Logosm.gif (1927 bytes)
navlinks.gif (4688 bytes)
Hruler04.gif (5511 bytes)

Back to Video Lottery Terminal Initiative of 2004 main page

Frank Carter
Statement in Mitigation for Pedro Alfonso, Vickey M. Wilcher, and Margaret Gentry
February 16, 2005




Dorothy Brizill
Bonnie Cain
Jim Dougherty
Gary Imhoff
Phil Mendelson
Mark David Richards
Sandra Seegars


DCWatch Archives
Council Period 12
Council Period 13
Council Period 14

Election 1998
Election 2000
Election 2002

Election 2004
Election 2006

Government and People
Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
Boards and Com
Campaign Finance
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Management Officer
City Council
Control Board
Corporation Counsel
DC Agenda
Elections and Ethics
Fire Department
FOI Officers
Inspector General
Housing and Community Dev.
Human Services
Mayor's Office
Mental Health
Motor Vehicles
Neighborhood Action
National Capital Revitalization Corp.
Planning and Econ. Dev.
Planning, Office of
Police Department
Property Management
Public Advocate
Public Libraries
Public Schools
Public Service Commission
Public Works
Regional Mobility Panel
Sports and Entertainment Com.
Taxi Commission
Telephone Directory
University of DC
Water and Sewer Administration
Youth Rehabilitation Services
Zoning Commission

Issues in DC Politics

Budget issues
DC Flag
DC General, PBC
Gun issues
Health issues
Housing initiatives
Mayor’s mansion
Public Benefit Corporation
Regional Mobility
Reservation 13
Tax Rev Comm
Term limits repeal
Voting rights, statehood
Williams’s Fundraising Scandals


Appleseed Center
Cardozo Shaw Neigh.Assoc.
Committee of 100
Fed of Citizens Assocs
League of Women Voters
Parents United
Shaw Coalition



What Is DCWatch?

themail archives


In re: Challenges Filed to Initiative No. 68,
"The Video Lottery Terminal Initiative of 2004"

Administrative Hearing No. 04-020


This Board in a letter from its General Counsel invited Pedro Alfonso, Vickey M. Wilcher and Margaret Gentry to address the issue of whether any organization or person "should be held responsible for the determined violations [of the District of Columbia's election laws and regulations] and how the Board should determine the amount of fines to be assessed for such violations." As the Board is well aware, Mr. Alfonso was Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the D.C. Video Lottery Terminal Initiative ("Citizens Committee") during the operative period of time and a Proposer for Initiative No. 68. Ms. Wilcher was also a Proposer for Initiative No. 68 and the Treasurer of the Citizens Committee. Ms. Gentry was the Citizens Committee's Custodian of Documents and Records.

Mr. Alfonso, Ms. Wilcher and Ms. Gentry have read the document styled: Statement in Mitigation of the Citizens Committee far the . .C. Video Lottery Terminal Initiative and Johnny Clinton Hyatt ("Hyatt Mitigation Statement"). We would adopt and incorporate the majority of what is set forth there. We provide the following additional details for this Board's consideration.

Before late December, 2004, Mr. Alfonso, Ms. Wilcher and Ms. Gentry were the sole members of the Citizens Committee. Individually, and collectively, they expended numerous hours, all to bring to fruition the right of the people of this city to vote, whichever way they saw fit, on the question of whether video lottery terminals, or video gambling, should be allowed in this city. This Board should never forget that these citizens of the city only sought to empower the populous with the right to vote on this issue.

As the Hyatt Mitigation Statement points out, there were only six days available to the Citizens Committee after the termination of the litigation in Superior Court by the challengers and the approval by this Board of the Petition Sheet on July 1, 2004. It was, of course, the objective of the Citizens Committee to have the Initiative Question on the ballot for the November 2004 election. Since the efforts of the Citizens Committee to place the Initiative on the ballot began in April, the objective of a placement on the November ballot was not initially unrealistic. Achieving that target became more difficult as the challengers' litigation consumed a block of time originally dedicate to the process of obtaining signatures.

Robert Newell of North Atlantic Investments, LLC, a financial backer of the Initiative, wanted to employ a national firm with whom he had previously worked to handle the signature gathering process. Mr. Alfonso looked for, but was unable to locate a firm in the metropolitan area, which was large enough without the assistance of other groups to handle the task. Mr. Newell had formerly worked with Progressive Campaign Incorporated ("PCI"), and so he contacted that organization, contracted with them for their services, and kept in touch with their efforts, but ultimately reported the corporation's actions to the Citizens Committee. The Citizens Committee never relinquished final authority nor the ultimate decisions on matters during this process.

Mr. Alfonso, Ms. Wilcher and Ms. Gentry additionally assembled a group of local people who were headquartered at 1501 M Street, N.W. ("the 1501 M Street Group") to seek signatures from citizens of the city. With the direct assistance of their then counsel, John L. Ray, Esq. of Manatt, Phelps, Philips, LLP, they recruited Norman Neverson, the former head of the D.C. Democratic Party and others. While the Committee and Mr. Neverson were well acquainted with people here who could help, the severely truncated time period in which they had to gather the required number of signatures for Petitions obviously impacted upon their operations. Meanwhile, Mr. Alfonso, because of his familiarity with people in this city, directly worked with the 1501 M Street Group, as well as other companies from the area, which worked with the Citizens Committee.

The Superior Court litigation from the challengers did not achieve its ultimate goal of stopping Initiative No. 68, but it did restrict the timefrarne, requiring the Citizens Committee to undertake a Herculean effort to obtain a sufficient number of signatures to merely reach its potential of allowing the people of this city to vote on this issue. We must always remember that the Initiative's actions would never impose video lottery terminals on the public, it merely permitted them to express their individual opinions on a ballot regarding this issue.

If there had been more time, surely the Citizens Committee would have been able to put into place a review process, which would consume weeks reviewing the validity of each signature on every petition as well as the process by which it was obtained. Instead, the Citizens Committee set up education materials for those who sought signatures and caused the petition gatherers to sign statements vouching for the correctness of the method used to obtain signatures when the petition sheets were turned into the Citizens Committee. Managers or supervisors were tasked with counseling the signature collectors and to do their best to roam areas of the city to be available not only for observation but also to answer questions should they arise.

When problems were discovered, the Citizens Committee did their best to find the facts involved and to insure that any potential wrongful actions were not repeated. For example, when Ms. Wilcher saw, for the first time, that some signature gatherers were wearing T-shirts with unapproved wording, boasting of the benefits of the Initiative, workers were then and there instructed to cease the use of that clothing. Also, Ms. Wilcher was criticized when she visited the home of a woman who claimed, in an article published in the Washington Post, that she attended a so-called signature party. It was suggested by some that Ms. Wilcher's phone call and appearance at the woman's house for an interview were a bit heavy-handed. Yet, what would be this Board's reaction if the Citizens Committee ignored a complaint of improper activities? More importantly, was it not altogether proper to approach the source of that information, that is the woman who made the statement, to verify the accuracy of the complaint? Surely the actions taken were responsive to the information received, for the first time through a newspaper article.

In sum, Mr. Alfonso, Ms. Wilcher and Ms. Gentry found themselves faced with a very difficult task, a short time in which to perform, a need for wide-ranging assistance in gathering signatures, and the overwhelming need to supervise all those involved. No intentional improper actions were taken by the Citizens Committee. Appropriate directions were provided to the signature gatherers. Even the Metropolitan Police Department cannot categorically say that none of its officers will ever perform in a less than proper manner, despite all the statutes and regulations covering criminal law, in addition to the supervision and guidance supplied by the written opinions of courts ranging from the U.S. Supreme Court down to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

No fines should be assessed against the Citizens Committee and clearly no fines should be assessed against Mr. Alfonso, Ms. Wilcher and Ms. Gentry. 

Respectfully submitted,
Francis D. Carter, Esq.
D.C. Bar Number 164376
Counsel for Pedro Alfonso, Vickey M. Wilcher, and Margaret Gentry 
Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP
1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W, 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2638 
(202) 778-1856
(202) 822-8106 

Back to top of page


This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Statement in Mitigation of Pedro Alfonso, Vickey M. Wilcher and Margaret Gentry was hand delivered this 16"' day of February, 2005 to the offices of:

General Counsel District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics 
441 Fourth Street, N.W. Suite 280 NORTH 
Washington, D.C. 20001-2745

Counsel for the Citizens Committee 
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP 
1501 K Street, N.W. Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005-1401

Copies were also mailed, first class postage prepaid, to:

333 A Street, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20002

1363 Adams Street, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20018

Finally, copies were sent by facsimile to:

5 P Street, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20024

1327 Girard Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20009

Back to top of page

Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)