of overly broad provision that would not allow me to vote for the committee print without Councilmember Crawford's important and substantial changes.

When pushed, we have seen DPR put together meaningful and positive experiences.

I can note that around Greenleaf Rec Center and Randall Rec Center, the activities taking place inside were largely very positive.

Now I think there's a lot of lessons learned about what happened when the events ended and a lot of lessons learned that DPR can continue to work on.

But unquestionably, I heard positive feedback from young people who were at the events and inside.

We also can't limit this just to DPR.

We know that we have incredible community organizations that can partner.

And I think Councilmember Crawford's legislation does that.

I have to note though, this is the same system, the same DPR that closes most of its recenters at the exact hours that we are concerned about.

So this city has been lacking with imagination and creativity to reach the very people it's concerned about.

I think Councilmember Crawford's amendment changes this, requires a city to provide and promote alternatives whenever they want to be able to use this tool.

And again, I'm grateful for the work that Councilmember Crawford and her team did to put this in and put it before us today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Henderson.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um let me just say at the top that I'll be supporting this measure today.

Um as former mayor Marion Barry said in 1995 when he uh first uh signed this original curfew legislation into law, that this is a tool.

Um, one that I think has been useful.

One of the interesting things about American life is that there's some collective things that have happened in all of our upbringings, regardless of where we grew up.

Uh but mainly for those of us who are raised in cities.

One of those was the parental and community expectation that when the street lights came on, kids needed to be headed towards the house.

But somewhere along the way in 2026, that has become a bit controversial.

Um I know that growing up today is different than growing up as many of us did in the 90s and early 2000s, but some of those dangers still exist.

In DC, you all had go go's in New York City, there were skating rings in Columbus, Georgia, where I went to high school, there was the mall.

In all of these scenarios, all of these businesses closed at a certain point.

There were no more movies to be played, no more Starbucks coffees that you can buy.

And even if you were at someone's house, eventually Carl's mom didn't want us in her den anymore because she was trying to go to bed.

At some point, the activities ended and folks had to go home.

Now, a curfew cannot be the only thing.

Um, and that's why I sent a letter to the mayor's office back in March asking for the district's plans to engage the district's youth this summer and spring, especially given so many other events that will be going on.

They responded a few weeks ago.

DPR did roll out a very successful and engaging teen spring jam and programming during spring break.

I followed up with DPR about how things went, uh, what it took to pull that off from a resources standpoint, because while it may seem seamless, it actually required lots of staff, manpower.

Um, and also questions around what this looks like from a sustainability standpoint so that we could continue to plan for some of these in the future.

I've also started a conversation with some of our bid leaders about how they can adapt some of their spring and summer programming to offer something geared toward teens in their general lineup.

They were open to those conversations, and we have a follow-up meeting with some youth serving organizations to further brainstorm in coming weeks.

The expanded curfew legislation that we're voting on today is not panacea.

It is a tool.

It is a tool that MPD has not employed every day.

They have not employed every weekend.

And I will certainly admit that the coordination between DPR, MPD, and Metro Transit PD when these sponsors events end to be refined.

But also we need to continue working with parents and community members as well in terms of what are our expectations around young people when they're in public spaces and what happens in the evening times.

But there are events going on all the time.

Even this weekend on Kingman Island, there's going to be a team band summit featuring eight bands from teens.

Suggest these spaces to your young people in your life.

Separately, I do want to call on DC public schools this summer to work with high school student government organizations to work through some of the issues such that safe third spaces like football games and basketball games are not closed off as options next school year, because I feel like that has led to where we are today.

And with that, I will stop and say I hope that we can move this forward today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Henderson.

Councilmember Felder.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good afternoon, everyone.

First and foremost, I would like to take a moment to thank Councilmembers Pinto and Crawford for their leadership on this matter.

It's also important to reflect on how we got here as a city.

Last summer, the council voted to implement the juvenile curfew emergency amendment act of 2025.

We did so because there was a clear need for intervention in order to mitigate the rise in levels of violence and vandalism that we were seeing from youth in the district.

Now, as a native Washington, I remember what it was like being a teenager in our city.

And here's what I know to be true.

Teenagers want to have fun.

Teenagers want to spend time with their families and friends.

Teenagers want to keep a little bit of money in their pockets, and teenagers want to explore new places across our city.

We also took advantage of the city's kids' ride free program, the summer youth employment program, and activities happening in our local neighborhoods and recreation centers.

Many of those same programs still exist today, and some have expanded.

Now, in addition to the troubling videos of youth captured at Navy R, which let me be clear, those videos are not a reflection of all of our youth.

There are also videos of law enforcement interactions with youth that are extremely concerning and should be investigated, which is why I support this bill today, because it makes no sense for us to put any of our youth in harm's way.

Now here's the reality.

If we all can agree that there needs to be a holistic approach when creating more constructive ways for our youth together in a positive and productive manner, we also can agree that the government cannot substitute in the role of being a parent, and at some point there needs to be a broader discussion about what parental accountability looks like in the District of Columbia.

As city leaders, we have a responsibility to protect our residents of all ages, and that includes making the best informed decisions on behalf of our young folks.

While I'm in favor of extending the juvenile curfew, I also look forward to working with my council colleagues and community members to develop a holistic approach that includes programming and activities that allow our youth to congregate in safe and productive environments.

And I too look um look forward to my colleagues supporting this bill as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Felder.

Councilmember Robert White.

Thank you, Chairman.

I want to thank uh Councilmember Pinto and Councilmember Crawford for working on an amendment.

Um while this the amendment in the neighborhood of the substitute does improve uh the legislation, it it still doesn't address a fundamental fact, which is that the curfews are not working, right?

So people want to be able to go out, go out to dinner, feel safe.

Uh we all deserve that.

But as my colleagues said, we started these curfews last summer.

For the better part of a year, we've had the curfews, and the things that we're pointing to, saying these are the reasons we need the curfews are things that have happened while we've had curfews.

If it's not working, why would we keep doing this?

But to make it worse, and this is why the strategy matters, right?

The proposed budget that we got last week cuts over six million dollars from the Department of Behavioral Health, including school-based behavioral health.

Is this gonna make it better or worse?

It's going to get worse.

The budget, the proposed budget cuts $35 million from the Department of Human Services, including for family support services.

This is going to make it worse.

The proposed budget we received last week cuts over $5 million from the Department of Parks and Rec, which we're saying is going to come save the day.

This makes the issue worse.

But on the other side of the ledger, it adds $90 million for MPD.

How is it that we always have the money to incarcerate and handcuff, but we don't have the money to prevent?

The reason I'm voting no is because I'm not going to be part of a system that always says we have the resources for consequences, but not the resources for prevention.

We can't keep going in this circle and expect anything other than what we have.

And not only will it get worse, the cost will go up.

When we don't invest in these spaces, DPR, mental health, family services.

Parenting doesn't get better.

Outcomes don't get better, they get worse.

And then they're going to say, you know what we need?

We need more police.

It is insanity.

So I understand the political pressure to not be seen as soft on crime, but at some point we have at least got to be logical.

This is not logical.

And we cannot forget that these young people are seeing this conversation.

They're seeing us pointing fingers at them saying, look, these young people, what they're doing.

The vast majority of them are not involved with them, but they're getting the same finger pointed at them.

They're losing the same resources, and they're seeing the resources go to consequences.

This cannot be the way that we operate.

This cannot be the way that we govern.

So while I do want to see uh an end to the bad behavior that happens in these groups, I've got to recognize that this is not a path to a better outcome.

It is a reinvestment in the outcome that has gotten us here.

And I don't want to be a part of it.

So I can't vote for it.

Thank you, Chairman.

Oh, thank you, Councilmember White.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Okay, no.

No, I'm looking for who else wants to be recognized.

Councilmember Nadeau, you have the floor.

We can't do that.

Um Councilmember Nadeau, hold on a second.

Um asked about checking my mic.

Can you check your mic, Councilmember Nadeau, because we can't hear you.

You're not muted.

Say something.

I'm talking.

Can you hear me?

Oh, yes, it's beautiful.

Oh, wonderful.

I'll take it.

Maybe I should quit while I'm ahead.

No, just kidding.

Okay.

Um, thank you, Chairman.

Other colleagues today have explained how this policy is not effective, harms our kids, and disproportionately impacts black and brown children.

So I'm not going to repeat that.

We need to be serious about safety and not play politics with our communities and kids.

As a mom of two kids and one who has significant resources, even I struggle with parenting sometimes.

But one thing I've learned, especially as my kids get older, is that kids need to be treated with respect.

They need to be heard.

And more than anything, they need the adults responsible for them, and I consider that all of us to be there for them when they're struggling and to help them make good choices for themselves and for those around them.

This bill doesn't do that, in my opinion.

Instead, it doles out punishment and makes things worse, maybe not immediately, because I know a lot of people think that we have to be tough and that we get results that way.

But there's just way too much evidence about the long-term negative impacts on kids in our communities with these types of policies for me to ignore it.

And this may be my last year on the council, but that makes it all the more important to me that I do not contribute to taking our city down the wrong path when it comes to our youth.

In 2016, I introduced the legislation that established the current out-of-school time office that offers kids after school and summer programs.

And later I introduced legislation that would have expanded out-of-school time programming to all DC public schools and charter school students with an emphasis on access for youth who are at risk, low income, and criminal justice involved.

We make choices in how we spend our money.

The mayor has also made choices.

The mayor's proposed FY27 budget cuts over $6 million from the Department of Behavioral Services, including school-based behavioral health, $35 million from the Department of Human Services, including for family support services, and $5 million from the Department of Parks and Rec for site-based programming.

Her budget adds $6.5 million to youth rehabilitative services, including for secured attention of youth, and as Councilmember Allen mentioned, $90 million for MPD.

She's now choosing with her emergency declaration last week to double down on what does not work.

Youth curfews, even as she takes away funding from the programs that we know do work.

And this legislation before us today does the same.

For months, we extended the emergency curfew legislation, and each time we said we needed to work on a comprehensive plan that includes the programs and initiatives they listed, and that we need a permanent piece of legislation that could get a hearing and vetting.

I've said no to the emergency extensions, but have always been open to a comprehensive solution.

The bill before us today is not it.

I can't in good conscience vote for something that is tried and proven as bad policy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Nadeau.

Councilmember Lewis Charge.

Thank you, Chairman.

Adding and utilizing this tool while this city is currently under federal occupation is dangerous.

It is dangerous for our young people.

It is dangerous for our community as a whole.

And the risk, the risk does not outweigh the perceived benefits.

What we have seen since these expanded juvenile curfews have gone into effect.

This weekend, videos and headlines circulated showing officer pulling away young women forcefully off a bike riding past.

That was two, not in a group of eight, two young women pulled off their bikes.

We've received reports and videos of officers and armed guards threatening youth with pepper spray and paint guns, things we bowed to get rid of after the George George Floyd era of protest and actions that were taken.

And yet these things, prepper spray and paint guns, are being utilized in this moment to threaten and enforce these curfews.

I've also heard reports of officers outside of the Randall Teen Center event from this is from youth saying they were being herded toward the youth curfew zone in Navy Yard where they would be in violation of the curfew.

And we've seen videos of National Guard troops and officers interrogating youth coming off Met the Metro in Southeast as early as 4 p.m.

We've seen it.

We with one officer even taunting a Metro rider, we're going to get you.

Before they even came up the escalator.

This is what our young people are experiencing.

And this is what we are telling them that their government believes is necessary for them to be safe.

And this is what we're telling them their young their government and their community thinks about them as young people without fully formed brain cells.

They are the ones who have to be curfewed in police.

Now this is a city that has First Amendment protests happen every single day.

And our officers are trained in handling First Amendment protests every single day and can plan for it.

So I'm not sure why we can't do the preventative planning like we do for First Amendment protests without having to put a curfew in place that puts our young people at this risk.

This type of coordination between federal forces and MPD is a threat to young people, but it is also a threat to home rule.

No other city has National Guard troops, federal agents who are not trained in de-escalation and enforcing curfews for their youth.

We are the capital city, and we are a testing ground.

And if we want autonomy, we have to handle our own enforcement.

And until we can do that, we should not be utilizing a tool that continues to put our young people at risk and allows us to passively allow for autonomy to be treaded on in this moment.

Now we're being asked to vote on a permanent version despite evidence that the expanded curfews are escalating and not ameliorating the situation.

And it's not surprising because research from juvenile curfew laws and other jurisdictions, 10 more seconds, have shown that curfews do not result in fewer instances of youth involved crime, public disservices, or high risk behaviors.

So we know the things that work, and there are alternatives to this bill.

This is not the right time to use this tool.

And I would urge my colleagues not to support doing so.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Treyon White.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh we all know that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is insanity.

Since 2025, we've practiced this model of juvenile curfew, and it hasn't worked.

Consistently, week after week, month after month, we've seen the youth gathering without real intervention and prevention.

In 2024, during the Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024, I offered an amendment that passed the council.

But when we got the budget in 2025, that particular part was taken out and not funded.

And that amendment asked for a real comprehensive plan to address some public safety in Washington, D.C., which we still don't have.

We are throwing things to the wall, hoping that it sticks.

In hopes that we can create a safe, lovable, friendly, walkable environment for district residents.

We've heard the quote that when youth don't feel love from the village, they will burn it down to fill its warmth.

And we're seeing their actions.

We must meet them where they are, hear their needs, and use our 22 billion dollars to address the issues.

We have seen consistent divestments in youth, young adults services all across the district year after year.

They say they want recreation centers.

I consistently put money in Ward 8 for recreation centers.

What happened?

Even this council voted to take money out of two recreation centers just a month ago.

In a war that has the most issues and the most youth out of anywhere in Washington, D.C.

We cannot wait until young people end up in the justice systems to decide that we care.

We need real investment in our youth through literacy, recreation, mentors, mentorship, interns, access to careers, and spaces where they can grow and be productive.

I admire uh Councilmember Crawford's uh amendments to create more wraparound service and be intentional how policing is done.

But I'm concerned we are not going far further enough.

We have more money than we ever had in DC history, yet we're doing the least that we have a deed.

I heard a quote by Marion Burry.

Murray Burry believed in investments on the front end.

When we had a $9 billion budget today, we have a $22 billion budget and doing less or more.

So I'm gonna vote no in support of this bill today in hopes that we can come back to the table to create a real solution to address uh youth issues, which is not just a youth problem, but also as an adult problem, because we are raising our young people directly and indirectly.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

Uh further on the um the bill.

Uh Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, we have all seen the scenes across the district.

Large crowds, fights breaking out, officers chasing young people through the streets.

Uh and there is no question uh that the behavior is troubling and demands a serious response.

Uh what I grapple with is the debate feels overly simplified.

It's either yes, give us a curfew or no, let's do nothing.

Uh but I want to be equally clear about something.

Declining to extend the curfew is not the same as excusing what we are seeing play out in the streets of the district.

We can hold two truths at once.

The behavior is unacceptable, full stop.

And this policy is not the right solution as a long-term application.

Instead, I'm hoping we can finally assemble a youth agenda that centers on expanding recreational outlets, job, mental health, and accountability.

I voted for the curfew last year on an emergency basis to give the government time to implement a long-term sustainable strategy.

You may remember then Chief Pamela Smith said they needed more time to implement a long-term solution.

A year later, we are back in the same place.

The incidents are continuing, and the curfew has not delivered what we were promised.

This tells me their approach is not working.

Now, I think folks are well-intentioned, uh, but I think we ought to be a little bit more creative.

I genuinely worry that more young people are being stopped and are at risk of being pulled into the justice system.

And if we the only way we can make this policy more effective is to punish more kids, then we should question whether the policy is the right one to begin with.

And let me also say this.

Government cannot substitute for parents.

Families and guardians have a fundamental responsibility to guide and supervise their children.

I'm going to say that one more time.

Because it takes a village.

Families and guardians have a fundamental responsibility to guide and supervise their children.

That role cannot be outsourced to a citywide curfew or to the government.

And so while I do not plan to support a further extension of the curfew, I do not plan to vote for a permanent application of the curfew.

I am inviting my colleagues, the mayor's team, for us to all sit down to come up with a youth-centered agenda that will really address the root causes of what is playing out.

And I saw something also, or I think it was in the mayor's letter that, oh, when you say root causes, that's really cold language for doing nothing.

No, actually, it's addressing the root causes so that we can have a real solution that works and takes hold.

If we have applied more and more curfews, and we're seeing more and more young people being detained by cops or running around on national TV by the National Guard, that is not only an embarrassment to the district, it lets us know this policy is not working.

I digress.

Chairman Force has amended.

Councilmember Fruin.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

I I join in with many of my colleagues who are focused on addressing root causes and investment in our children.

I think that is critically important.

I think we're doing better than we're giving ourselves credit for.

I think that the city has invested significantly.

We can do more, much more, but I don't think we should run it down as if we've not done anything in this space.

I I find this discussion I I feel like there are straw men that have been set up here about a curfew or not a curfew, and that the curfew that gets described as something that is more draconian than the thing that is on the table, honestly.

And this idea that where there are groups of people who have come together, large groups and have made clear that it's about behaviors that are going to be negative, the idea that we wouldn't step in and say, no, you can't do that.

You got to go someplace else.

You can't be in that kind of a grouping.

I think I don't understand why we would not empower ourselves to do that.

I am struck by what Councilmember Crawford has come up with in terms of the refinements to this bill, and I think so impressive that three months in that you played this kind of a leadership role on this.

I think the bill that we're going to vote on is much, much better than what we have seen before, and goes to those radioactive spots and tries to get at it and improve it, and I think that that's important.

But we also can't just sit on our hands when we have these kinds of gatherings that go south in the way that they have.

And I also think while there have been bad episodes, and I am deeply troubled by the things that we saw in the recent episodes, it's not the same as it was before the curfew.

I mean, when the curfews got put in place, the behaviors went down and there weren't arrests.

I don't think we should pretend that that is not the case.

When the curfew went away briefly, there was concern about it flaring up.

But it isn't that this has absolutely not worked.

This has frankly worked pretty well, and to the extent that we keep it surgical in the way that Councilmember Crawford has moved this bill.

It can be a positive tool, but going back to where I started, we can't for a minute think this is the end of what we do.

We need to be lifting up these kids, but we also need to be protecting our communities and our kids.

So I will be supporting this bill.

I think it's fair to say that the bill that's before us as amended is an improvement.

And has addressed done everything that we can think of to address concerns that have been raised by individual members.

I want to note as well that many years ago I chaired our committee on the judiciary, and one of the concerns I had was juvenile violence.

When juveniles are committing criminal acts, I think that's actually sort of more terrifying to residents than adults.

That may not make sense, but I think it is more terrifying.

And the issues that we dealt with, the issues that I dealt with were very different than what we're dealing with right now.

No, I'm not saying there aren't the same kinds of criminal acts by some juveniles.

And that's these large gatherings that seem to be fueled by social media.

And we're struggling as other cities are struggling with how do you address these large assemblies?

Assembly is too kind a word.

Gathering is too kind of word, too kind of a word.

How do we address yes?

I'm hearing in my ear takeover.

How do we address these takeovers?

And I get it that we do not want to be criminalizing juvenile behavior.

But we have to address these large takeovers.

And that's what this legislation is about.

Something that is very, very present.

And that we're seeing other jurisdictions struggling with.

So this is our own attempt, and as I said, what is before us now is different, maybe very different than what was before us when we first debated this last summer on a vote that I think was at the time eight to four.

Maybe nine to four.

No, because we're only twelve members.

And so I would urge that members support this bill as amended, that's before us.

The vote is on, this is the vote is on bill 26-461 as amended.

Councilmember Crawford.

Yes.

Councilmember Crawford votes yes.

Councilmember Felder?

Yes.

Councilmember Felder votes yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman votes yes.

Councilmember Henderson.

Yes.

Councilmember Henderson votes yes.

Councilmember Lewis George?

No.

Councilmember Lewis George votes no.

Chairman Mendelssohn.

Yes.

Chairman Mendelssohn votes yes.

Councilmember Nadell?

No.

Councilmember Nando votes no.

Councilmember Parker?

No.

Councilmember Parker votes no.

Councilmember Pinto?

Yes.

Councilmember Pinto votes yes.

Councilmember Robert White?

No.

Councilmember Robert White votes no.

Councilmember Trayon White?

No.

Councilmember Trayon White votes no.

Councilmember Allen?

Yes.

Councilmember Allen votes yes.

And Councilmember Bonds.

Yes.

Councilmember Bonds votes yes.

Mr.

Chairman, there are eight yeses and five noes.

The bill as amended was is approved first reading.

Mr.

Chairman.

I'd like to ask if we can take a five-minute recess.

If there's no objection, we'll take a five-minute recess.

The time is 352, let's say till four o'clock.

I believe our five minutes are up.

I'm not sure why everybody is laughing.

Uh so we are um reconvened.

We had a brief recess.

Um just to recap, we have uh voted on the one bill that was for first reading, and we are now turning to emergency legislation, which on the agenda as circulated on note was originally the consent agenda.

Um we have as the next item the juvenile curfew sunset emergency declaration resolution of twenty twenty-six, PR twenty six test five eighty-six.

Um amendment act that this would extend the emergency, which is especially important because it's sunseted on April fifteenth.

Thank my colleagues for passing the permanent version, but as that goes through a process, it's going to take a little bit of time to implement, and so we want to make sure that there is no gap.

I also want to note the mayor did declare a public emergency last week, but that expires on May first, which is before our next legislative meeting.

Um cannot continue.

Another piece I will say is I'm moving an oral amendment to this bill, which is unrelated but very important.

This is to address a past bill from the fall that was attached.

So the oral amendment removes the sunset for the volunteer services act.

As a reminder, the Volunteer Services Act allows the Office of Attorney General to use volunteer legal services, which is especially important.

Um and the reason being is it was tied to our temporary from the fall, which sunset on April fifteenth.

And so I hope there's no objection to me making an oral technical amendment to remove the sunset entirely from the Volunteer Services Act.

Did I hear you say so moved?

So moved.

We have the declaration before us.

And I think I will speak next.

So this is the state of play.

We have on this agenda the permanent bill, juvenile curfew amendment act, and we now have before us this emergency version of that.

Eight members voted for the permanent bill, first reading, as amended.

As I noted earlier in discussion, a number of changes have been made to the curfew measure.

So what we adopted last summer is not what is before us now.

We've made what I think many members would characterize as improvements to deal with concerns about whether all we're doing is just criminalizing youth, or whether we're actually trying to look at this more holistically with different strategies or recognizing that there need to be different strategies.

Takeovers, I think was the way one colleague put it, that we haven't seen before.

So we're struggling with finding new tools to deal with these gatherings or takeovers.

And I'm not interested in giving them any talking points or ammunition, which is a reason why I have tried to make clear to colleagues that this issue and this vote is important.

Because it's not just about how we deal with these gatherings, which is the paramount concern, but it's also whether we are self-inflicting some wounds on ourselves, which we don't need given all of the other fights that we are having with regard to the district and its ability to operate as we know best.

I've been a little oblique, but I think people understand what I am saying.

So that is very concerning.

And I would add as well that I'm not interested in what I would call a twisted message, which is that we as a majority, the council, is saying we want this curfew, and there will be a second reading, so there's opportunity for more improvements to it if members want that.

And then struggling with this emergency and whether we go forward with the emergency.

So having said all that, and with 13 seconds left, I'm going to move to table this to the next legislative meeting.

So there's a motion to table.

I can't remember, is it debatable?

It's debatable as to time.

So the motion is to table to the next legislative meeting.

I will call for a vote.

Mr.

Chairman, when is the next legislative meeting schedule?

Uh the next legislative meeting is May 5th.

Uh I will tell you that somebody has suggested, maybe even you suggested.

Maybe it wasn't you.

Somebody else suggested, uh, looking to see if we could have a meeting before then.

That's not a commitment.

Like next week?

Could be.

I'm not trying to be glib, I'm just saying next legislative meeting.

Mr.

Chairman.

And as you know, I I this issue, I feel this issue is very important, not just because of the issue of the juveniles, but the issue maybe I should say youth, not just because of this issue of how we deal with these youth takeovers, but also um how this is looking to folks who are not our friends.

Councilmember Bonds, as to the time.

Yes, as to time, Chairman.

I'm wondering if the time could if we need maybe an additional 15-minute recess today so that we can move forward.

We continue to kick the can down the road and wondered if the time could be set 15 minutes from now.

Point of clarity, 15 minutes from now to do what?

I'm look okay, I can look at the clock.

Uh why don't we say 448 p.m.

today?

Is it Councilmember Bonds?

You're essentially saying can we recess?

And uh we just had a five-minute recess that lasted for 34 minutes.

Yeah.

I you know, sometimes I feel that you know we kick the can and the can doesn't move very far.

And we kick it again, and it may be a half of an inch.

And we continue to put off what we cannot put off.

Um this is our community, and um if we have to be here till midnight, we do that sometimes with our hearings on subject matter.

This is subject matter.

So I think we should try to come to a consensus, because this is like the fourth time we've talked about this, and we could not reach conclusion by putting it off for days for us to go away and have dinner and have breakfast the next day and meet and chat and do the things that we do, and I'm just suggesting.

If it's important to our community, let's treat it with the importance that it has.

You said that we don't follow Roberts' rules of order, we follow something else what they do in Congress.

Well, in Congress, they keep at it until they reach whatever that crescendo is.

Mr.

Chairman, point of order.

This part of the motion is not debatable.

Mr.

Chairman.

Um, he gave me the floor.

That is why I was debating it.

So I'm gonna ask Councilmember Bonds, are you making a motion to recess for 15 minutes?

I'm making a motion regarding the time.

Yes.

Well, no, you're making a motion to recess.

Let me be clear on this.

So a motion to table to a time certain is debatable as to the time certain.

That's a good idea.

A motion to recess.

No, you're not.

A motion to recess does take precedence over a motion to table.

So it would be in order.

You want to give me a little more push on it.

Okay.

To recess.

To recess for 20 minutes.

Which is debatable.

And I hope nobody else debates this, but I will argue that we should not.

We have if you don't think there were discussions to try to work this out during the five-minute recess, there were discussions.

So we could have another 20-minute recess, and I can guarantee you that there will not be further progress today.

So I would urge members not to vote for to recess for another 20 minutes.

The vote will be on the motion to recess.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

No.

No.

The no's have it.

Call.

Uh so we have the motion to take my mic, mate.

Somebody meet my mic.

That's correct.

Um, motion to table to a time certain, which is to the next legislative.

So I might ask for a roll call and the last vote.

My question is that it does not have to be the next legislative session.

It could be within this session.

Time is time.

24 hours, make that whole day.

And that's what I'm trying to get to.

Okay.

So on the motion to table to the next legislative meeting.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

Uh just wanted to repeat to your motion.

Uh I don't support table in this discussion.

I think that uh is very important.

We want to make sure that we keep our young folks safe.

And I think by voting today shows our seriousness as a council, and I would urge my colleagues to uh not support the table, but move forward today.

Oh, the discussion that's in order is as to when the date certain, which is the next legislative meeting.

Uh so the vote is on the motion.

Roll call chairman.

Madam Secretary, call the roll.

The vote is on the motion to table to the next legislative meeting.

Councilmember Felder.

No.

Councilmember Felder votes no.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman votes yes.

Councilmember Henderson?

No.

Councilmember Henderson votes no.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis George votes yes.

Chairman Mendelssohn?

Yes.

Chairman Mendelson votes yes.

Councilmember Nadell.

No.

Councilmember Nadeau votes no.

Councilmember Parker.

Yes.

Councilmember Parker votes yes.

Councilmember Pinto?

No.

Councilmember Pinto votes no.

Councilmember Robert White?

Yes.

Councilmember Robert White votes yes.

Councilmember Treyon White?

No.

Councilmember Treyon White votes no.

Councilmember Allen?

Yes.

Councilmember Allen votes yes.

Councilmember Bonds?

No.

Councilmember Bonds votes no.

Councilmember Crawford.

Yes.

Councilmember Crawford votes yes.

Mr.

Chairman, there are seven yeses and six no's.