Disagreement

Dear Agreeable Readers:

Philip Fornaci and Bill Coe strongly disagree with things that other contributors and I have written in themail, and their messages in this issue are scornful of our opinions. Philip, who is the executive director of the DC Prisoners’ Legal Services Project Staff, does not like any criticism of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services or its director, Vincent Schiraldi, and he leaps to their defense whenever they are mentioned (themail, December 12, 2007, and below). His problem is that he doesn’t have a substantive reply to the criticisms that Colbert King and, by extension, I made.

The usual debate over any correctional institution or agency — prisons and jails, parole services, and so on — is whether their main purpose is punishment or rehabilitation of people who do bad, criminal, or violent things. A subset of punishment is deterrence, and there is another debate over whether punishing people who commit criminal acts deters other people who may contemplate committing those same acts. At one extreme, some people in the criminal justice field reject the legitimacy of the whole idea of punishment; they believe that rehabilitation is the only legitimate goal of corrections. The very title of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services emphasizes that its purpose and goal is rehabilitation, not punishment. That leads, of course, to another debate over whether we have any idea about how to rehabilitate criminals, how effective rehabilitation is, and how many criminals can really be rehabilitated.

But these debates miss the most important purpose of corrections institutions and agencies. Their primary purpose is neither punishment nor rehabilitation; it is protecting the general public and society from bad, criminal, and violent people. When violent people are incarcerated, they can’t commit violent acts against members of the general public, and when they are closely guarded in prisons and jails, they have little chance to be violent against each other. When violent people are placed in probation, in halfway houses, or in other “community-based” situations, they have a much greater opportunity to harm others. Programs and agencies like probation, halfway houses, and DYRS obviously place the general public at a greater risk than prisons and jails, so the people who run them have a responsibility to demonstrate that they, too, are capable of protecting the public. When prisoners escape from a prison, the prison guards and administration have failed to protect the public, which is their primary responsibility. When criminals in parole and under the authority of DYRS commit violent acts, then those agencies have also failed in their primary responsibility — which is not to the criminals whom they consider to be their clients, but to the general public whom they are supposed to be protecting. Vincent Schiraldi is committed to the welfare of the criminals under his supervision, but he has yet to demonstrate that he has anywhere near the same dedication to the welfare of people in the communities he places them in. When DYRS fails to exercise close enough supervision over its wards, DYRS has failed, but Philip and Schiraldi refuse to acknowledge it.

Bill Coe is a cheerleader for Mayor Fenty’s school takeover, and he attacks any criticism of it and of Fenty’s appointed Chancellor, Michelle Rhee (for example, themail, August 27, 2007; September 2, 2007; October 10, 2007; December 2, 2007; January 13, 2008; and below). Bill continues to make the false assertion that the public voted for Fenty’s takeover and dissolution of the Board of Education’s power, which forces me to repeat that the takeover was never the subject of an initiative measure and that candidate Fenty never even hinted at his plan during his primary and general campaigns; he just said that education would be a priority of his administration — as did every other candidate. Bill routinely, and I would suggest rather maliciously, accuses everyone who opposes anything done by Fenty or Rhee of opposing any improvement in public education. Most importantly, he does not hold Fenty and Rhee to the standards that he sets for their critics. He demands below that critics of the takeover present their plan to educate students better in DC’s public schools, but he doesn’t demand the same from Fenty and Rhee. The administration has presented a plan for rehabilitating the physical plants of some schools. It has presented a plan to close some schools, and it has claimed that this plan will save millions of dollars, although it has refused to release any economic analysis (if it exists) detailing how closing schools will save this money. It has presented a plan to eliminate any protection against arbitrary and capricious firings of central office school employees, and it continues to look into expanding the group of people who will be stripped of their protection. It has presented a plan to hire numerous consulting groups and consultants, to encourage the growth of charter schools, and to hire private organizations to run public school programs and perhaps entire public schools. But it has not presented an academic plan or presented its ideas of how to improve the education offered to students in DC public schools. When it does that, Bill will have the right to demand that their critics either support their plan or present a viable alternative.

Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com

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

Comcast Doubles Late Fee
Pat Taylor, ptaylor.dc@verizon.net

In January, Comcast nearly doubled its late payment fee, from $2.43 to $4.43. It is a flat fee, no matter how small your bill. For example, DC subscribers to “limited basic service” at $15.24 per month will be fined 29 percent for late payment. This large penalty fee is especially egregious because of Comcast’s standard practice of timing the mail delivery of its monthly bills to allow just eight days before their due date. One has to mail the payment check or money order within a day or two of receiving the bill in order to avoid the late fee. I suspect there are few people who pay their bills that fast. So the likely result is that many cable subscribers will be hit with this larger penalty fee. This doubled late payment fee-and-short payment period has the appearance of being a backdoor way for Comcast to increase its revenues without increasing its subscriber fees. Can we hope DC’s Office of Cable Television will exercise its regulatory authority to reverse the doubling of this fee and require Comcast to provide a longer, more reasonable time period between the delivery of Comcast bills and the due date?

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

Absentee Voting in Presidential Preference Primary
Bill O’Field, wofield@dcboee.org

In-person absentee voting is currently underway for District of Columbia voters who are registered in the Democratic, Republican, or DC Statehood Green parties and cannot make it to the polls during the February 12 presidential preference primary. Registered voters who are senior citizens, have physical limitations, are traveling out of town, or who otherwise cannot make it to the polls on Election Day may vote in person.

Absentee voting in person provides registered voters in the District of Columbia the opportunity to cast an absentee ballot in person today through Saturday, February 9, and Monday, February 11, in the Board’s Voter Services Office located in Room 250-North of the One Judiciary Square building at 441 Fourth Street, NW Office hours for in-person absentee voting are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. Please note that the Board will not be open for absentee voting on Sunday, February 10.

The District of Columbia has a closed primary system, therefore only voters registered in the Democratic, Republican, or DC Statehood Green parties can vote their party’s ballot in the February 12 Presidential Preference Primary. For more information about the upcoming primary, the public may call 727-2525 (TDD: 639-8916) or visit the Board’s web site at http://www.dcboee.org.

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

Cross-Party Voting in DC Primary Elections
Carol Waser, waser@waser.us

The District of Columbia has a presidential primary election on February 12. It is illegal in DC to vote in a party in which one is not registered. Primary elections are party elections, and party members have a right to know that their candidates were selected by fellow party members.

The recently mailed voter information card said that DC has a closed primary system, but it did not make clear that one can only vote in the party that one is registered in, only that one has to be registered in the Democratic, Republican, or Green parties in order to vote. The meetings for poll workers and precinct captains were inconsistent in their training against cross-party voting, despite citizen warnings to the Board of Elections and Ethics (BOEE) that this has been a problem in the District of Columbia in the past, most notably the November 2006 primary election. I would like to collect information for presentation to the BOEE on instances of cross-party voting on February 12. If anyone observes a voter receiving a ballot for a party other than that for which the voter is registered, please make a written notation of this. It would not be appropriate to challenge this unless one is a certified poll watcher. Please send such information to me, including the precinct and any relevant information, and I’ll compile a report.

Also, the BOEE has decided not to use technicians at polling places in the upcoming primary election. I would also appreciate knowing about problems that are observed as a result of not having an on-site technician, and I’ll make a report on these as well.

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

HPRB Critical of AFRH Plans
Reyn Anderson, andereyn@hotmail.com

This past week, the Historic Preservation Review Board reopened the floor for the public comments on the Armed Forces Retirement Home Master Plan. Several individuals and organizations, including Washington Central Parks, spoke passionately and articulately on the concept of park on zones B and C. In general, the board members comments were unanimous: they feel strongly that the AFRH must clearly delineate the specific financial need to justify placing 4.6 million square feet (roughly the size of the Pentagon) in upper northwest DC. They need to describe carefully the uses of buildings (current and proposed) and show how they help the AFRH reach its financial goals. They are looking for clearer design concepts that specifically address views into and out of the Home. They want to see as much open space as possible preserved. They want to preserve the historic value of the AFRH campus and in particular the historic legacy of Lincoln’s cottage and it’s surrounding landscape and views. To that end, all of the board members emphasized the importance that Zones C (and B) remain open space, if at all possible.

As the Chairman said, if zone A is developed, then “all we have left” is zones B and C. Zone C is the top priority to save “because of its historic significance and valuable open space.” Zone B is the second priority. Zone A needs to be thought through more to incorporate views and architectural choices that make good design sense. Most importantly he is overall “saddened that the resources will be so damaged” (by development).

The HPRB’s support for saving zones C and B from development came through loud and clear! WCP could not have hoped for a better outcome of the hearing. We encourage everyone to become active in this advocacy for a park. The show down meeting is coming up in April, when the Home will come before the National Capital Planning Commission, which has final approval authority for the Master Plan for the Home. Please mark your calendars for that month and we will be updating the listservs with logistics. Remember, north-central Washington has the smallest per capita park space of any area in DC and we have a clear opportunity to change that!

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

Response to the Commission on the Fine Arts
Daniel Wolkoff, amglassart@yahoo.com

When I read the Commission’s criticism of the Armed Forces Retirement Home’s development plans, I wrote my own comments.

What is wrong with “exposed parking structures”? It’s better than trees! When you have to have seven thousand parking spaces you need “exposed parking structures.” You just have to see the beauty in parking. When is this Commission on the Fine Arts going to be satisfied? We all want to drive our cars all the time, so we need parking and “exposed parking structures.” What could be simpler than that? Thank you! Additionally, we can make the historic cottage where Abraham Lincoln spent his summers into a nice parking structure, with historic tours run by the National Trust for Historic Parking Structures. What are parks or restored historic presidential homes good for, really, when you can pave over everything. And kick out some of the sick and elderly veterans and turn those buildings into “auxiliary parking structures.” Please call and E-mail your city council human and the “mayor of all development” and demand more “exposed parking structures” and less medical attention for the vets. And no parks! Pave the sand filtration plant now!

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

Healthy DC Stores
Richard Layman, rlaymandc@yahoo.com

Ever since the quick health centers have been discussed in the trade press starting in 2005, I have been mentioning them as a model for rethinking how to provide community-based health services on the part of government agencies, similar to school-based clinics. On January 16, 2007, the Washington Post had an article about Minute Clinic and other limited, quick care health services offered by pharmacies such as CVS  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201858.html).

Extend the model to government. The point is to think about these clinics in terms of providing limited care, and wellness services, but not thinking of the clinics as full replacements for doctors or emergency care services. There’s an article in the December 2006 issue of Harvard Business Review, Disruptive Innovation for Social Change,” about this kind of thinking (http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=R0612E), and I was having a hard time fully understanding it. This is based on the work of Clayton Christiansen, on Disruptive Innovation (http://www.12manage.com/methods_christensen_disruptive_innovation.html).

The Rand Corporation came out with a study on health and health care in DC, according to this Washington Post article, “District Lacking In Access To Care: 1 in 5 Has No Medical Provider, Rand Report Says,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001228.html. The response ought to be to rethink the provision of health care, at least for wellness and chronic conditions. Create “HealthyDC” stores in neighborhoods, especially where the need is greatest, with hours like a store, at least until 9 p.m. a few nights per week. Think about this in terms of the IdeaStore repositioning of libraries, as in the Tower Hamlets borough of London or the CommuterStore “transit” stores in Arlington County. Make the HealthyDC store not just a place for the provision of health care, but also for health and wellness information and services. Coordinate the provision of this service with other DC government services, such as the WIC program for mothers and children, and the senior nutrition program.

The HealthyDC store could promote fitness, just as the FitArlington program does, and walking and bicycling. There could be demonstration capacity. Do things like offer yoga classes. Teach healthy cooking. Make connections with neighborhood-based farmers markets. You could even connect them to libraries, and have expanded health information centers in these places (comparable to how the Wheaton Regional Library in Montgomery County is the designated library in that system possessing a deeper collection of health and wellness resources). The same old, same old isn’t working. If you want to change behavior, to improve outcomes, you have to focus on the intended audience (the output public), not the traditional system and way of providing services (the throughput public), although the input public — the public that provides resources, elected officials, and local and federal governments — too often isn’t focused on the right levers for change.

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

More Parking Ticket Fun
Gabe Goldberg, gabe at gabegold dot com

I recently received an unjustified (I believe) parking ticket, and wrote a letter requesting dismissal. For my records, I copied both sides of the ticket. Front, no problem. Back copies as a black blob because it’s black type on reddish background. Nice design.

Instructions for answering say, “The answer period for this ticket is sixty calendar days from the date the ticket was issued. If your payment or hearing request is not received within thirty days, the fine will double.” So it seems to me that the answer period is thirty days, then there’s a penalty period. I wouldn’t call the time at which the fine doubles an “answering period.” Checking online I see a ticket from last June (which I also protested and have not received an answer on) and the one I just received, under, “The following tickets issued to this vehicle plate are due.”

With two tickets outstanding, the sentence on the ticket, “If your answer is not received within sixty calendar days, your vehicle may be booted or towed after two or more outstanding tickets” is alarming. But the June ticket fine still shows its face value, no doubling or penalty. So maybe I’m safe until or unless my requests for dismissal are denied. What a system.

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

Another Parking Ticket in the Black Hole
Regina Carmen Page, reginacarmenpage@aol.com

I have a parking ticket that has been in adjudication since July 2007. I hand-delivered my written denial and received a date-stamped receipt. I have not received a response. My driver’s license is due for renewal in six weeks. The wait for a response has been well over six months, and I am left to wonder if renewal of my license will be contingent upon clearing this ticket?

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

P112 Inspect Fail to Report
Mary Vogel, maryvogel at yahoo dot com

[Mary Vogel replies to an question she received about a message she wrote in the May 9, 2007, issue of themail about contesting a car ticket she got for failure to have the car inspected] That ticket was one of the final straws in motivating me to move back to Oregon. Because I had already decided I was leaving, I mailed in my denial rather than went in. I have always had success if I went in, and never had success when I mailed in — this time included. The hearings officer decision not to dismiss came after I got my new registration here. Gary, maybe you could post this reply, as I continue to get an inquiry every month or two about this subject.

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

Former DC Official Drops Lawsuit Against DCWatch
Art Spitzer, ACLU, artspitzer@aol.com and Marcia Hofmann, EFF, marcia@eff.org

We are delighted to report that DCWatch has won its first — and we hope its last —case in court. Faithful readers may recall that last March, a lawsuit was filed against DCWatch, Dorothy Brizill, and Gary Imhoff by Roslyn Johnson, a former Deputy Director of the DC Department of Parks and Recreation, who alleged that certain postings on themail had defamed her. The ACLU of the National Capital Area and the Electronic Frontier Foundation joined forces to defend them, because of the importance of protecting freedom of speech on the Internet — as exemplified by the civic contributions of DCWatch and themail.

Ms. Johnson’s lawsuit was a response to several submissions to themail by well-known local journalist Jonetta Rose Barras about cronyism in the Department of Parks and Recreation. Among other things, Barras reported that Johnson had been hired on the basis of an inflated resume and was being paid an inflated salary. In a subsequent investigation, the D.C. Inspector General agreed that Johnson had provided incorrect information on her resume (see http://oig.dc.gov/news/view2.asp?url=release07%2FDPR%5F06%2D2%2D21MA%5FFINAL%2Epdf&mode=release&archived=0&month=20071), and had been hired in disregard of the statutory preference for DC residents. Nonetheless, Johnson sued Barras, the District of Columbia, Dorothy, Gary, and DCWatch for causing her to lose her job. She asked the court to order the postings about her removed from DCWatch.com, and demanded that Dorothy and Gary be forced to apologize publicly and pay millions of dollars in damages.

EFF and ACLU-NCA got involved in this case to defend the rights of online publishers to post submissions from others without fear of crushing liability. Online forums like themail obviously have no ability to check the accuracy of incoming postings; making them financially responsible for everything they post would soon put them out of business. Happily, the First Amendment protects the right to criticize public officials, giving wide latitude to reporters. And the Communications Decency Act says that web site owners can’t be held liable for publishing material written by someone else. For both reasons, we thought DCWatch was clearly in the right, and it was important to make sure it wasn’t punished — or forced to pay thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees — for publishing Jonetta Barras’ submissions. We therefore asked the court to dismiss the claims against DCWatch, arguing that the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act made it impossible for Johnson to win her case. Judge Fisher agreed, finding that DCWatch was “precisely the kind of Internet provider Congress intended to protect,” and was therefore be immune unless Johnson could “prove that Barras … was an actual or an apparent agent of DCWatch.”

The court allowed Johnson to explore that limited issue, but after deposing Dorothy and Gary and learning about how themail works (something she could have learned by reading it), Johnson realized she couldn’t win and agreed to dismiss her case against Dorothy, Gary and DCWatch. On February 1, Judge Fisher entered an order dismissing all claims against them “with prejudice,” meaning they can never be filed again. The suit continues against Jonetta Rose Barras and the District of Columbia. The case ended without fanfare for Dorothy and Gary, but the result is good for them and for other online publishers; their case has created a new precedent in the D.C. Superior Court that we hope will be helpful to other local publishers in the future. You can read Judge Fisher’s decision at http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/johnson_v_barras/fisher_order.pdf. You can read more about the case, known officially as Johnson v. Barras, at http://www.eff.org/cases/johnson-v-barras. A copy of the ACLU-EFF motion to dismiss is also posted at http://www.aclu-nca.org/boxSub.asp?id=159.

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

Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services Redux
Philip Fornaci, pfornaci@yahoo.com

themail continues to echo the reactionary line of Colbert King in his assault on the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS). Similar to Mr. King’s rants, Mr. Imhoff also refuses to state exactly what he wants to happen there, except to hold DC council hearings to scapegoat Vincent Schiraldi. Do you think we’ll get someone better or more committed than Mr. Schiraldi to run this outfit? Think again. There were no better, halcyon days for DYRS prior to Mr. Schiraldi’s tenure, only staff violence, dangerous living conditions at Oak Hill, and widespread corruption. It is unsurprising that only Mr. King, Mr. Imhoff, and some corrections officers at Oak Hill want to see Mr. Schiraldi fired.

It appears that Mr. King’s solution, which I assume Mr. Imhoff supports, is to simply lock up youthful offenders in the DC Jail, where they will somehow “learn their lessons”? Youth do not belong in violent and crowded adult jails, where rehabilitation is nonexistent and where educational services are rare, but where hardened attitudes toward the rest of society fester and develop. If we want youthful offenders to become educated, productive, and nonviolent members of society, then we need to focus on community-based solutions. Yes, there have been some failures, but there have been far more successes, at least some of which Mr. King and Mr. Imhoff would be well-served to report.

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

Arid Opposition
Bill Coe, bceedeec@gmail.com

In her posting to themail of February 3, Carolyn Steptoe disgraces herself and, somehow, lowers the quality of argument even further on efforts by schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee to carry out the will expressed by a majority of DC’s voters. Ms. Steptoe cites a speaking engagement with the American Enterprise Institute in a lame attempt to link the Chancellor’s work with that of Charles Murray. In the space of two short paragraphs, Ms. Steptoe repeats Murray’s name three times, trots out tried-and-true terms like “racist” and “antiunion” and elitist” and “supremacist,” then winds up by suggesting that the Chancellor’s motives are “profiteering” and “to summarily exploit minority children.”

Gimme a break! Like so much of what appears in themail on this subject, Ms. Steptoe’s vitriol betrays the abject laziness which got our schools (and our whole government) in trouble. What she and Mr. Imhoff and others of their ilk consistently fail to offer is any workable, effective alternatives for fixing our schools — beyond what is being undertaken by Mayor Fenty and Chancellor Rhee.

I have seen only two substantive options offered by opponents of DC’s school reform. One came from the lady who sued the city last year — seeking a court’s injunction to stop the mayor’s plans; she was satisfied with the previous school system and argued against changing it. The other came recently from Mr. Ralph Chittams, who argues that the turf boundaries of neighborhood gangs militate against combining or rearranging underused schools. Are these the positions Ms. Steptoe and Mr. Imhoff wish to argue? Do they really want the old system back, with the results it brought? Surely not. Do they really want to organize the governance of our public schools to fit the geography of local crews and drug gangs? Is this the best that Chancellor Rhee’s critics can do?

If not, then what do they propose? Please, Ms. Steptoe and Mr. Imhoff and all you other carpers, tell us what else might be done to fix our schools. Give us ideas which are politically feasible, which will change the sad status quo, and which will produce some measurable future benefit for today’s sixth-graders. We’re all ears!

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

CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS

National Building Museum Events, February 11, 13
Jazmine Zick, jzick@nbm.org

Monday, February 11, 6:30-8:00 p.m., For the Greener Good: Abu Dhabi: City of the Future? Learn about the future of Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates capital, and its efforts to create a carbon-neutral city in the Persian Gulf. UAE officials will discuss their vision for the city and what the rest of the world stands to learn from Abu Dhabi with historians and futurists. $12 members; free students; $20 public. Prepaid registration required. Walk-in registration based on availability.

Wednesday, February 13, 6:30-8:30 p.m. The second film in the series Bachelors, Secretaries, and Spies: Mid-century Style in American Film. The Best of Everything, directed by Jean Negulesco (1959, NR, 121 minutes), starring Joan Crawford, Hope Lange, Suzy Parker, and Robert Evans. See the silver screen’s treatment of mid-century style. Ann Hornaday, Washington Post film critic, and Deborah Sorensen, curatorial associate at the Museum, will introduce the film. $5 members; $5 students; $10 public. Member special: $10 for all three films! Prepaid registration required. Walk-in registration based on availability. Both events at the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square stop, Metro Red Line. Register for events at http://www.nbm.org.

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

Anahata International Inaugural Fundraising Party, February 15
Christopher Anderson, chris@chrisandersonphoto.com

Anahata International is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to providing individuals and communities affected by conflict tools for trauma recovery and self-healing through yoga and meditation. Our initial yoga training in Rwanda has helped transform lives. As a student there said, “Yoga is now my way to fight my isolation and anger.” Please be one of our core supporters and help spread the healing.

Join us for a fun and informative evening with live music, hors d’oeuvres, wine, and a special performance. Friday, February 15, 7:30-10:00 p.m., 3810 Fulton Street, NW (between 38th Street and Bellvue Terrace, NW). Suggested donation is $75, however all are welcome to attend and offer any support you can give. RSVP by February 10 to info@anahatainternational.org. For more information about Anahata International, see our web site at http://www.anahatainternational.org.

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

DC Action for Children Events, February 15, 26
Susie Cambria, scambria@dckids.org

Join us February 15 at DC ACT’s annual Capital Champions for Children luncheon, featuring Mayor Adrian Fenty and Keynote Speaker Michelle Rhee. We’ll also honor this year’s DC Champions for Children: Dr. Nathaniel Beers, Inspector Lillian Overton, the Consumer Health Foundation, and The Young Women’s Project. Tickets are available on our Web site http://www.dckids.org.

DC Action for Children, The Arc of DC, DC Fiscal Policy Institute, and Parents United for the DC Schools are pleased to once again co-host the popular “What’s in Store?” DC budget briefing event on February 26, from 10:00 a.m.-noon at MLK Library. E-mail scambria@dckids.org for a flier. And new this year is a survey about budget transparency, “I Spy … A Program in the DC Budget!” The survey is a chance to identify key programs that have been hard to find in past versions of the District’s budget, and that you’d like to be able to find in the proposed 2009 budget. The on-line survey link is http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=L0qTG01Ey0Z4l6I6p4RZ_2fA_3d_3d .

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

Reckless Indifference, February 21
Joe Libertelli, jlibertelli@udc.edu

The Screen Justice Film Series held at the David A Clarke School of Law is delighted to announce the screening of Reckless Indifference (2004) with Academy Award nominated and two-time Emmy awarded director William Gazecki attending. Thursday February 21. The schedule and locations are as follows. 5.00-6.00 p.m., master class with William Gazecki: Professor William Hanff will lead a classroom discussion/demonstration focusing on Mr. Gazecki’s award-winning work as a record producer for Bette Midler and The Doors, sound mixer for Hill Street Blue’s and independent documentary director — e.g. Waco: The Rules of Engagement (1997). Seating for the master class is limited. If you would like to attend please E-mail devans-pritchard@udc.edu with names and we will send confirmation.

5.45-6.15 p.m. Reception in Building 39, Room 201, David A. Clarke School of Law. 6.15-7.45 p.m, screening of Reckless Indifference in Building 39, Room 201, David A. Clarke School of Law. The 1996 death of Jimmy Farris in a ritzy Los Angeles suburb brought an energetic response from the local District Attorney. The resulting trial ended with sentences of life imprisonment without parole for all four surviving participants even though only one of the four actually committed the murder. The film questions the harsh sentences and asks whether the DA went full-throttle because of a series of failures (notably the O.J. Simpson debacle). The film received The International Press Academy’s Golden Satellite Award for Outstanding Feature Documentary. 7.45-8.15 p.m., Q&A with William Gazecki. All are welcome and attendance is free.

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

Avalon Legacy Campaign, March 1
Mary Anne Floto, mafloto@rcn.com

Save the Date — Saturday, March 1 — join in for a dynamite day of free activities for kids and adults at the Avalon Theater, 5612 Connecticut Avenue, NW. The festivities begin with a forty-five-minute puppet show for kids at 10:30 a.m., featuring local favorites Kaydee Puppets along with free face-painting. At 1:00 p.m. there will be a free showing of area moviegoers’ favorite Washington, DC, movie, which will be selected through a special voting process. There will be free popcorn for all and attendees will receive swag bags filled with discount coupons from area merchants. You can cast your vote at http://www.theavalon.org. Ballots will also be available in the lobby of the Avalon Theater and in stores along Connecticut Avenue near the theater.

The day’s activities kick off the Avalon Legacy Campaign, a public effort to raise $2 million for the historic theater. For more information, contact Sarah Pokempner at 966-2149 or Mary Ann Floto at 904-0027.

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

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.