The major thrust of my interest in returning to the District Government ironically stems from my hiatus from it in 1982. In the fifteen years since, I have developed a different sense of purpose through my entrepreneurial and business activity, my direct involvement in community issues and the opportunity to access what's occurring in the District from the perspective of a regular citizen. Returning to my Anacostia neighborhood and seeing close up and personal how District residents lives are affected, encouraged me in the belief that personally, business-wise and as a citizen I have matured. That significantly empowers me to better serve on behalf of my co-citizens. It is unfortunate that the District is in its present state, but the real question is, "How much further did we need to slip before some effort of resolution took hold? Also, working as the volunteer chairman of the Anacostia Coordinating Council (ACC), which is the largest umbrella operation of individuals and organizations involved in the revitalization of Anacostia, has been a major catalyst in moving me to this point. Of particular note, in my capacity as chairman, I selected Philip Pannell, an openly gay community activist, a the ACC's first executive director.
Piggybacking on my last statement, I am a firm believer in the idea that responsible citizenship entails commitment to the overall well-being of one's community, the willingness to actively participate in the process of government (from wherever you may be at any given time), making the effort to be well-informed about concerns and issues that contribute to an improved quality of life for that community and exercising the gumption to insist on and demand accountability from those elected to serve that community. This responsibility is a necessarily shared one between the citizenry and government officials. The present condition of the District did not occur overnight or in a vacuum. It is the result of an evolution caused by a breakdown of the honored democratic system of checks & balances, double-barreled complacency, greed, misdirected ambition and a confusion about the purpose for which government is to serve. The fault of the diminution of Home Rule can surely be placed on the doorstep of city hall, but a carbon copy of that indictment must be put in the hands of the citizenry as well. You cannot expect all to be well, when, in a city this size and with its importance to the country at-large, voter turnout in some elections has been as low as 5%. This sense of hopelessness, of "Why bother, they're (the City Government) gonna do what they want to anyway," is a death knell for the City. Adopting that attitude with its attendant malaise, ennui and apathy clears the way for the very congressional intervention and usurpation we're now saddled with. To quote our Congressional representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, "...if you want Home Rule, then Rule!"
This is really where my fifteen years absence from the city government has paid off in terms of having something, hopefully, better to offer the District. My experience as a successful businessman, with the establishment of my own company, Arrington Dixon Associates, Inc. (ADAI), which is a computer service operation specializing in telecommunications, facility management and multi-language surveys and staffed with fifty full and part-time employees of diverse national and ethnic backgrounds, has contributed mightily to my repertoire of leadership skills. My capacity for organization, personnel training and development, economic development and administrative management and an understanding of and the ability to implement state-of-the-art technologies to pull it all together and have it work amazingly well can be put to good use in governing our city. So many of the District's problems are directly attributable to mismanagement, incompetency and the lack of accountability. Over the years this has gelled into a "business as usual" mentality resulting in low morale and motivation, stagnation and an inability to effectively meet basic needs of the constituency that is required of the government. To begin to truly redeem this sad state of affairs, several things will have to be actuated: in some cases "personnel overhaul" will be mandatory (get rid of dead weight, career functionaries); where it is possible and cost-effective to do so, retrain experienced personnel, upgrade performance standards and expectations and reward truly deserving, hardworking and constructive workers; make sure that the means to successfully accomplish a mission are available and accessible to appropriate parties; and, finally, strongly reinforce the issues of professionalism and sensitive, caring service to the community. That tone has to be set from the leaders and passed on throughout the system.
This is perhaps the single most difficult area to respond to. The needs in our city are so great that invariably some are left insufficiently appropriated. The process of trying to line up what best fits where is almost like trying to solve a Euclidean geometry problem with only the assets of general math at one's disposal. For me, a significant guideline in decision-making for this area is: first, do no harm. The specific issue, as I see it, is to ensure the protection for the very old and very young because they are the most vulnerable in our society and require the greatest concern.
Medicaid, public education, child and family welfare issues, also public health administrative services (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and alcohol and substance abuse treatment) are high on my agenda. This would not only include additional dollars (where determined necessary), but also improving the management, efficacy and timeliness of services delivery. On the other hand, agencies like the Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) are clearly ravaged more by mismanagement, fiduciary irresponsibility and personnel nightmares than insufficient funding. The present scenario for decision-making in these crucial area seems to be "consultant-driven". I think we know what and where the problems are. It is ludicrous and wasteful to keep hiring "consultants" to tell us what we already know in most cases. For the future to show progress is being made, we must be willing to now make the tough decisions to clear way the debris accumulated over the years (i.e., personnel, outmoded procedures, etc.), restructure and retrain where necessary and to seriously implement professional and behavioral standards that demand the best of our public servants. Therefore, any decisions I would make on agency and/or department appropriations, would reflect these considerations.
Yes, I would oppose any and all attempts to place judges in charge of the proposed Civilian Complaint Review Board or any comparable entity. As I mentioned before, I believe in checks and balances, and as a result, recognize the crucial role tax paying citizens of the District have to play and should play in this process. I was not supportive of the Council's actions abolishing the CCRB as a vehicle for citizens' concerns to be dealt with and in particular how this affected the gay and lesbian community, which has been traditionally discriminated against in our society. Although I recognize and give credit to the majority of our MPD for its fine service to our city, we cannot close our eyes to the reality that abridgments of justice do occur, necessitating that officers who go too far are "reeled in," reminding them of their responsibility to serve all the citizens. This is the primary reason the CCRB was created and all the more reason that it needs to be operative presently.
In regard to the use of judges, I am absolutely opposed to it for the reasons you refer to. The integrity of such a system cannot be undermined. We do not need a case of "foxes watching the hen house." District citizens deserve the capability of directly addressing their concerns as it affects their safety and well-being.
I am familiar with all three of the proposals relating to this issue and I do not believe the suggested Booz-Allen and Hamilton plan allows for an effective process of redress for District citizens. A well-established CCRB is something that I believe would get strong support from law enforcement officials because it encourages full citizen participation in collaboration with official agencies and specifically because it represents the community with no restrictions of race, national origin, religion, gender, economic status, ethnicity or sexual orientation. That, after all, is another important impetus for my involvement in this campaign.
The District of Columbia has some of our nation's strongest Human Rights Laws. Agencies that are set-up to protect, monitor and regulate the business of our communities need not be caught up in "witch hunts" and "quasi-moral" finger-pointing. The city has more than ample need for the correctly focused energies and attention of these public servants. As a member of the Committee, I would, in no uncertain terms, clarify what was required of those agencies and would use the full force of my office to exact redress and/or retribution for any improprieties or abuse. Discrimination, whether systematic or otherwise, cannot and will not be condoned or tolerated by public servants who are charged with the responsibility of fairness toward all of the District's citizenry. There can be no exception to this rule!
In light of the tremendous and horrific devastation illegal drugs have wrought in our city, it is understandable that many District residents would be wary of an effort to legalize a known substance that has surely been a part of that devastation. However, the plight of other citizens who are waylaid by the devastation of their diseases, whether it be AIDS, cancer, diabetes or any number of other maladies, must be considered s well. Research and study provide us with medical breakthroughs every day. So far, the greater portion of the evidence indicates that medically-prescribed usage of marijuana has proven effective in alleviating the severity of symptoms of some diseases and is beneficial in helping to manage what in many cases are chronic conditions. Are we to deny this measure of relief to others and condemn them to needless suffering? Or is the better tact the one that encompasses the medical breakthrough and utilizes the appropriate legal administration to make marijuana available where it is deemed medically helpful and allows people the chance to live fuller lives and be more able to be active and contributing citizens in our communities? For me the choice is the latter course.
It is paramount that every available dollar for HIV/AIDS services and programs be justly distributed to the vendors who provide the profoundly needed assistance to individuals and families challenged with this epidemic. Housing, access to medicine and care, counseling, food banks and crisis life-management issues are by design difficult areas in any community, but add to them all the frightening things that come with HIV/AIDS (the stigma of shame, persecution and discrimination, isolation from support systems, etc.) and you have a real powder keg situation. That many vendors have gone months without government payments (money that is available!) and are in danger of being closed down, evicted or unable to provide services, is shameful!
The recent re-assignment of the former head of the Agency for HIV/AIDS (AHA), Mel Wilson, gives the Human Services Committee a golden opportunity to right this grievous wrong. As a member of that committee, I will demand that a more thorough, widespread search be made to find the caliber of person needed to better lead AHA. The current salary, ($65K), may be unrealistic to attract the kind of professional needed. I will also consider legislation that would empower that individual to minimize bureaucratic logjams and to maximize service delivery. We cannot afford to lose a level of funding from the federal government and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC in Atlanta) that has been so arduously fought for simply because of holes in local government! I will, with the support and assistance of my equally concerned colleagues on the Council, endeavor to make that modus operandi a thing of the past. We will fix it!
9-12. Because of the closely related nature of questions 9-12, I am providing a composite response.
I fully support legal recognition of same-sex marriages. In fact, I first presented it as a member of the Council in 1977! [GLAA note: Craig Howell, who was President of GLAA at the time, recalls that the year was 1975.] The sanctity of a relationship between consenting adults, regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners, should not be abridged or cut asunder, and particularly not by government. I find it interesting that in the case of same-sex marriage, many in Congress are promoting non-recognition of these unions that occur in a state (Hawaii), in any other state. I question the constitutionality of that position in referring to, the "full faith clause" of the U.S. Constitution. Congress and individual states cannot summarily decide which states' laws it will accept and acknowledge. That would be disastrous and would only widen the schism that already exists in our country around the issues of full human rights for all America's citizens. It is unfortunate that with all of the truly pressing and critical concerns of the day, that many in Congress are motivated by what appears to be a mean-spirited intent to discriminate against gay and lesbian American citizens. It is precisely the reason that gays and lesbians and their supporters (and I am definitely one) must continue to be vigilant and well-positioned to guard against those working against them.
I was truly saddened last year by the passing of the wrongly named "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) and president Clinton's signing it into law. I saw this as nothing more than an election year ploy. This did nothing to "defend" marriage. Defend it against what? In all fairness, it is not the gay and lesbian community that has given the United States the dubious distinction of having one of the highest divorce rates in the modern world! Gays and lesbians have the same right as any other citizen to demand and expect that elected officials that they support and fund truly represent them as honorable constituents! I will continue that tradition in this office as I have in the past as an elected official, as a private citizen and as a businessman.
In the case of restrictions on adoption by unmarried couples (of any sexual orientation), I am opposed to Congress or any other entity interfering with or trying to negatively alter what the District has already established as an opportunity for needy children to become a part of loving, nurturing and strong families (again, of any sexual orientation). In the issue of adoption and parental rights the foremost consideration should be the well-being and future of the child. Most recently the States of New Jersey and Maryland (what a surprise), have enacted major stands on behalf of gay and lesbian adoption (New Jersey) and gay parental privileges (Maryland). The change is coming because I firmly believe that most Americans know the right thing to do about these issues and will eventually see it happen.
My position on the D.C. Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 (Domestic Partnership Law) has always been supportive. My public record on this goes back to 1977. It is amazing to me that we are even still discussing this in 1997! Anyone's life partner should not be denied the benefits that their relationship should be able to offer; and if those benefits are tied to the "act of marriage", then, "let the wedding march begin for gays and lesbians!" Also of concern to me, in this area, is the preservation of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Last year's vote on this federal statute was considered a major victory and rightly so and its passing into law will be not only historic, but a right move.
Without question the Boy Scouts of America violates the D.C. Human Rights Law's ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by excluding gays' participation either as scouts or as leaders. The BSA contradicts its own dicta (and considerable support from government agencies at the municipal, state and federal levels throughout the country) by always advertising that the membership is open to, "all boys." Isn't that seemingly at odds with teaching young people appropriate citizenship values and respect for their fellowman? In overlooking the Office of Human Rights (OHR) finding that BSA is a, "place of public accommodation," once again we have an instance of an organization that is largely publicly-funded that chooses to discriminate against citizens solely on a one-dimensional basis that has nothing to do with the stated purpose of the Organization. I see the so-called "loophole" (OHR ruling that BSA wasn't covered by the employment provision of the Human Rights Law because it didn't, "maintain staffed offices with paid employees within the District"), as a clear misinterpretation of the law and I fully support the ACLU in its request for reconsideration of the original OHR ruling.
Having a sound, fully-operative, proficiently-staffed Office of Human Rights is a goal of mine. That it should be a Cabinet-level agency, with its Director provided direct access to the Mayor and/or Control Board, has to be a part of it being implemented. District citizens should not feel stifled in their pursuit of righting certain wrongs simply because there is no mechanism available to do so. This is absurd and I will have this as a major pledge to fulfill. My willingness to act in this regard, stems, in part, from the fact (unfortunately), that so many of the people who fact this disgrace are part of the gay, lesbian and transgender community and as far as I'm concerned, it is an inequity whose time has passed.
I find it ironic that Washington, D.C., capital of the "free" world, leader of international tourism and bastion of "sophistication," has to quibble about liquor licenses in establishments with nude dancing entertainment. As long as the provision that the businesses are located in designated non-residential, commercial districts is met and all other applicable eligibility requirements are satisfied, there is no reason to impose this limitation on the business community or cut off a prime source of city revenue. Here again, is that "moralizing monster" rearing its ugly head.
ADDENDUM
If it were not for the untimely death of the irreplaceable David Clarke, which led to the Democratic at-large vacancy, I would not be in this race. Quite frankly, I had no intention to enter electoral politics as a candidate until several persons prevailed upon me to seek this seat. Therefore, my positions, attitudes and actions from 1983 until this year should not and cannot be viewed through the prism of a "candidate-in-waiting."
During this period I have always been supportive of the lesbian and gay community in words and deeds. Over the years my company, Arrington Dixon & Associates, Inc. (ADAI), has defrayed the cost of several mailings for the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbians, Gay Men & Bisexuals. When lesbian activist, Wanda Alston was fund-raising in 1995 to cover her expenses to attend the International Women's Conference in Beijing, China, her supporters phone banked from the offices of ADAI. I have been an active supporter, financial and otherwise, of many HIV/AIDS organizations and benefits for nearly seventeen years.
I am proud to count as a member of my ADAI staff, Michael Sainte-Andress, the gay performance artist, AIDS activist and person living with AIDS (PLWA). Philip Pannell has been the community liaison for ADAI since 1994. Gays and lesbians are active at every level of my campaign: Everett Jennings, formerly of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, is the Deputy Campaign Manager and is responsible for the daily functions of the Campaign; Philip is the Assistant Treasurer and Michael Sainte-Andress serves as the liaison to the lesbian and gay community. Among my campaign's volunteers are: Kurt Vorndran, Andy Litsky, Barbara Helmick, Joseph Kisha, Wanda Alston, Richard Rausch, Peter Schott, Frank Zampatori and Robert Hodgson.
Most relevantly, I appreciate and am honored that the GLAA has permitted me to be a sponsor at several of its fund-raises, particularly in the last two years. My record demonstrates that I support the gay and lesbian community, not for the votes, but because it is the right human rights thing to do. These are things I am FOR, regardless of the election outcome on December 2nd.
[signed]
Arrington Dixon
November 7, 1997