Local
D.C. anti-bullying bill clears key vote
Training requirement eliminated to cut cost of measure
‘The bill delivers a strong message that this city will not tolerate bullying – especially for our LGBT youth,’ said Council member Tommy Wells. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
A D.C. Council committee voted unanimously on April 20 to approve the Youth Bullying Prevention Act of 2012 and to send it to the full Council for an expected preliminary vote on May 1.
“The bill delivers a strong message that this city will not tolerate bullying – especially for our LGBT youth – in our schools, libraries, recreation centers and where the city serves its youth,” said Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6).
Wells is chair of the Council’s Committee on Libraries, Parks, Recreation and Planning, which worked with the mayor’s office and LGBT advocates over the past year to make significant revisions to the bill before voting to approve it last week.
With the city facing an expected budget shortfall next year, Wells and his fellow committee members were faced with the need to make changes to lower the cost of implementing the bill.
The revised version of the bill, for example, eliminates a provision in the earlier version that stated, “To the extent that funds are appropriated for these purposes,” various city agencies, including the public school system, “shall provide training on the agency’s harassment, intimidation or bullying policies to employees and volunteers who have significant contact with students or the public…”
The revised bill approved by the committee says the public schools and other city agencies “may … provide training on bullying prevention to all employees and volunteers who have significant contact with youth.”
Alison Gill, public policy manager for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, which worked with Wells’ office to help revise the bill, said the training requirement in the earlier version of the bill was contingent upon the availability of city funds and the elimination of that provision would have a minimal impact on the overall bill.
“I think it’s excellent,” Gill said of the revised bill. “The new bill addresses the issues the community had raised over the past year.”
Among those issues, Gill said, was the need to broaden the definition of bullying from the original bill to include all of the categories of individuals protected under the D.C. Human Rights Act and the need to strengthen the reporting requirements for schools and city agencies to keep track of bullying incidents.
The committee vote came just over one week after Mayor Vincent Gray announced he would put into place a citywide anti-bullying initiative through his executive authority as mayor. His proposal includes the creation of a special task force on bullying and the development of a model anti-bullying policy and standards to be used by city agencies with jurisdiction over youth.
The legislation approved by Wells’ committee, among other things, also calls for creating a bullying task force and developing a comprehensive anti-bullying policy for city agencies.
Gill said the mayor’s task force and bullying polices would be adopted as those required under the bill, with an expected smooth transition once the bill becomes law.
Eleven of the Council’s 13 members signed on as co-introducers or co-sponsors of the earlier version of the bill. Supporters say the new version is expected to pass the full Council by an overwhelming margin.
A summary of the bill’s provisions released by Wells’ office says the measure includes these key components:
• The establishment and implementation of a bullying prevention policy, including reporting and investigation guidelines, that specifically covers all youth, including youth of color, LGBT youth, and youth with disabilities.
• The establishment of an appeal process for a party dissatisfied with the outcome of an initial investigation of a bullying incident.
• A clear prohibition against retaliation against a target of bullying, a witness to a bullying incident, or someone who reports an incident of bullying.
• The granting of legal immunity from lawsuits against an employee, volunteer or youth who “in good faith” reports an incident of bullying.
The bill defines bullying as “any severe, persistent act or conduct, whether physical, electronic, or verbal that … shall be reasonably predicted to place the youth in reasonable fear of physical harm to his or her person or property; cause a substantial detrimental effect on the youth’s physical or mental health; substantially interfere with the youth’s academic performance or attendance; or substantially interfere with the youth’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by an agency, educational institution, or grantee.”
It defines “grantee” as an entity or contractor that provides services, activities or privileges to youth on behalf of the city.
Wells said at the time the committee voted to approve the bill that a financial impact statement prepared by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer shows that implementing the measure would cost the public school system $36,000 in fiscal year 2014 and $31,000 in both fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
Wells said public school officials indicated the system “cannot absorb this amount,” requiring that the Council and mayor identify other sources of funding.
Wells’ office said last month that an inability to identify funding sources for the bill was among the reasons it has been stalled in committee for more than a year. The revised bill is believed to be far less costly than the earlier version.
“I am confident we will resolve this issue before the bill has its first reading at the full Council,” Wells said.
The committee members who voted to approve the bill, in addition to Wells, were David Catania (I-At-Large), Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large) and Vincent Orange (D-At-Large).
Maryland
What Anne Arundel County school board candidates think about book bans
State lawmakers passed Freedom to Read Act in April
BY ROYALE BONDS | Parents’ efforts to restrict content available to students in school libraries has become a contentious issue in Maryland. Conservative parent groups, such as Moms for Liberty, have been working to get books they believe are inappropriate removed from libraries in Carroll and Howard counties, sparking protests, new policies, and even a state law.
The Freedom to Read Act, passed in April, sets standards that books cannot be removed from public and school libraries due to an author’s background. Library staff that uphold the standard are protected under this act. The law, however, does not prohibit removing books deemed “sexually explicit,” the stated reason local Moms for Liberty chapters challenged school library books.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner website.
District of Columbia
D.C. Council member proposes change for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs
Parker also seeks increased funding for LGBTQ programs in FY 2025 budget
D.C. Council member Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), the Council’s only LGBTQ member, has asked his fellow Council members to support a proposal to change the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs to become a “stand-alone entity outside the Executive Office of the Mayor to allow for greater transparency and accountability that reflects its evolution over the years.”
In an April 30 letter to each of his 12 fellow Council members, Parker said he plans to introduce an amendment to the city’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Support Act to make this change for the LGBTQ Affairs Office.
His letter also calls for adding to the city’s FY 2025 budget two specific funding proposals that local LGBTQ activists submitted to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser that the mayor did not include in her budget proposal submitted to the Council. One calls for $1.5 million to fund the completion of the build out and renovation for the D.C. Center for the LGBTQ Community’s new building in the city’s Shaw neighborhood and $300,000 in subsequent years to support the LGBTQ Center’s operations.
Parker’s second budget proposal calls for what he said was about $450,000 to fund 20 additional dedicated LGBTQ housing vouchers as part of the city’s existing program to provide emergency housing support for LGBTQ residents and other residents facing homelessness.
“The Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs currently manages about 90 vouchers across various programs and needs,” Parker said in his letter to fellow Council members. “Adding an additional 20 vouchers will cost roughly $450,000,” he wrote, adding that dedicated vouchers “play a crucial role in ensuring LGBTQ+ residents of the District can navigate the complex process of securing housing placements.”
In her proposed FY ’25 budget, Bowser calls for a 7.6 percent increase in funding for the Office of LGBTQ Affairs, which amounts to an increase of $132,000, bringing the office’s total funding to $1.7 million.
“To be clear, I support the strong work and current leadership of the Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs,” Parker says in his letter to fellow Council members. “This push for change is in recognition of the office’s notable achievements and the significant demands being placed on it, which require a greater level of accountability.”
Parker told the Blade in an April 30 telephone interview that he believes Japer Bowles, the current director of the Office of L|GBTQ Affairs is doing an excellent job in operating the office, but he believes the office would be able to do more for the LGBTQ community under the change he is proposing.
“Making it a stand-alone office versus it being clustered within the Community Affairs division of the mayor’s office, it will get more attention,” Parker told the Blade. “The leadership will have greater flexibility to advocate for the interest of LGBTQ residents, And we will be able to conduct greater oversight of the office,” he said, referring to the Council’s oversight process.
Parker noted that other community constituent offices in the mayor’s office, including the Office of Latino Affairs and the Office of Veterans Affairs are stand-alone offices that he hopes to bring about for the LGBTQ Affairs Office. He said Council member Brianne Nadeau, who chairs the Council committee that has oversight for the LGBTQ Affairs Office, has expressed support for his proposal.
Also expressing support for Parker’s proposal to make the LGBTQ Affairs Office a stand-alone office is the D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commission Rainbow Caucus. Vincent Slatt, the caucus’s chairperson, submitted testimony last week before the D.C. Council Committee on Public Works and Operations, which is chaired by Nadeau, calling for making the LGBTQ Affairs Office a stand-alone office outside the Executive Office of the Mayor.
Slatt also stated in his testimony that the office has a “chronic staffing shortage” and recommended that at least three additional staff members be assigned to the office.
Daniel Gleick, the mayor’s press secretary, told the Blade the mayor’s office is reviewing Parker’s budget proposals, including the proposed change for the Office of LGBTQ Affairs.
But in testimony at a May 1, D.C. Council budget hearing before the Council’s Committee on Executive Administration and Labor, Lindsey Parker, Mayor Bowser’s Chief of Staff, appeared to express skepticism over making the LGBTQ Affairs office a stand-alone office. Lindsey Parker expressed her thoughts on the proposed change when asked about it by Councilmember Anita Bonds (D-At-Large), who chairs the committee that held the hearing.
“I would proffer that it doesn’t matter whether the agency is within the EOM [Executive Office of the Mayor] or not,” Lindsey Parker told Bonds. “They will still be reporting up into one would argue the most important agency in the D.C. government, which is the one that supports the mayor,” Lindsey Parker said. “So, it’s the closest to the mayor that you can get,” she said “So, you could pull it out and have a different budget chapter. I actually think that’s confusing and convoluted.”
Lindsey Parker added, “The Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs, with their six FTEs right now, if they were a stand-alone function they wouldn’t have all the non-personnel services in order to operate. They need to be under sort of the shop of the EOM in order to get those resources.”
By FETs Lindsey Parker was referring to the term Full Time Equivalent employees.
Rehoboth Beach
Former CAMP Rehoboth official sentenced to nine months in prison
Salvator Seeley pleaded guilty to felony theft charge for embezzlement
Salvator “Sal” Seeley, who served as an official with the Rehoboth Beach, Del., CAMP Rehoboth LGBTQ community center for 20 years, was sentenced on April 5 by a Sussex County Superior Court judge to nine months in prison and to pay $176,000 in restitution to the organization.
The sentencing took place about five weeks after Seeley pleaded guilty to a charge of Theft in Excess of $50,000 for allegedly embezzling funds from CAMP Rehoboth, a spokesperson for the Delaware Department of Justice told the Washington Blade.
Seeley’s guilty plea came shortly after a grand jury, at the request of prosecutors, indicted him on the felony theft charge following an investigation that found he had embezzled at least $176,000 from the nonprofit LGBTQ organization.
“Salvatore C. Seeley, between the 27th day of February 2019 and the 7th day of September 2021, in the County of Sussex, State of Delaware, did take property belonging to CAMP Rehoboth, Inc., consisting of United States currency and other miscellaneous property valued at more than $50,000, intending to appropriate the same,” the indictment states.
“The State recommended a sentence of two years of incarceration based on the large-scale theft and the impact to the non-profit organization,” Delaware Department of Justice spokesperson Caroline Harrison told the Blade in a statement.
“The defense cited Seeley’s lack of a record and gambling addiction in arguing for a probationary sentence,” the statement says. “Seeley was sentenced in Superior Court to a nine-month prison term and to pay a total of $176,000 in restitution for the stolen funds,” Harrison says in the statement.
Neither Seeley nor his attorney could immediately be reached for comment.
At the time of Seeley’s indictment in February, CAMP Rehoboth released a statement saying it first discovered “financial irregularities” within the organization on Sept. 7, 2021, “and took immediate action and notified state authorities.” The statement says this resulted in the investigation of Seeley by the state Department of Justice as well as an internal investigation by CAMP Rehoboth to review its “financial control policies” that led to an updating of those policies.
“As we have communicated from day one, CAMP Rehoboth has fully cooperated with law enforcement,” the statement continues. “At its request, we did not speak publicly about the investigation while it was ongoing for fear it would jeopardize its integrity,” according to the statement. “This was extremely difficult given our commitment to transparency with the community about day-to-day operations during the recent leadership transition.”
The statement was referring to Kim Leisey, who began her job as CAMP Rehoboth’s new executive director in July of 2023, while the Seeley investigation had yet to be completed, following the organization’s process of searching for a new director. It says Seeley left his job as Health and Wellness Director of CAMP Rehoboth in September of 2021 after working for the organization for more than 20 years.
“Mr. Seeley’s actions are a deep betrayal to not only CAMP Rehoboth but also the entire community we serve,” the statement says.
Blade Summer Kickoff Party returns to Rehoboth
Andy Cohen coming to D.C.
Want to dance for a good cause?
Calendar: May 3-9
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Pride season has begun
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
