Temporary Solutions
Dear Temps:
The city council appears poised to repeal the Internet gambling bill,
but only because the underhanded way it was introduced cut many
councilmembers out of even knowing what the council was voting for —
the bill deliberately avoided mentioning Internet gambling, speaking
only of “nontraditional games.” And repealing the provision of the
Budget Support Act that authorized Internet gambling only puts it off
temporarily, until after the primary election, or after the general
election at the latest. The bill introduced by Councilmembers Mendelson
and Wells, which passed today in the Committee on Finance and Revenue,
prohibits online gambling. But after this temporary reprieve, Internet
gambling is sure to be reintroduced in the council; and the
councilmembers are more likely than not to pass it again. At last week’s
hearing, only two councilmembers (Catania and Wells) announced that they
were actually opposed to Internet gambling. Two councilmembers (Barry
and Michael Brown) enthusiastically supported it, and the other
councilmembers who said anything about it made it clear that they
weren't expressing any moral or ethical opposition to the government’s
promoting, sponsoring, and running gambling operations. Unless they are
pressed hard by opponents to government gambling during the upcoming
election campaigns, councilmembers are unlikely to grow a conscience
anytime soon. They will simply slip back into their comfortable ways,
and they will decide that government should promote any vice it can make
a profit from.
#####
Another example of how inadequate the council’s new “ethics”
bill is was related by Mke DeBonis today, http://tinyurl.com/824653g.
Councilmember Yvette Alexander is facing a challenge to her primary
candidate petitions. She’s being represented before the Board of
Elections and Ethics by David Wilmot, who is a lobbyist. A provision of
the new “ethics” bill provides that, “No lobbyist or registrant .
. . shall provide legal representation, or other professional services,
to an official in the legislative or executive branch . . . at no cost
or at a rate that is less than the lobbyist or registrant would
routinely bill for the representation or service in the marketplace.”
But Wilmot says his firm has various “routine” billing rates,
neither Alexander nor Wilmot will reveal what rate Alexander is paying,
and nothing in the bill requires them to report what she’s paying, so
there’s no way the bill can be enforced. It’s just another loophole
in a bill filled with loopholes, designed to appear effective without
actually doing anything.
Gary Imhoff
gary@dcwatch.com
##############
The agenda scheduled for the Wednesday, February 1 public meeting of
the DC Board of Elections and Ethics called for consideration of the “intents
to recall” filed by Frederick Butler against Mayor Gray (http://www.dcwatch.com/election/init22.htm)
and Council Chairman Kwame Brown (http://www.dcwatch.com//election/init23.htm).
However, because Butler failed to appear at the hearing, the recalls
were tabled and no recall petitions were approved or issued. Although
Butler had been personally served with a written notice of today’s
Board meeting, in a subsequent telephone interview with Tom Sherwood he
claimed that he wasn’t aware that he was required to attend the Board
meeting, and he went to work instead.
On January 23, both Mayor Gray and Council Chairman Brown submitted
written responses to the intents to recall (see the links above). If and
when the recall petitions are issued, those responses will be printed on
the petitions that Butler will be given to circulate, and Butler will
have 180 days from the day those petitions are issued to collect
approximately 45,000 signatures of registered voters (10 percent of all
registered voters in the District, with an additional distribution
requirement of at least 10 percent of the registered voters in five of
the eight wards).
But not only did Butler not attend the BOEE hearing; neither Mayor
Gray nor Chairman Brown, nor anyone representing them, appeared at the
hearing. So far, Brown and Gray have not explained why they didn’t
come to the BOEE hearing, or whether they had any advance notice that
Butler wouldn’t appear, so that there was no need for them to come.
The events — or nonevents — at today’s BOEE hearing raise the
question of whether Butler has the resources, the wherewithal, or even
the intention, to run a serious recall campaign, or whether Butler’s
recall will be scrapped in favor of what could be a better financed
effort threatened by R. Donahue Peebles.
###############
OPC’S Smart Grid Opt-Out Petition
Sandra Mattavous-Frye, info@opc-dc.gov
How was PEPCO‘s smart grid deployment approved? In June 2009, the
District of Columbia City Council enacted the Advanced Metering
Infrastructure Implementation Act (DC Code §34-1562) (Smart Grid Act).
This DC law approved PEPCO‘s deployment of the smart grid on the
condition that the Company received sufficient funds from the US
Department of Energy’s (US DOE) Smart Grid Investment Grant. In
December 2009, PEPCO received $44.6 million, the maximum amount it could
receive from the US DOE’s Smart Investment Grant. In December 2009,
the Commission determined that PEPCO had received sufficient funds.
Thus, PEPCO‘s deployment of the smart grid was approved. PEPCO began
installing smart meters in October 2010.
Currently, can consumers choose not to have a smart meter on their
home? No. DC’s Smart Grid Act does not provide consumers with an
opportunity to decline participation in PEPCO‘s smart grid program.
The opportunity to decline participation is known as an opting-out.
Despite the fact that the Smart Grid Act does not allow an opt-out
provision, laws can change if there are facts to support a change.
What can the Office of the Peoples Counsel do about the fact that
there is no opt-out? In December 2011, after hearing numerous complaints
about not having an opportunity to opt-out of PEPCO‘s smart grid
program, OPC filed a Petition requesting the DC Public Service
Commission require PEPCO to conduct a technical and economic feasibility
study for providing an opt-out provision. The study would provide a
factual basis to determine the financial and technical impact of
allowing consumers to opt-out and determine how much consumers would
have to pay to opt-out. In response to a Commission directive, on
January 23, 2012, OPC submitted a supplemental document in support of
the need for a feasibility study. We are awaiting a PSC decision.
What is OPC’s position on opt-out? OPC believes this is an
important public interest issue involving myriad considerations,
including public safety, privacy, and cost issues. As the public
advocate representing the interests of all DC consumers, OPC has a
statutory obligation to first, ensure that the facts are fully aired and
second, that a reasonable and rational decision is rendered. At this
time, OPC needs more facts on the issue to make a final policy
determination. The proposed study will provide the needed facts to
determine the impact of an opt-out provision on all DC ratepayers and
consumers. At a minimum, OPC believes the public has a right to have its
concerns addressed.
Have other states approved an opt-out provision? Yes. California and
Maine have approved an opt-out provision for consumers. What can I do to
support OPC’s Petition? If you want to support OPC’s Petition, you
can do so by contacting the Commission in writing at: DC Public Service
Commission, 1333 H Street, NW, 2nd Floor, West Tower, Washington, DC
20005. Attn: Formal Case No. 1056: OPC’s Opt-Out Petition. Or via
E-mail at bwestbrook@psc.dc.gov,
Subject Line: Formal Case No. 1056: OPC’s Opt-Out Petition
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
Body and Soul: An Evening of Jazz and Art,
February 6
George Williams, George.Williams2@dc.gov
This Monday, celebrate Black History Month at the DC Public Library
with an evening of art and jazz by African-American women. “Body and
Soul” is an exhibit featuring twenty works by local African American
artist Desiree Sterbini and J’Nell Jordan. The works include oil on
metal acrylic to oil pastels and colored pencils on textured paper. The
exhibit kicks off with a reception featuring the Herman Burney Trio and
vocalist Akua Allrich on Monday, February 6, at 6:00 p.m., at Martin
Luther King, Jr., Memorial Library, 901 G Street, NW. A complete listing
of events can be found online at http://www.dclibrary.org/blackhistory
################
MacIntosh Users Group Meeting, February 11
Ken Nellis, NCA-MUG, webmaster@nca-mug.org
The National Capital Apple Macintosh Users Group (NCA-MUG) will hold
its February meeting on Saturday, February 11, from 10:00 a.m. to noon,
in the first floor meeting room of the Cleveland Park branch of the DC
Public Library. February’s presentation will explore less well known
features of iTunes. For more information, please refer to the group’s
web site, http://www.nca-mug.org.
###############
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.
All postings should 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.