themail.gif (3487 bytes)

March 11, 2007

Equal Rights

Dear Citizens:

“The District of Columbia is not a state, and should not be treated as a state. It is purely a federal enclave, and its residents do not have the same rights as the residents of states, including the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They are second-class citizens, and should be.” If anyone said that to you, you would probably be furious. You would regard the person who said it as an enemy of the District of Columbia and its citizens, and you would be right. Yet that is exactly the argument made by two mayors of the District of Columbia and their respective Attorneys General in Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia and Adrian Fenty, the Second Amendment case that the Court of Appeals decided on Friday. The District offered other arguments, too. It argued that the citizens who brought the case had no standing to sue because they hadn’t been indicted for owning a gun, and it argued that the Second Amendment to the Constitution only gave states the right to have armed militia, and conferred no rights on individual citizens. But its most innovative argument — and the one that should insult and anger every DC resident — was that even if the Second Amendment does give individual citizens the right to “keep and bear arms,” it doesn’t give that right to residents of the District, because DC isn’t a state.

Luckily, the US Court of Appeals for the District found against the arguments of the DC government on all counts. It found that one of the plaintiffs did have standing because he had applied for and been denied a gun permit. It neatly disposed of the District’s militia argument, noting that, “But because the District reads ‘a well regulated Militia’ to signify only the organized militias of the founding era — institutions that the District implicitly argues are no longer in existence today — invocation of the Second Amendment right is conditioned upon service in a defunct institution. . . . In short, we take the District’s position to be that the Second Amendment is a dead letter.” Most importantly for us, the Court held, contrary to the position of our city government, that, “In any event, the Supreme Court has unambiguously held that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are in effect in the District.”

The danger of the city government’s argument is amply illustrated in the dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson. Henderson is a proponent of the theory that only members of an organized state militia have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but she leans most heavily on the District’s denigration of its citizens’ equal status as US citizens. “I believe that, under Miller, the District is inescapably excluded from the Second Amendment because it is not a State,” she writes. “The Second Amendment’s ‘character and aim’ does not require that we treat the District as a State. . . . Unlike the States, the District had — and has — no need to protect itself from the federal government because it is a federal entity created as the seat of that government. . . . That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.”

Regardless of what your personal feelings are about gun ownership or your political theory of the meaning of the Second Amendment, I hope that you will agree with me that the District government should be trying to protect your rights as American citizens, and should assert your equality with other citizens of the United States, rather than trying to undermine your rights and equality, and trying to consign you to the status of a second-class citizen. The US Court of Appeals for the District Circuit opinion is at http://www.dcwatch.com/issues/gun070309.htm; pleadings and motions in the case from both sides are at http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm.

Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com

###############

Broken Windows Policing Is about Quality of Life
Nancee Lorn, nanceelorn@yahoo.com

For too long I felt as though our police force was so consumed with major crime that it allowed small crimes that plague the average citizen to go unchecked. It seems to me that the broken windows theory that Jack McKay writes about in the March 8 issue of themail is simply a plan to try to improve the quality of life for citizens.

Of course I still want police to concentrate on major crime, but that doesn’t mean citizens should have to endure the petty crimes that impact their daily life. In the twelve years that I’ve lived on Capitol Hill, I’ve had my car vandalized four or five times. I’ve had to replace my car stereo so often that when I bought my last car, which came with a factory-installed cassette deck, I left it in figuring it was worthless to criminals — despite the fact that I own no cassette tapes. Auto and home vandalism is so rampant in certain neighborhoods that it has become a way of life. And once it becomes a way of life, it becomes acceptable. Eventually when those crimes give way to bigger crimes like shootings, people begin to react similarly. I hear occasional gunfire in the distance and I don’t even flinch because the culture of crime has become pervasive.

Of the twelve times that I’ve called the police to report drug dealing, rowdiness, fights, and other petty crimes, they probably showed up once or twice. While no one was being killed during these incidents, residents were certainly losing sleep due to noise issues or in general experiencing a feeling of not feeling safe in their own neighborhoods. Small crimes that impact residents’ day-to-day quality of life are the issues that make an area unfit to live and probably encourage people to move most. I also believe that when unchecked, they lead criminals to believe that no one is watching, which clears the way for bigger, more violent, bolder crimes.

###############

Broken Windows
Ron Linton, rmlch@rcn.com

The problem with using labels is that they mean different things to different people. The broken windows theory, if we really pursue it, doesn’t mean just arresting for small crimes. It means a coordinated effort by multiple city agencies to prevent a neighborhood from deteriorating to a point where it becomes an environment for crime. Small crimes? Well, let’s see. My experience in patrolling these neighborhoods (acknowledging that we are now talking the 70’s and 80’s) is that as buildings deteriorate they are filled by individuals who need pay no rent and who sustain themselves by breaking into vending machines, automobiles, or helping themselves to the property of their neighbors, mostly low income. Are these small crimes?

If you ignore them, the vending machines disappear as do the autos and the neighbors. Now these same individuals committing the small crimes, most of whom are also using narcotics, still need cash, so the crimes become muggings. Is that still a small crime? As the crime opportunities in the broken window neighborhood vanish, these individuals move out into more lucrative surroundings where they commit robberies and burglaries. Are we now up to big crimes?

The problem is not the theory. The problem is addressing it. As the Fenty public safety transition team (which I led) said in its report, we are training officers to be arresting machines instead of peace officers (another label?). A peace officer is one who understands that when a landlord allows a rented building to become uninhabitable it does not encourage renters to feel responsibility for their premises. This requires reaching out to the appropriate agency to enforce codes. One of my tasks as an assistant chief was to develop a liaison and coordinated program with other city agencies to address elimination of the conditions that breed crime. the officer on the street was interested, the line bureaucrats in the other agencies were interested. The bosses were not. We never got anything off the ground. Hopefully, the mayor’s embracing the broken windows theory means a recognition that it is not just limited to police department arrests, but to a joint city agency program that starts with a police officer who feels ownership for his neighborhood and has the power to bring other non-police agencies into dealing with the problem, in fact the power to make them do their jobs.

###############

Recall in themail
Michael Bindner, mikeybdc at yahoo.com

There are a few things to do to stop changes to the charter. The first is to attempt a referendum to overturn the act asking Congress to change the Charter. This will in and of itself send a message. The second is to attempt to recall any non-freshman councilmember who votes for it (you cannot circulate a petition on the new members until after one year), and the others after that. Of course, given the amount of dead weight on the voter roles (which are not automatically purged), this is a tall order.

In the long term, if the drive to transform the school board really galls you, support candidates who will allow charter amendment by citizen initiative and who will mandate that the voter rolls be purged on a regular basis, thus making initiative, referendum, and recall petitions easier to put on the ballot.

###############

DC Tax and Revenue Office Unable to Locate Own Posterior With Both Hands
Mark Eckenwiler, themale at ingot dot org

As you mull over your new real property tax bill and your proposed 2008 assessment, it’s worth remembering that Tax and Revenue is letting other property owners get away with painfully obvious fraud. Last October, I commented in themail on a single owner receiving the homestead deduction on four separate properties (http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/2006/06-10-18.htm). As of March 9, nothing has changed, despite OTR’s periodic claims that it is mercilessly hunting down such tax cheats (see, e.g., http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/otr/section/2/release/10267/year/2006/month/12).

###############

Legal Scholars Support DC Voting Rights
Kevin Kiger, kkiger@dcvote.org

Legal scholars from universities around the country have signed on to a letter supporting the constitutionality of congressional voting rights for the District of Columbia. DC Vote, an education and advocacy group, will send the letter to members of Congress this week to quell any lingering constitutionality concerns. Sheryll D. Cashin and Viet D. Dinh of Georgetown University Law Center, Charles J. Ogletree of Harvard Law School and Jamin Raskin of American University Washington College of Law were among the first cosigners of the letter to the Hill. Signed by twenty-five legal scholars, the letter states, “As law professors and scholars, we would like to address these questions and put to rest any concerns about the constitutionality of extending the right of representation to residents of the District.” The text of the entire letter can be found on the DC Vote web site here: http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/congress/legalscholarsdcvra03082007.pdf.

Latham & Watkins LLP released a legal memo today that echoes the consensus view that the DC Voting Rights Act is constitutional. That bill that will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, March 14. This memo is found here: http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/congress/lathamwatkinscrs03062007.pdf.

DC Appleseed Executive Director Walter Smith and other legal experts have found that Congress has repeatedly treated DC as if it were a state for purposes of the Commerce Clause and Diversity Jurisdiction section of the Constitution. Therefore, if Congress can use the District Clause for purposes of those provisions of the Constitution, Congress can use that power to provide representation as well. Additionally, no court has ever decided whether the DC Voting Rights Act is constitutional. Once the DC Voting Rights Act is enacted into law, there may be legal challenges. Ultimately, the courts will decide its constitutionality. We believe, given the arguments presented by nationally renowned scholars and former judges, that the courts will find that the DC Voting Rights Act is constitutional.

###############

Conflict of Interest
Benjamin M. Soto, ben.soto@paramounttitle.com

Your coverage of the legislative session related to my nomination [themail, March 7] had several glaring misrepresentations. First, you stated that I initially said that I had made a loan to a friend and that it eventually came out that the money was an investment in the Nationals. That is not true. At my confirmation hearing I testified that I had a joint venture with a minority owner of the Nationals to secure a portion of his required funds to the Nationals. I never stated it was a loan. I always asserted it to be an investment. At that time I also offered to recuse myself from issues related to the Nationals. In addition, the amount of my investment is $200,000, not $250,000.

Second, I never worked for Councilmember Schwartz, although I do consider her a friend. I did, however, work for Councilmember Charlene Drew Jarvis. Third, you state that my being on the Commission and having to recuse myself from baseball would have made me practically useless. I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The Commission covers many other areas, such as the construction and development of the soccer stadium, operations and improvements to RFK, events at the Armory/RFK and the adjacent parking lots for RFK/Armory, community outreach, grants, and lots of issues related to the construction of the new ballpark that do not directly/indirectly impact the Washington Nationals. The Armory has been recently renovated and should be hosting a lot more major events than it has in the past. With my leadership as the chair of the Events Committee, this will happen. I am also chair for the Soccer Committee. Those two committees alone will keep me extremely busy. At a recent board hearing this past Wednesday, baseball was maybe twenty percent of the meeting. Your assertion that the Commission is only about baseball is correct for the last three years, but not now.

Fourth, you state that Councilmember Graham asked a sensible question about how it could be considered a blind trust if I knew what the trust contained. However, you fail to consider that every public official that creates a blind trust always knows what assets are going in it. To suggest that I should not know what assets are going in the trust is ridiculous. What makes a blind trust blind is not knowing how the asset is managed after it goes in the trust. I sent this E-mail to simply provide some clarification and to point out some factual misstatements.

[It is interesting to know that Mr. Soto believes that baseball and the ballpark are no longer terribly important to the operations of the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission; we shall continue to disagree on that issue. However, the crucial point is whether or not he initially disclosed the extent of his involvement with the Nationals. (I am glad that Mr. Soto has clarified that his investment was $200,000. The amount was repeatedly referred to in the council legislative session as $250,000, but Mr. Soto himself had not disclosed the actual amount in any of his public submissions to the council. However, Peter Nickles, General Counsel to the Mayor, did write to the council that, “Mr. Soto’s business relationship with a minority owner of the Nationals is so small and indirect. . . ,” which provides a useful measure of how the administration gauges the size of an investment that would cause a conflict of interest. Mr. Soto himself wrote to the council that, “I, together with other parties, provided de minimis funding to one of the members of the minority ownership group of the Washington National’s franchise.” Again, we may disagree on whether $200,000 or $250,000 is de minimis funding; it isn’t in my circles, but it may be in his. However, I do not believe that this statement clarifies that the funding was provided as part of a joint venture investment, and not as a loan.

I do want to correct one error in my posting, which Councilmember Kwame Brown brought to my attention. I wrote that it was Councilmember Brown who argued in the legislative session that we should just be proud that a minority businessman had a quarter million dollars to invest; Brown informs me that it was instead Councilmember Marion Barry who made that argument. — Gary Imhoff]

###############

Mark It Down and Move On
Harold Foster, harold.foster@ppd.mncppc.org

Okay, okay. Let’s get down to cases so we can all MIDAMO (mark it down and move on). First, I agree, as a matter of high school Civics 101, that the Council should wait until the Ward 4 and 7 seats are filled before voting on Fenty’s plans for changing public school governance. Second, I frankly doubt that taking this particular matter to a special election will change much: there appears to be a slight, but clearly very nervous, majority in the city to at least try something like what Fenty wants to do to and with the public schools. Anything to start rebuilding the educational infrastructure of this town. But, then, third, it probably won’t delay anything critical to take the matter to the voters of the city. So if it rebuts some of the less consequential criticism of what the mayor proposes to get additional validation at the ballot box, fine. Let’s do it and, again, move on.

Fourth, as a third-generation African-American Washingtonian, I must confess that I am emotionally exhausted -- and really almost offended -- by the historically lopsided argument that I keep hearing that just the provenance of the DC Board of Education alone — the first elected political body in the city since 1874 and so on — should somehow spare it from some kind of root-and-branch reconstitution if such a fundamental change proved necessary, which most people seem to think it does. Most of the city’s electorate agrees that either the mayor’s governance proposal or, what is more likely, some kind of compromise that those skittish councilmembers can digest politically is clearly called for. All we’re really debating now is the form, extent and timetable of the change.

Fifth, and at bottom, I am far more concerned about what happens to the children than whether or not eleven adults sitting downtown have a dispositive role in the public schools or only an advisory one. To paraphrase what Churchill once said of Lenin, if Fenty had not come along and proposed what he is proposing to fundamentally reconstitute the public school system in this town, it would have been necessary to invent someone to do so.

###############

Postpone the Board of Education’s Vote on Graduation Requirements
Erich Martel, ehmartel@starpower.net

DCPS Superintendent Clifford Janey’s proposal to increase graduation requirements from 23.5 to 26.0 credits is scheduled for a vote by the Board of Education on March 14. It will affect incoming ninth grade students (Class of 2006) and cause major scheduling changes and problems that will immediately affect all students. This critical decision will be made at a time when the elected District 2 seat, representing Wards 3 and 4, is vacant. A matter with such import for all students and their families should not take place at a time when 25 percent of the city’s population will not be represented in vote.

This would be the third change in graduation requirements since the 1970’s. In 1983, they were increased from 17.5 to 20.5 credits and, in 1992, to the present 23.5. If the proposal passes, DCPS will have the odd distinction of having the lowest NAEP achievement scores in the nation and the most stringent minimum diploma requirements of all the fifty states. Much has been written about respecting the historical governance role of the Board of Education. Shouldn’t the Board, in its deliberations on a matter of momentous consequence, defer to the same democratic considerations? Such a decision should not be made when a quarter of the city’s population is without an elected voice.

###############

No Benefit from Greater High School Credit Requirements
Harry Travis, htravis@attglobal.net

The Superintendent has proposed that District of Columbia Public Schools high schools have the appearance of more rigor. He has responded to critics of so-called social promotion by asking the Board of Education to increase the number of credits required of high schoolers for them to earn a diploma from DCPS. The Board will vote on this proposal this week. They should vote it down. Given evidence elsewhere of chaotic learning environments around the country in middle and junior high schools, and the link between poor performance then and subsequent low attainment later, referred to below, the Board should look elsewhere to improve learning in DCPS high schools.

If graduation requirements are increased by the Board, DC will be in the top 25 percent of required credit hours. They already exceed those of many states, where the fraction of high schoolers graduating is higher, and certainly exceed requirements of states in which the achievement of graduates in math and science is higher. DCPS already appears rigorous. The question is whether there is any evidence to support the notion of a causal link between high school credits graduation requirements and learning which would increase the achievement of low performing students. We already know that high performing and supported students are inclined to take more courses than the bare minimum required. Fortunately, national data from the most rigorous and broadly supported program to assess achievement in our schools, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), has just released data matching transcript records of a sample of Class of 2005 graduates with their achievement on senior year NAEP test performance in science and math (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard). NAEP data do not support the Superintendent’s proposals and the expectations of those on the School Board who would vote for it this week.

Controlling for indicators of students’ social background and ninth grade GPA — an indicator of their readiness for high school studies —,there is no consistent or educationally significant difference in average performance for having earned varying numbers of credits during high school, This is true for both math and science test performance. Second, those required to have earned the most credits in order to graduate may have performed significantly lower, in a statistical if not substantive sense, than those required to earn the fewest. Third, even when one looks for a connection between more rigorous credit-earned requirements in a graduated field of study — math — in which additional course work would seem to imply greater depth, there is no broad evidence that students from systems requiring more courses have graduated with higher average math knowledge than graduates from systems with lower requirements.

Please, please, read the sentences above carefully. They do not mean that significant learning does not take place in high school classes or that more and more rigorous classes are not associated with and even necessary for greater achievement. What they do mean is that the best available data support the argument that the learning of high school students who have performed poorly early on and who are less well supported in school is not increased by taking on or having imposed additional course burdens. It is the role of serious and qualified educational leaders and Board members to evaluate whether there is a benefit to appearances of rigor that may belie reality. The best available data do not support the Superintendent’s proposal for further burdening students and schools with additional course requirements.

###############

March 2007 InTowner
Peter Wolff, newsroom@intowner.com

This is to advise that the March 2007 online edition has been uploaded and may be accessed at http://www.intowner.com. Included are the lead stories, community news items and crime reports, editorials (including prior months’ archived), restaurant reviews (prior months’ also archived), and the text from the ever-popular “Scenes from the Past” feature (the accompanying images can be seen in the archived PDF version). Also included are all current classified ads. The complete issue (along with prior issues back to March 2003) also is available in PDF file format directly from our home page at no charge simply by clicking the link in the Current & Back Issues Archive. Here you will be able to view the entire issue as it appears in print, including all photos and advertisements. The next issue will publish on April 12 (the 2nd Friday of the month, as always). The complete PDF version will be posted by the preceding night or early that Friday morning at the latest, following which the text of the lead stories, community news, and selected features will be uploaded shortly thereafter.

To read this month’s lead stories, simply click the link on the home page to the following headlines: 1) “Third District Police Announce Initiation of Plan for Enhanced Officer Presence on Streets — Many Residents Skeptical Yet Hoping for Results”; 2) “New Upscale Restaurant and Lounge on P Street West of Circle Subject of Neighbors’ Ire for Noise and Congestion — ANC Not Moved to Oppose.”

###############

CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS

Guy Mason Recreation Center Classes
Toni Ritzenberg, taritzdc@aol.com

Registration for spring 2007 classes at the Guy Mason Recreation Center (3600 Calvert Street, NW) began on March 3 and continues until classes start the week of March 23. There are classes for your physical and mental health — Pilates, Move It (Dancersize) and Yoga (with a bit of “Rock and Roll”). Senior Momentum is available on Wednesdays and Fridays and, just for fun, there is Ballroom Dancing.

Art classes, china painting, copper enameling workshops, and pottery are again available, and digital photo and knitting have been added. French and Spanish classes are again being offered and duplicate bridge is ongoing on Mondays and Thursdays. Even though Guy Mason is one of the few adult centers in the District, two classes for "young" people are offered. Music Together is for children from birth to four years of age and Abrakadooodle, an art class is for children twenty months to three years (obviously accompanied by a parent and/or another adult).

For specific program start dates, visit the Center’s web site at http://www.guymasonstudioarts.com. To register online, visit http://www.dpr.dc.gov and click on Activities Program Registration and follow the instructions. For further information and/or to register in person, visit the Guy Mason Recreation Center at 3600 Calvert Street, NW, Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. and Saturdays 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., or call Robert Haldeman/Caryl King at 282-2180. Do not miss your chance to participate in one of the few bargains the District has to offer.

###############

Rally to Save Our Schools, March 13
Gina Arlotto, citymom@dcaccess.net

The Save Our Schools Coalition has been working with several other groups throughout the city to find a way to register our opposition to the Mayor’s scheme to take over our schools. We waited for hours and testified against the plan at the Wilson Building, and for our trouble, we were thoroughly abused by the councilmembers. We have sent countless E-mails and phone calls to our elected councilmembers. We have attended community meetings, and even voted overwhelmingly against this plan in ward forums, all to no avail. After much thought and discussion we have decided that we can only make our voices heard by taking our concerns straight to Adrian Fenty’s front door.

We will hold a rally at Adrian Fenty’s house next Tuesday, March 13, at 6:30 p.m., at 4712 17th Street, NW, near Decatur Street. We are hoping to bring the Mayor back from this undemocratic, unfair, and dictatorial action and return him to his true populist roots. Please join me and others throughout the city on March 13. For more information call 521-0377.

###############

DC Public Library Events, March 13-14
Randi Blank, randi.blank@dc.gov

Tuesday, March 13, 12:00 p.m., West End Neighborhood Library, 1101 24th Street, NW. West End Library Film Club. Bring your lunch and enjoy watching Big Fish (PG-13). For more information, call 724-8707.

Wednesday, March 14, 7:00 p.m., Juanita E. Thornton/Shepherd Park Neighborhood Library, 7420 Georgia Avenue, NW, Activity room. Author Vee Williams Garcia will read from her book Jazz Flower. For information, call 541-6100.

Wednesday, March 14, 12:00 p.m., Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Library, 901 G Street, NW, Great Hall. Insurance Products for Consumers. Philip Barlow, associate commissioner, and Lily Qi, public information officer, of the DC Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking, will present a seminar to acquaint DC residents with information on commercially available insurance products.

Wednesday, March 14, 1:00 p.m., Juanita E. Thornton/Shepherd Park Neighborhood Library, 7420 Georgia Avenue, NW. Shepherd Park Wednesday Afternoon Book Club. Enjoy a lively book discussion of No Boundaries: A Cancer Surgeon’s Odyssey, by LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D. For more information, call 541-6100.

###############

DHCD FY 2008 Action Plan Hearing, March 14
Najuma Thorpe, najuma.thorpe@dc.gov

The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) will hold a public hearing on the “Draft Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Annual Action Plan for the District of Columbia” on March 14 at 6:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing, which will be held at DHCD Headquarters, 801 North Capitol Street, NE, is to provide the public with an opportunity to express its views on the plan and budgets to be submitted to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the following federal entitlement programs: Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Emergency Shelter Grant Program, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPWA).

The Department will utilize the public’s input, consistent with the District’s economic development strategy, citywide strategic plan, and identified strategic target areas, to finalize the Plan for submission to the Council of the District of Columbia and HUD. The Action Plan is available at http://www.dhcd.dc.gov. If you wish to present oral testimony, contact Mrs. Pamela Hillsman-Johnson, Community Development Resource Specialist, at 442-7250, as soon as possible. Written statements may be submitted for the record at the hearing or until close of business, Friday, March 23. Written statements may be mailed to Mr. Victor L. Selman, Interim Director, Department of Housing and Community Development, Attention: Office of Strategy and Communications, 801 North Capitol Street, NE, 20002. For Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) relay service, call 800-201-7165. A sign language interpreter and Spanish translation services will be provided.

###############

CLASSIFIEDS — DONATIONS

Dress for Success Clothing Drive, March 15
Tina Schumacher, tina.schumacher@ketchum.com

It’s time for you to clean out your closet and donate to the second “Send a Suit” professional women’s clothing drive on Thursday, March 15, from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., at the FedEx Special Delivery Truck at the corner of 1st and D Streets, SE, the Capitol South Metro Station Join FedEx Special Delivery and Dress for Success on Capitol Hill for a donation drive that will knock your socks off! In 2006, the “Send a Suit” drive collected more than six hundred items from Capitol Hill staffers and neighborhood residents. Help women dress for success by donating dry-cleaned contemporary women’s suits, gently used shoes, blouses, and accessories appropriate for the current season.

Your donations will help solve the “Catch-22” dilemma faced by many low-income women trying to enter the workforce in the Washington, DC, area: without a job, how can you afford professional clothing? But without professional clothing, how can you get that job? Just one item from your closet will help these women put their best foot forward and Dress for Success!

FedEx Special Delivery is a nationwide program that provides transportation and logistics assistance at community events. Dress for Success is a not-for-profit organization that offers services to help low-income women enter the workforce and stay employed.

###############

Telephone
Bryce A. Suderow, Streetstories@juno.com

I need a telephone and can’t afford to buy one. Do any themail readers have an old phone they don’t want any more?

###############

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every Wednesday and Sunday. To subscribe, to change E-mail addresses, or to switch between HTML and plain text versions of themail, use the subscription form at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/subscribe.htm. To unsubscribe, send an E-mail message to themail@dcwatch.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject line. Archives of past messages are available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.

All postings should also be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be printed, and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief paragraphs would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can be put into each mailing.


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