I'm going to order this meeting.

This is an additional meeting of the committee of the whole of the council of the District of Columbia.

I'm Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

Today is Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026.

The time is 11.44 in the morning.

We are in room 500 of the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building.

And this meeting is being broadcast on Cable Channel 13 as well as on the council's website, www.dccouncil.gov.

This is what we call an additional meeting of the council.

It's not a regularly scheduled meeting, although we often will have an additional meeting the same day that we have a legislative meeting.

When we are done with this meeting, we will adjourn very briefly, hopefully very briefly, and then have our legislative meeting, which is the regular legislative meeting for the month of June.

There are something like nine, ten measures for markup in the committee of the whole.

Then there are two other measures that were reported out of other committees that go through the committee of the whole to get on today's legislative agenda.

We begin our committee of the whole meetings with figuring out whether we have a majority of the members present.

Mr.

Cash, would you call the role?

Chairman Mendelssohn.

Present.

Council Member Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Councilmember Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Felder.

Present.

Councilmember Fruman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Lewis Short.

Here.

Councilmember Nadaux.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinta.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White.

Present.

Councilmember Trayon White.

Councilmember Trainwhite.

Mr.

Chairman, you have the quorum.

Thank you, Mr.

Cash.

So if there's no objection, the first three measures for markup in the committee of the whole, which are confirmations of mayoral nominations for the commission on arts and humanities, that the three measures will be considered in block.

No, I'm ready.

I'm right in the morning.

The commission is now an independent agency within the district government and is designated by the National Endowment for the Arts as the State's Arts Agency for the District of Columbia.

Its role is to evaluate and initiate action on matters relating to the arts and humanities and to encourage programs and development of programs that promote progress in the arts and humanities.

In addition, the mission of the commission is to provide grants, programs, and educational activities that encourage diverse artistic expression and learning opportunities so that all District of Columbia residents and visitors can experience.

I'll start over.

So we're gonna I'm gonna move uh in block the first three resolutions, which are confirmations on Merrill nominations to the Commission on Arts and Humanities.

PR 26-570, PR 26-571, and PR 26-572.

The Commission on Arts and Humanities was established by the Commission on Arts and Humanities Act in 1975.

The Commission is now an independent agency and designated by the National Endowment for the Arts as the State Arts Agency for the District of Columbia.

Its role is to evaluate and initiate action on matters relating to the arts and humanities and to encourage programs and the development of programs that promote progress in the arts and humanities.

In addition, the mission of the commission is to provide grants, programs, and educational activities that encourage diverse artistic expression and learning opportunities so that all District of Columbia residents and visitors can experience the district's rich arts and humanities community.

Members of the commission must be district residents and must have displayed an interest or ability in the arts and humanities or must be active in the furtherance of the arts or humanities.

Moreover, the mayor has to give due consideration to recommendations made by the arts and humanities community and has to ensure that there is reasonable representation of all wards in the district when considering appointments.

Considering appointments to the commission.

Further, no employee of the district government can serve as a member of the commission.

The commission currently consists of 12 members appointed by the mayor for three-year terms with the advice and consent of the council.

The commission is tasked with appointing an executive director who serves as the chief administrative officer of the commission.

In fiscal year 2022 Budget Support Act, the council reduced the size of the commission from 18 members to 12 members.

As the commission confronts increasing demand for support with finite resources, the committee believes the commission must focus its grant making on ensuring funds are deployed in a way that maximizes long-term benefit to the district's arts ecosystem.

While equitable geographic distribution and access to grant opportunities are important objectives.

The committee encourages the commission to place increased emphasis on organizational sustainability, capacity building, and the ability of grant recipients to strengthen the broader cultural infrastructure of the district.

The committee further encourages the commission to evaluate grant making not just by the number and diversity of grants awarded, but also by whether public investment is strengthening arts organizations, advancing broader policy objectives, and contributing to the long-term vitality of the district's creative economy.

PR 26-570 would confirm the mayor's nomination of Janice Kim for reappointment as a member of the Commission on the Arts and Humanities for a term to end June 30, 2029.

Ms.

Kim is a resident of Ward 3.

She originally worked in commercial lending with First Union Bank.

She later became chief financial officer of a private commercial and residential development firm, eventually retiring from that firm as chief operating officer.

Ms.

Kim has long supported nonprofit endeavors, in particular, nonprofits focused on broadening the reach of the arts.

She is currently a member of the boards of the Transformer Gallery and the Washington Ballet.

She was previously a national council member of the Smithsonian American Art Museum and a former co-chair of Art Rages.

She has been a longtime supporter of a number of arts organizations and events and has served on the commission since 2024.

Ms.

Kim is well qualified to continue serving on the commission.

Her experience supporting arts organizations and her service on the boards of several prominent cultural institutions provide valuable perspective regarding the challenges facing artists and nonprofit arts organizations.

PR 26-571 would confirm the mayor's nomination of Carla Sims for reappointment as a member of the Commission on the Arts and Humanities for a term to end June 30, 2029.

She is award six resident, received her bachelor of arts degree from Hampton University and a certificate of special studies in administration and management from the Extension School at Harvard University.

Currently, she owns and operates FYIMG Inc., an entertainment and production company.

She also has served as a major in the U.S.

Army reserves and worked in the Pentagon as a special assistant for external affairs to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

In this position, she facilitated national speaking and outreach opportunities to promote new ways for communities, institutions, and organizations to view the Department of Defense.

She was a founding board member of Howard Theater Restoration and sat on the board of Duke Ellington School of the Arts.

She has served on the Arts Commission on Arts and Humanities since 2020.

Ms.

Sims is well suited for continued service on the commission.

Her experience promoting artists, supporting arts education, and advancing public arts initiatives will continue to contribute to the commission's mission.

PR 26-572 would confirm the mayor's nomination of Hector Torres for reappointment as a member of the Commission on the Arts and Humanities for a term to end June 30th, 2029.

Mr.

Torres is a Ward 6 resident.

He received his Bachelor of Science degree in secondary art education from St.

John's University.

He had a successful 49-year career in the hospitality industry, where he served as the vice president of Beacon Hotel and Corporate Quarters and at Capitol Hotels and Suites.

He is a self-employed hospitality consultant as well as a freelance artist artist painter.

He previously taught in the New York City public school system and was a part-time lecturer on art history at St.

John's University.

Mr.

Torres currently serves on the board of Carlos Rosario International Charter School and on the advisory boards of Gala Hispanic Theater.

He has served on the commission since 2020.

Mr.

Torres is well qualified to continue serving on the commission.

His longstanding commitment to arts education, cultural inclusion, public service will continue to be an asset to the commission and the district's arts community.

All three of these resolutions were introduced at the request of the mayor on March 12, 2026.

The committee of the whole held a public hearing or actually public round table on May 6, 2026.

The committee received no testimony or comments in opposition to any of these nominees.

All three for all three resolutions with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on the Princeton Reports for the three nominees to the Commission on Arts and Humanities.

All those in favor say aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimous.

I'll note Councilmember White is here online.

Mad General Counsel.

Are these three measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, they are.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each?

Once the reports and hearing records are filed.

And Madam Budget Director, because these are confirmations, there is no fiscal impact.

Correct.

Without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

There's no objection, the next two measures, which are appointments to the confirmation of a uh nominations for appointment to the Board of Zoning Adjustment will be considered in block.

And they are PR 26-636 and PR 26-667.

The Board of Zoning Adjustment is a creation of federal law.

The BZA is composed of a member of the National Capital Planning Commission or an NCPC staff member, a rotating member of the Zoning Commission, and three members appointed by the mayor of the District of Columbia with the advice and consent of the council.

Of the three members appointed by the mayor, each must have been a resident of the District of Columbia for at least three years immediately preceding his or her appointment, and at least one of those three members must own his or her own home.

The terms of the three members appointed by the mayor are for three years.

The Board of Zoning Adjustment or BZA is authorized to consider applications for special exceptions and variances, as well as to hear appeals from decisions granting or refusing a building permit or granting or withholding a certificate of occupancy, or appeals from other administrative decisions based on the zoning regulations or zoning map.

The Board of Zoning Adjustment is distinct from the zoning commission.

The latter has plenary authority over zoning, including formulation of the zoning regulations.

The zoning commission has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters concerning zoning in the District of Columbia.

In addition to being responsible for the zoning regulations, the Commission zoning commission reviews all cases relating to the zoning map and text.

These include planned unit developments and campus plans for colleges and universities.

The zoning commission is also responsible for implementing the land use aspects of the comprehensive plan.

The commission's plenary authority includes the right to review Sue Spante any decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

The purpose of PR 26-636 is to confirm the mayor's nomination to appoint Paul Goldstein as a member of the Board of Zoning Adjustment for the remainder of a three-year term to expire September 30th, 2026, and for his subsequent term to end September 30th, 2029, replacing Fred Hill.

Mr.

Goldstein is a city planner and attorney with nearly two decades of experience in land use zoning and development review in the district.

He currently serves as a program analyst in the Department of Buildings Office of Zoning Administration, where he assists with zoning interpretations, affordable housing compliance reviews, and updates to the district zoning regulations.

He previously served as an assistant attorney general assigned to the land use section, providing legal advice to the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Commission, and drafting orders in contested zoning cases.

He also worked as a development review specialist with the Office of Planning, where he represented the agency before the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Commission and participated in the district's comprehensive zoning rewrite.

In addition to his public sector service, Mr.

Goldstein has experience in private legal practice, municipal planning, and residential development.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Michigan, a Master of City Planning from the University of Pennsylvania, and a jurisdictor from the University of Virginia.

He's a resident of Ward 3.

He uh is currently employed at the Department of Buildings, but stated at the hearing that he will resign for that from that position when appointed uh to the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

The purpose of PR 26-667 is to confirm the mayor's nomination to appoint Michelle Purceau as a member of the Board of Zoning Adjustment for the remainder of a three-year term to expire September 30th, 2028, replacing Carl Blake.

Ms.

Persot is a transportation infrastructure professional with more than three decades of experience in public administration, planning, and municipal management.

She currently serves as president of MP Synergy LLC, a strategic advisory firm focused on infrastructure, transportation leadership, organizational strategy, and business development.

She previously served as director of the District Department of Transportation and the Baltimore City Department of Transportation, becoming the first woman to lead both agencies and the first African American to serve as director of DDOT.

During her more than 20 years with the district government, she held a variety of leadership positions involving transportation planning, transportation planning, capital programming, public space management, and infrastructure policy.

She holds a bachelor of arts and urban studies from the University of Michigan and a Master of Arts in City and Regional Planning from Howard University.

She is a resident of Ward 4.

Ms.

Persot's extensive experience in planning, transportation and public administration and her decades of leadership in the district government and private sector should make her a valuable addition to the board.

PR 26-667 was introduced on April 13th, no, April 3rd of this year, and PR 26-667 was introduced on April 21st of this year, both at the request of the mayor.

The Committee of the Whole held a public hearing on both of these nominations on May 19th, 2026.

The committee received no testimony or comments in opposition to these nominations.

With leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on both the Princeton reports with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Counsel, are these two measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, they are.

Madam Secretary is the record complete for each.

I want to report in hearing markets are filed.

Madam Budget Director, these are confirmations, so there is no fiscal impact required.

Correct.

Without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

I'm not going to move them in block.

So the first one is PR 26 582, Friendship Public Charter School Inc.

Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2026.

Pursuant to the Home Rule Act, the Council is authorized to issue, quote, taxable and not and taxable and tax exempt revenue bonds notes or other obligations to finance, refinance, or reimburse, and to assist in the financing, refinancing or reimbursing of or for capital projects and other undertakings on behalf of a qualified applicant, including capital projects or undertakings, unquote, in several different areas, including for capital projects in the area of quote elementary, secondary, and college and university facilities, unquote.

The district has long had an industrial revenue bond program to help nonprofits and other organizations finance capital improvements at lower rates.

In 1995, the council approves the industrial revenue bond forward commitment forward commitment program authorization act of 1995 to revise the industrial revenue bond program process to make it nimbler and more effective.

Under the current IRB process, the mayor is authorized after council approval of a project approval resolution, such as what we have before us, to assist in financing, refinancing, and reimbursing costs of the development of eligible projects by approving the issuance sale and delivery of one or more series of revenue bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $850 million.

The law authorizes the mayor to prescribe details of bond financing of bond financing and closing documents and sets basic requirements for the payment of principal premium and any interest on the bonds.

Additionally, the law specifically states that the district is not liable for and has no obligation with respect to issuance or payment of the bonds.

In other words, the organization applying for the issuance of the bonds under the program must repay the bonds and any associated interest.

PR 26-582, the Friendship Public Charter School Inc.

Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution would authorize the issuance, sale, and delivery of tax exempt revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 90 million dollars.

The bonds will be used by Friendship Public Charter School for refinancing improvements at several school properties and other uses, as detailed in the report, and some of that detail follows.

First, approximately 58.7 million dollars will be used to refinance series 2016A bonds originally issued in the principal amount of $57.8 million.

Second, the project includes funding for certain capital improvements across multiple facilities, including at the Tech Prep Academy campus, at the Chamberlain Elementary and Middle Campus, at the Woodbridge Elementary and Middle Campus, at the Blow Pierce Elementary and Middle Campus, at the Carter G.

Woodson Collegiate Academy, at the Southeast Elementary and Middle Campus, at the ideal elementary and middle campus, at the Armstrong Elementary and Middle Campus, and at the Friendship Online Academy.

The project includes the potential acquisition and renovation of facilities located at 4069-4089 Minnesota Avenue Northeast and the purchase of equipment and furnishings.

At the committee's public hearing, friendship indicated that at this moment the bond proceeds will not be used to finance the acquisition of that property.

That said, friendship indicated that they would like to retain the ability to acquire a property if the organization determines it is feasible.

PR 26 582 would authorize the issuance, sale, and delivery of tax exempt revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $90 million dollars for Friendship Public Charter School for refinancing improvements at several school properties and other uses.

The committee finds that the project constitutes a permissible undertaking in accordance with the code, and that the project will contribute to the health and education of residents of the district.

This legislation was introduced on March 19th at the request of the mayor, not March 19th of this year, and the committee held a public hearing on May 14th.

There was no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical, conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on both the report and print with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary is the record complete.

Once the report and hearing market are filed, Madam Budget Director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

The next measure is PR 26-660, DC Preparatory Academy Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2026.

PR 26-660 would authorize the issuance, sale, and delivery of tax exempt revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25 million.

The bonds will be used by DC Preparatory Academy for the acquisition, renovation, equipping, and development of an approximately 42,000 square foot public charter school facility located at 711 Edgewood Street Northeast, which is in Ward 5.

DC Preparatory Academy Public Charter School is a network of public charter schools that focuses on bridging the educational divide by increasing the number of students from underserved communities with the academic preparation and personal character to succeed in competitive high schools and colleges.

DC Prepps property at 711 Edgewood Street Northeast will be fully gutted and renovated to serve as the new home of DC Prep's Edgewood Middle Campus, which is currently located across the street at 701 Edgewood Street Northeast.

The project will alleviate significant space constraints faced at the existing facility existing and outdated facility.

The renovated building will include classrooms for fourth through eighth grades, along with dedicated rooms for art, drumming, and science instruction, a full-size gymnasium, an outdoor play area, a cafeteria, a library, and additional spaces designed to support student programming.

Administrative offices and teacher work areas will be incorporated to provide a supportive workplace for staff.

This project has been in planning since September 2025 when the school acquired the property at 711 Edgewood Street Northeast.

The project constitutes a permissible undertaking in accordance with the code, and the project will contribute to the health and education of residents of the district.

This legislation was introduced on April 20th, 2026 with the request of the mayor, and the committee held a public hearing on this resolution on May 8, 2026.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Once the report and hearing record are filed.

Madam Budget Director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

The third revenue bond measure is PR 26 670, Food and Friends Inc.

Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2026.

PR 26 670 would authorize the issuance, sale, and delivery of tax exempt revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations, and an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $15 million.

The bonds will be used by Food and Friends to finance, refinance, or reimburse all or a portion of costs incurred in connection with the renovation, expansion, and construction of Food and Friends headquarters and food preparation facility located at 219 Riggs Road Northeast.

Founded in 1988, Food and Friends is a 501c3 um business, operating from its headquarters and food distribution facility at 219 Riggs Road Northeast.

Food and Friends provides home-delivered medically tailored meals, medically tailored groceries, and medical nutrition therapy to residents living with cancer, HIV AIDS, and other serious illnesses.

In 2025, Food and Friends served nearly one million meals to more than 3,000 residents.

The organization employs 72 employees, 50% of whom are district residents.

In July 2026, Food and Friends will break ground on a $28.2 million expansion and renovation to its existing facility.

The expansion and renovation project will add an additional six almost 17,000 square feet of storage, prep, and office space.

Upon completion, Food and Friends will be able to increase the number of meals that it serves and operate more efficiently.

The project is being funded in part through Food and Friends' $30 million nourish together, building a health community capital campaign.

As of January 31, 2026, the capital campaign has raised a total of 19.22 million dollars in pledges.

The 15 million dollars in bond proceeds will be used to bridge the gap between the pledges collected and the overall project costs.

The assuming this is approved, the committee finds that the project constitutes a permissible undertaking in accordance with the code, and that the project will contribute to the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the district.

This legislation was introduced on April 23rd of this year, and the committee as a whole held a public hearing on May 14th, receiving no testimony or comments in opposition to the measure.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make tactical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Council, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary is to record complete.

Once the report and hearing record are filed.

Yes, it does.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

The fourth and final revenue bond measure is PR 26-704, entitled Methodist Home of the District of Columbia, doing business as Forest Hills of DC by Goodwin Living Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2026.

PR 26-704 would authorize the issuance sale and delivery of tax exempt revenue bonds, notes or other obligations, and an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $13.7 million.

The bonds will be used by Forest Hills to refinance certain outstanding tax exempt fixed rate debt associated with the facility located at 4901 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, and to finance up to $3 million in new capital to fund facility improvements.

Is a nonprofit senior living community founded in 1889 as the Methodist Home.

Forest Hills has served seniors in the district for over 135 years.

Originally, the organization began with seven residents and an 18-room house.

The organization moved to its current location in 1926 and expanded over time, including a major addition in 1961.

Today, Forest Hills offers 64 assisted living suites, a health care center with 50 private and semi-private rooms, a physical therapy gym, and a dedicated memory care unit.

The facility currently houses 92 residents, with 50 residents in skilled nursing and 42 residents in assisted living.

In 2024, Forrest Hills joined Goodwin Living, a nonprofit senior living and health care services provider based in Alexandria, Virginia, that serves approximately 4,000 seniors annually across four senior living campuses.

PR 26-704 would authorize the mayor to issue, sell, or deliver and deliver tax exempt revenue bonds, notes or other obligations, and an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 13.7 million dollars.

Forest Hills plans to use the bonds to refinance its outstanding tax exempt fixed rate debt from series 1999 and 2009 bonds with a new tax exempt bank loan.

As part of this financing, Forest Hills also intends to include up to $3 million in additional proceeds to fund facility improvements.

Potential improvements may include roof repairs, window replacements, building envelope work, cooling tower repairs, elevator repairs, filler and boiler replacements, apartment renovations, office to apartment conversions, interior carpet replacement, and sidewalk repairs.

Assuming this is approved, the committee finds that the project constitutes a permissible undertaking in accordance with the DC code, and that the project will contribute to the health, safety, and welfare of senior residents of the district.

PR 26-582.

I think I already gave these introduction dates.

So this uh resolution PR 26-704 was introduced by at the request of the mayor on May 7th of this year, and the committee of the whole held a held a public hearing on May 14th and received no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make tactical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote is on both the print and report with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The final item for markup in the committee of the whole is Bill 26.

Clarence question.

I know you're excited to move forward.

I'm very excited.

Uh, sorry.

So, with regard to PR 26-704, Madam General Counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Once the report and hearing record are filed.

And the hearing and the clearance questions are asked.

Uh, Madam Budget Director, does the measures physical impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

Uh, the final item for markup in the committee as a whole is Bill 26-208 entitled the Open Meetings Clarification Amendment Act of 2026.

Bill 26-208 was introduced last March by all 12 members of the council.

As revised by the committee print, the bill makes a number of changes to the open meetings act.

It exempts the law from applying to council members when they gather to discuss but not act on difficult matters or otherwise gather informally.

It permits the mayor and council to meet without invoking the open meetings act so long as no official action is taken, such as a mayor council breakfast.

It exempts the criminal justice coordinating committee from the open meetings act, just as the mayor and the courts are currently exempted.

It makes permanent several provisions related to virtual open meetings, provisions that were first adopted during the pandemic, and the print makes several clarifying amendments.

As initially proposed, the bill would have been broadly applicable to all government entities such as our boards and commissions.

The bill before us has been in effect for over a year, adopted as emergency and temporary legislation.

The policy that government decision making should always be done at an open meeting has long been the law in the district with two fundamental requirements.

First, official actions such as votes should occur at a public meeting.

And second, to properly hold a public meeting, there must be adequate public notice of the meeting.

The Open Meetings Act of 2010 expanded this policy, in essence, to include conversations, not just actions by public officials.

While this seemed innocuous when enacted time after time, we have found this to impede communication.

For example, when our housing committee wanted to conduct a field trip to visit public housing projects, it was told it couldn't unless it provided public notice and allowed members of the public and press to join.

When I offered a sudden unplanned briefing for council members of the confidential negotiations between the mayor and monumental sports, I was challenged for violating the open meetings act for not giving public notice or allowing the public to attend.

Our ability to hold a retreat where members can informally discuss their personal views affecting policy is arguably prohibited.

We no longer have monthly mayor council breakfasts because neither side wants to publicly air disagreements, for instance, allow the council to publicly and personally question and argue with the mayor over something she is or is not doing.

And our ability to meet to discuss political strategy to best inform members of Congress about our appropriations and house oversight intrusions is constrained, even though we don't want these conversations to be public.

I suspect this legislation makes a few members uncomfortable, but look at how we've existed under the temporary versions of this legislation this past year.

A week ago, we were able to have a necessarily confidential discussion over how to respond to the chief financial officer in the budget before us.

Two months ago, we were able to meet several times to discuss confidential to discuss confidentially our strategy over how to respond to Congress's effort to block our decoupling legislation, legislation that will provide 274 million dollars in the budget before us.

Without the bill before us, it would be more difficult for us to have these conversations.

And given that the open meetings act is to be construed broadly by the courts, we would be, as we have been in the past, on the defensive, defending, for example, our closed door briefing on the negotiations that kept monumental sports in the district.

The current law stymies collaboration and candid conversation.

Think about what this means.

From a practical standpoint, these conversations cannot be spontaneous unless it truly and actually is an emergency, because to business days, public notice must be given, nor will they be complete because what could or should have been a frank and fruitful conversation, such as at our retreats, is either avoided or becomes too performative to be productive, such as our mayor council breakfast.

As I have said repeatedly, the purpose of this legislation is to restore the ability of legislators to have private conversations while, and this is important, preserving the fundamental policy that official decisions should occur in public, and there must be public notice of the meetings where official decisions are made.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, over this last year I've been fairly consistent in holding two things true at the same time.

Both recognizing that we do have a need to be able to go into a closed session to be able to have confidential conversations, be that around uh some of the examples you highlighted, our ability to strategize around a response to federal legislation in Congress, or actions by an administration, which we don't necessarily need to highlight or preview in a public setting, or be able to move quickly to have a conversation around an emerging topic and then be able to make a decision.

At the same time, I have a lot of reservations and have voted against the previous measures on emergency and temporary because I do feel that it is overly broad in a way that it allows us to have closed and private sessions where we are debating official action, and there is no notice given whatsoever and no record of it even happening.

I think that that can lead to mistrust of what would otherwise most people realize are reasonable times that your legislative branch needs to go into a closed session.

So I we're gonna be taking this up at first reading in about an hour or so.

Um so I wanted to ask that this be placed on the non-consent agenda because I have been working as uh we talked about during the breakfast meeting earlier on an amendment to ensure that a notice is provided when a closed conversation takes place.

Um I think that's an important part both for public and media to be aware of a conversation.

I don't like the idea of having a closed conversation that no one even knows to place.

I don't think that's what we want government to be uh and best represent our values.

So um, Mr.

Chairman, if I get a request this be on the non-consent agenda, and then we'll work to have an amendment to present at first reading uh that I think reflects our conversation earlier this morning.

Okay, so I'm looking at some language, but uh you're not moving that now.

Well, it's been handed to you just moments ago and myself moments ago, so uh since we have first reading coming up in just a moment, I think it'd be best for us to have a chance to read it, make sure we're on the same page, and then be able to uh move it at the first reading, which will take place in what 30 minutes or so?

Okay, so um the essence of what you described is acceptable to me, and I think addresses uh concerns that several members have raised.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis George.

Yeah, I had several questions.

Um first, Mr.

Chairman, I wanted to know um how many times since the first open meeting uh clarification emergency went into effect.

Has the council closed a meeting?

And then how many of those times would have would the meeting have been required to be open without the emergency and temporal bills?

Uh I didn't hear that second question.

How many of those times would the meeting have been required to be open without the emergency and temporal bills?

So of the meetings, how many have we had since the first open meetings clarification emergency went into effect?

Like how many closed meetings have been have occurred?

And then of those, how many of those would the meeting have been required to be open without the emergency and temporal bills?

Do you have to track those things to make sure permanent and an emergency is necessary a permit is necessary?

I didn't hear that last part.

Have we tracked that?

Do we have that information?

Uh we've not tracked that.

And since I'm just hearing this question for the first time, I've not thought about it.

Um we probably met several times in January or February with regard to the um House and Senate override of our decoupling legislation, and those would have been closed meetings.

Uh we met last week to discuss uh issues uh with regard to issues that the chief financial officer has raised with regard to the budget.

Uh we met a number of times, I don't know how many times last August with regard to um President Trump's declaration.

I will say of a so-called emergency, uh, to discuss how we would respond.

One of those meetings we had with the mayor, you'll remember, um, where the mayor came in after her press conference after meeting with the president.

Um since the emergency was adopted, so I'm thinking of the monumental sports, but that was before the emergency was adopted.

Um I do not have a count, but I it would be safe to say maybe two dozen times, safe to say I'm gonna say maybe two dozen times.

Now, how many of those would not have been permitted?

That's a difficult question to answer because my position is that, um, for instance, to monumental briefing was legitimate.

Um, so I'm gonna say that uh every time we met, we could have met, but, and this is a part of the issue here, is that the law is to be construed broadly, and uh so my interpretation may not be the same as what a court would find.

Uh I'm not going to concede, uh, given that there could ever be a legal challenge that we didn't have the authority to meet.

So that's a question that can't answer very easily.

The second question.

But I will add this.

So there's no question that if we are having a briefing by our attorney with regard to a lawsuit against the district, that that would be that we could close that under the existing law.

We would have to give notice, two days' notice, that's part of the challenge.

We would then have to start the meeting open to the public and then close the meeting.

Um, but if we're talking um strategy with regard to the House or the Senate overriding our tax decoupling, I would argue that that's a legal issue.

Uh some might take issue with that, and again, that's part of the challenge with the existing law, is that it's to be interpreted very broadly, that the meetings are to be open, and um, well, yeah.

I think um, and I was asking the question because I wondering whether the changes made in the permanent are necessary given that we have the mechanisms uh under our current the current version of our open meetings to be able to do this to close meetings when necessary, and I don't know that we need broader provisions to do that.

My second question though was I know um the racial equity impact assessment says this will likely have a negative impact on public trust and access to government.

Um it also uh brought up, and also some of the questions have been um this would make it more difficult uh for us to have transparency across the board that's been expressed.

What is what is your response to sort of the negative impact it could have on public trust and access to government?

Um I think you look at our conduct over the past year, and I other than from some reporters who've complained with regard to a particular meeting that they uh were not included in, that uh there's been no issue with regard to public trust or confidence.

I just I'm not hearing those complaints.

Um, in fact what I hear from a lot of folks is that it makes sense that because we're a 13-member body that we need to have the flexibility to have conversations sometimes.

Okay.

I I haven't seen Charles's the amendment yet circulated.

Um I do think it would be helpful if we could not have to do this today and we could move it to our next meeting so people can have time to both process what was circulated uh by you uh yesterday and what is going to be circulated, I assume, in the next couple of minutes today, um when we're making such a large declaration on a permanent basis about open meetings and transparency, I think we should do more due diligence than just a few hours or a few minutes of diligence.

So I would ask that you would please consider um moving this to another meeting versus having to do this today.

Um thank you.

Uh thank you.

Uh I do want to note that um at the hearing I um made a statement in the statement I made reference to um the fact that there will be some who say that this bill is unnecessary because the council already has the authority to close meetings, um and uh what I said at the time was not only does this argument overlook the examples that I gave, which I gave today, such as the monumental negotiations, where we were not getting legal advice, the legal advice was to the mayor, um, and uh the committee wanting to tour a public housing facility, uh, and I gave other examples.

So not only does that argument overlook those examples, uh, but it um overlooks another problem that the current law unamended does not clearly and unquestionably support the argument.

The council is constantly questioned and responding to those complaints is both time-consuming and potentially expensive.

So the monumental negotiations, there was a complaint file with Bega.

It was months.

It took months, and there was a fair amount of work involved responding to Vega.

Ultimately, we prevailed.

Okay, so we had the authority to have that gathering, but nonetheless, we were on the defensive.

It was time consuming.

And it's quite possible because the legislative language says the laws to be construed broadly, that sometime the defense won't work.

So just in that sense, as a clarification.

Further discussion, Councilmember Fruman.

Sure, and I I thought Councilmember Henderson's hand was up as well.

I 100% agree with the premise that we need legislation like this and have been engaged on this with you for the last year and a half.

I think it's very important that we have the ability, particularly in this environment with the federal government.

I am troubled that we had a hearing on this, I think it's over a year ago.

And at that time, I talked about aren't there ways to make minor revisions to this that we can achieve your goal where we have the ability to have these meetings, but we preserve a level of transparency, even if it's post hoc reporting that the meeting had happened.

That didn't get that idea didn't get picked up.

Instead, what we see is a version in the permanent that is just like the temporary and the emergency, which I had supported in the past, with the hopes that we would refine it when we got to permanent legislation.

As of this moment, that hasn't happened.

I haven't seen what Councilmember Allen has developed.

It may be similar to the kinds of ideas that I had talked about.

I think probably the ideal world is unless there's a reason why this has to be done today because the emergency or temporary is about to expire, that we take a little bit of time, see the ideas that have been put on the table for refinements, and then move to a vote so that we wouldn't need to vote on this today.

At a minimum, I will be very curious to see what it is that Councilmember Allen came up with to see if it addresses the fundamentals of the issues that I'd raised.

But as it stands, while I've supported the emergencies and the temporaries a couple of times, I will have to vote against this today if it goes forward in the form that it is now.

Well, I would ask that you uh reconsider that.

So after listening at the breakfast, uh there were a number of members, including uh you, Councilmember Fruman, who raised some issues.

Uh what councilmember Allen and I discussed and I've agreed to is uh that there would be, as you put it, a post hoc reporting.

Um so that's the amendment.

I thought it would be ready for the uh markup, but it will be at first reading.

So there will be three votes on this.

There will be the committee markup, there will be first reading, and there will be second reading.

Uh, further on this.

Uh so I was told councilmember Henderson wanted to speak.

Mr.

Parker, you're in the line of sight, and you're the only one who has your hand up.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just wanted to add my voice to this.

Um I echo some of the concerns that our colleagues have addressed.

I too support it.

Um the emergency and temporary.

In fact, I was one of the individuals, as you know, Mr.

Chairman, really uh pushing for this originally because I thought it was critical for the council to be able to have honest, direct, urgent conversations about our relationship with Congress without that being in the media.

I have heard uh feedback from Ward 5 neighbors where they are expressing concern.

Um, and so I do just want to make sure that that is reflected.

It is not simply uh media outlets that are upset that they are not invited into a meeting.

Uh, residents truly do have concerns about the direction or the appearance that the council is moving into more secret deliberations.

I too look forward to seeing and learning more about what uh deal has been struck between you and councilmember Allen.

And as you know, Mr.

Chairman, I think it's important that we are responsive to the feedback that we're getting from the public.

And so it sounds like perhaps this amendment will address the concerns that uh we are hearing.

Uh, but I do want uh to just level set that there is concern about a lack of transparency, unless that we are doing something nefarious, but I think it's about the direction uh that we're heading.

So um I probably will vote present without knowledge of what this amendment is uh because given the language of what is before us, it seems as though there's no change, no direction, and no acknowledgement of the feedback that we've gotten to date.

Um so thank you.

Sure.

So again, the um I don't know that I want to call it a deal.

We was raised at the breakfast about uh there's absolutely no public awareness of these meetings unless somebody is outside the door, figuratively speaking.

Um and so again to borrow Councilmember Fruman's uh terminology, the amendment speaks to a post hoc um statement about the meeting having taken place.

So it would not be secretive in terms of the uh trend.

I think all you have to do is look at the last 12 months.

Now, as I noted earlier today, uh that there are some folks think that we are meeting um in a closed session, when in fact we're not um I'm not sure what to do about that.

Maybe that's a conversation we should have with the council secretary.

Uh the only times that we have met in closed session have been when members are told that it's a closed session.

So you can try to re-elect re-recollect every time that's been.

Councilmember Lewis George asked the question, how many?

Uh it's not been many.

Our breakfasts continue to be open.

Um almost all of our budget deliberations have been open.

I think the one exception that I can remember is last week discussing the chief financial officer.

Uh so I think the trend is what we've seen over the past year, which is not much, but sometimes.

If I could just say quickly, I I agree with that, and I do want to acknowledge the measured approach you have lit the council with towards this, but it being permanent legislation means we open the door for a future chairman to close a session, and I think you're seeing this from the vein respectfully of how you would approach it, and I think some of the uneasiness that perhaps we're sensing from the public is about the direction in the future, one day when maybe uh Chairman Mendelson is no longer the chairman.

So I just Well, I'm not sure when that will be, but um the um you know it's not that members have no voice in this.

So if I um if I'm closing the meetings more often than you're comfortable with, you can speak out and uh make a difference that way.

Councilmember Allen, did you want to say something?

Just briefly on the second round, if I could.

It the point that Councillor Parker just touched on is part of my unease around these changes of the permanent bill.

You've outlined correctly that most of our budget conversations are open to the public.

Uh our breakfast meetings are open to the public, but under this permanent version of this law, it could be closed, and there would be no notice given to the public in advance, and no notice given even after the fact.

That I think would breed mistrust.

And so while I do not believe at all that you would exercise that power that way, this is permanent legislation that will now exist.

So a few decades from now, when there isn't a Chairman Mendelssohn, um, that chair could act in a different way.

And so I think that's um that is why I think you hear the concern here is because this isn't an emergency and temporary, that's a very clear expiration date.

This is permanent law that now is the law for the district.

And so that's where I think we're coming from.

Um, and uh again, I think you this is one of those bills and laws that two things can be true at the same time.

You are correct in terms of I think maybe two dozen tops uses that we have seen where there have been a closed conversation.

Um our breakfast meetings are open.

Our budget deliberations have been open, but this law does not make it, so that would always be so.

And so having some safeguards in that I think is important, not just for the council that we are today, but the council that we may become in the future.

And that's what you and I have worked out.

If there's no further discussion, uh the vote will be on the uh print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, are there any opposed?

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, please record me as voting present.

Likewise, Mr.

Chairman, please.

Okay, there were a lot of presence.

Did you get them all?

Please record me as voting no.

Councilmember Parker would like to vote present.

Councilmember Lewis George, no.

You're no.

You should just do a roll call.

Make it easier.

All right, we will call the roll on the um on the bill.

The uh this is on the print for 26-208 with leave for staff to make technical conforming changes.

Uh Councilmember Pinto.

Yes, Councilmember Pinto votes yes.

Councilmember Robert White, present.

Councilmember Rob White votes present.

Councilmember Trayon White.

Councilmember Trayon White votes present.

Chairman Mendelson?

Yes.

Chairman Mendelson votes yes.

Councilmember Allen?

No.

Councilmember Allen votes no.

Councilmember Bonds.

Yes.

Councilmember Bonds votes yes.

Councilmember Crawford.

Yes.

Councilmember Crawford votes yes.

Councilmember Felder?

Yes.

Councilmember Felder votes yes.

Councilmember Fruman.

Present.

Councilmember Fruman votes present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson votes present.

Councilmember Lewis George?

No.

Councilmember Lewis George votes no.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Present.

Councilman Nado votes present.

Councilmember Parker.

Present.

Councilman Parker votes present.

Mr.

Chairman there.

Five yeses.

Two no's.

And six present.

The ayes have it.

I move the uh report with leave for staff to make technical informing and editorial changes.

Uh discussion on the report.

Do I need to do a roll call on the report?

Thank you.

Um we'll do a roll call in the report.

Councilmember Robert White.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White votes present.

Councilmember Trayon White.

Present.

Council Trayon White votes present.

Council Chairman Mendelssohn.

Yes.

Chairman Mendelssohn votes yes.

Councilmember Allen?

No.

Councilmember Allen votes no.

Councilmember Bonds.

Yes.

Councilman Bonds votes yes.

Councilmember Crawford.

Yes.

Councilmember Crawford votes yes.

Councilmember Felder?

Yes.

Councilmember Felder votes yes.

Council Member Freuman.

Present.

Councilmember Fruman votes present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson votes present.

Councilmember Lewis George.

No.

Councilman Lewis George votes no.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Present.

Councilman Doe votes present.

Councilmember Parker.

Present.

Councilmember Parker votes present.

Councilmember Pinto.

Yes.

Councilmember Pinto votes yes.

Mr.

Chairman, there are five yeses, two no's, and six present.

The ayes have it.

Madam General Council, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Madam Budget Director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is not.

This measure will be placed on the non-consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

From the Committee on Health, chaired by Councilmember Christina Henderson.

PR 26-600.

Board of Nursing Brianna Jones confirmation resolution of 2026.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

PR 26-600 nominates Brianna Jones to the Board of Nursing as a licensed nursing home administrator for a term to end July 21st, 2027.

Ms.

Jones currently serves as an administrator at Inspire Rehabilitation and Health Center.

Previously, she held um administrator and assistant administrator roles at Stoddard Baptist Global Care and Capital City Health and Rehabilitation Center.

She holds a master's in science in aging and health from Georgetown University and a Master's of Health Administration from the University of Maryland.

She is a Ward 5 resident.

The committee held a round table on this nomination on April 15, 2026, and we discussed her experience working in long-term care and what she hopes to add to the Board of Nursing.

Just as a reminder to colleagues, the former Board of Long Term Care Administration is now folded into the Board of Nursing.

And so Miss Jones' nomination would add a new and necessary perspective to this health professional board.

If confirmed, she stated her intent would be to advance culturally responsive care, support aging in place, strengthen workforce development and retention, and address behavioral health needs among older adults.

Um nomination, and I appreciate committee of the whole allowing me to present it today, but I do believe that it has already been deemed approved, but hopefully the committee or will be deemed approved, but I hope the committee can approve it today.

Thank you.

So I'll ask members if they have questions, but uh we will not be putting this on the agenda.

Are there questions from members?

Hearing none.

Uh thank you.

And the last item is PR 26-674.

Alcoholic beverage and cannabis board, James Turner confirmation resolution of 2026.

Reported out of the Committee on Public Works and Operations, chaired by Councilmember Brianna Doe.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Yes, thank you, Chairman.

Um proposed resolution 26674 would confirm the mayor's appointment of James Turner to the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board.

The ABC Board renders decisions in licensing matters that can have a profound impact on the character of a neighborhood.

Its members are hardworking volunteers, not government employees, and they're nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

Today's nominee previously served as chair of an advisory neighborhood commission in ward one.

In my totally unbiased opinion, that's a telltale sign of a great leader and a great person in general.

In this case, Mr.

Turner's Ward 1 ANC leadership experience is especially relevant because our ward is home to a dense concentration of bars, restaurants, and other establishments subject to ABC licensure.

As a result, Mr.

Turner has deep experience managing tough contested licensure decisions.

I look forward to his service on the board and encourage colleagues to support this confirmation resolution.

With that, I request this measure be agendized in the legislative meeting.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Are there questions from members?

Madam General Council, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

Madam Budget Director, this is a confirmation resolution, so there is no fiscal impact.

Correct.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

There might be a little bit of conversation to.

Um, let's say one o five.

Um, the time right now is twelve fifty two PM and this meeting is adjourned.