All down to a phrase?

The hearing against the termination of the voluntary agreement of Hanks Oyster Bar in DuPont Circle, became an argument over the phrase " good faith attempt."

The board hearing took place at 1250 U street right near Ben's Chilli Bowl and started at 1 p.m. It was a relatively small room on the second floor that held about 25 to 30 people all together. Most of the crowd showed up about 15 to 20 minutes into the hearing. The crowd consisted mostly of blog writers, and community members. In the middle of the room on the wall, was a giant projection screen.

The two sides represented in the hearing were the DuPont Circle Citizens Association ( DCCA), and Hanks Oyster Bar. The DCCA was represented by the Robin Diener in addition to a group of five other residents who have been fighting Hanks Oyster Bar on allowing them to terminate the current voluntary agreement in place. Terminating the agreement would give Hanks the permission to buy the vacant commercial property at 17th and Q streets Northwest that separates Hanks from the remaining block of row houses. " Were packed durring the weekend and people are standing out on the sidewalk. This will help all that congestion," Jamie Leeds owner and lead chef of Hanks Oyster Bar said.

Michael Hibey, a member of the DCCA, had primarily one consistent argument for most of the hearing. While he necessarily doesn't mind the expansion of Hanks Oyster Bar, he doesn't feel that Andrew Kline, Leeds attorney, made any "good faith attempt" to compromise on an agreement. The phrase "good faith attempt" is cited in the District Columbia official code Title 25 Alcohol Beverages, 25-446-D. Whenever Hibey was faced a question, he would usually go back to the fact that Kline never showed a good faith attempt to reach some sort of mutual agreement. He mentioned that Kline just said were going to terminate the agreement and that is that.

Kline tried to match Hibey's tactics by searching for minute details. He noted the difference between the terms "termination" and "amendment" and that they are two separate things. He also said that there isn't any point in talking about an amendment if a party seeks termination. Klein also disagreed with the statement that Hanks Oyster Bar made no effort in making a "good faith attempt" to amend the termination agreement. " The board has emails and a letter referencing our good faith attempt," Kline said.

Kline seemed is if he was almost mocking Hibey, laughing at his counter points and shutting them down very quickly. When Hibey brought up the point that one must go through each step in 25-446 in order to have a valid argument. Kline rudely laughed at the remark and replied, " That was disagree on."

Once again, Hibey reiterated the fact that Hank's failed to make that "good faith attempt" to discuss with the DCCA some sort of agreement on how both sides could work together. In addition, Diener tried asking how it could be possible to amend the agreement and meet to discuss the issue and was flat out told, no it's impossible.

In response to that statement by Diener, Kline seemed perplexed and thought the need to meet was unnecessary. He bascially said that the two sides would meet, state what they believed, and leave with nothing getting accomplished. So what's the point then? Kline asked.

Surprisingly, a lot of the community members present seemed to side with Hanks Oyster Bar on this issue. " It's fascinating the people here are just talking about words when we should be discussing business and community. Hanks has done such great business for the area and it would be more of an issue if Hanks was doing poorly. No one is going to get drunk off seafood, it's a good independent restaurant," community member Doug Rodgers said. After making that comment, a lot of the community members around him seemed to be nodding there heads in agreement.

At about 2.30 p.m the board went to review both sides and vote on the decision. Once they returned, the board first unanimously dismissed the DCCA from the protest hearing along with dismissing the motion to protest the termination of the voluntary agreement. Afterwords, the board voted on whether to dismiss the group of five. The vote was split so it moved forward.

Then both sides presented witnesses who testified under oath, primarily local residents, to support their arguments. Shockingly, Robin Diener was brought back as a witness by the group of residents even though, she had been dismissed as a protestant. Now the board has a few decide on whether or not they will terminate the voluntary agreement in place. One has to wonder if " good faith attempt" will have any significance in the final ruling at all.

To Amend, Or To Terminate? Representatives in Protest Hearing Stumble over Terminology

To Amend, Or To Terminate? Reprsentatives in Protest Hearing Stumble over Terminology

By: Claire Rychlewski

A protest hearing against terminating the voluntary agreement of DuPont Circle’s Hank’s Oyster Bar became a quibble of vocabulary and definitions at yesterday’s Alcohol Bevereage Regulation Administration meeting.

 The DuPont Circle Citizens Association (DCCA), represented by Robin Diemer, and an additional group of five residents, have been fighting Hank’s Oyster Bar on this termination since June. Jamie Leeds, owner and head chef of Hank’s, originally submitted to a voluntary agreement, regulating hours of operating and seating capacity, and prohibits expansion.

 Hank’s now wishes to expand to the empty lot next to the restaurant, and so would like to terminate the voluntary agreement. Many DCCA members do not support this.

 The DCCA chose to criticize the way in which Hank’s would like to terminate the agreement. Michael Hibey, representative of the DCCA, cited the DC code 25-446-4D, in which he said that in order to achieve termination, a business must make a “good faithed attempt” to negotiate a mutually acceptable amendment. Hibey said that Leeds and her attorney, Andrew Kline, never tried to amend their voluntary agreement; a step he said was necessary in order to obtain permission for termination.

 But there was much contestation over the exact semantics of the wording in this particular code. Kline countered that within this code—section C of 25-446—the term “termination” appears as a separate action from “amendment.” He disputed the DCCA argument that businesses must first go through an amendment process in order to achieve termination.

 Hibey maintained that it was a step-by-step process, and that an amendment was thus crucial. “You have to do A and B to get to C,” he said. “The statute is very clear.” To this, Kline let out a loud laugh and responded, “That we disagree on.”

 There were certainly many disagreements, whether they were about the distinction between amendment and termination, or what the term “good faithed” means, or what was considered an “attempt” to meet. 

 Hibey said that Hank’s did not make that required “good faithed” attempt to meet and negotiate with the DCCA. Diener also said that she tried on many occasions to convene with Leeds, but could not.

 Under her breath Leeds responded, “That’s not true!” When questioned later, Leeds said that she and her attorney, Victor Wexler, did meet with Diener at Hank’s. Kline argued that the two parties did meet, but clearly did not concur.

 “Why should the parties even be forced to meet?” Kline asked. “’Gee, we don’t want to terminate. Well, gee, we want you to terminate. Okay, great meeting, have a nice day.’ Why should you even try to amend when the positions are clear?”

 The board members seemed to agree. Chairperson Charles Brodsky asked the DCCA, “A ‘good faithed’ attempt doesn’t mean they agree with you. Did it ever occur to you that most establishments don’t want a voluntary agreement on their businesses?”

 He had his own opinion on the matter, going on to say that voluntary agreements had become proscriptive devices, whereas before they had been the result of disruption or incidents at the establishment that concerned residents. “I may disagree with everyone but this table here,” he said, pointing to Kline and Leeds.

 There were mixed reactions from D.C. residents. Jacqueline Reed of Logan Circle said she is concerned about the vacating of voluntary agreements in general.

 “It’s the only leverage that a community has to keep businesses in check. The fact that the Board can’t handle these problems is baloney. I’m concerned to see them acting like voluntary agreements have no purpose.”

 Reed added that Chairperson Charles Brodsky, who seemed to agree with Hank’s petition for termination, is new on the board. “This is all his thinking,” she said. “This is not the way it’s been handled before.” Reed, like the DCCA members, is concerned about inappropriately timed noise levels that could result in termination of the voluntary agreement that would otherwise limit hours of operation.

 Other residents like Doug Rogers who is also on the DCCA, staunchly disagree with Diener’s protest. “I support Hank’s. It’s an amazing restaurant, and an amazing part of the community. If they would like to expand, I fully support that. These people [Diener and the DCCA] have too much time on their hands.”

Hank’s Oyster Bar has been open and operating since 2005. According to Leeds, there have never been any problems or complaints from the residents before.

 After a half-hour decision process, the board reconvened and unanimously dismissed the DCCA from the protest hearing, and dismissed the motion to protest the termination of the voluntary agreement. After this, the board heard from the group of five residents also protesting. Both sides presented witnesses who testified under oath. A surprising ending was Diener’s return as a witness although she had been already dismissed as a protestant.

 Said blogger Tom Hay, "This is a closely followed issue in the DuPont/Logan/U Street neighborhoos because we have so many new restaurants and bars. Everyone is wondering if this will set the stage for a more business friendly ABRA." 

The board has a few weeks to make a final decision on whether to terminate the voluntary agreement.

Hanks Oyster Bar Expansion Debate Continues

by Alessandra Conti

Washington, D.C. (October 14, 2010):

When Jamie Leeds, owner and head Chef at Hanks Oyster Bar, decided to expand her popular Dupont Circle restaurant, she had no idea of the kind of opposition that she would face from residents. “I’ve proven myself as a successful business owner, and my business has been a success,” says Leeds.

Today, Hanks Oyster Bar and Dupont Circle protesting residents debated the termination of a voluntary agreement; an agreement that put regulations on restaurant policies like seating capacity, hours of operation, and, the clincher for Leeds, the prohibition of expansion of the restaurant.

Although no major final decisions were made at the hearing, both sides of the debate were represented. Through commentary from the members of the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA), it was apparent that the board seemed to side with Hanks Oyster Bar over the residents, even explaining to the residents that they have a, “fundamental disagreement about what a voluntary agreement is used for” ABRA board member Donald Brooks said. According to resident and observer Suzanne Poozesh, “some of them have already made up their minds”.

A small group of six residents were present for the meeting without legal representation. They were represented by self-proclaimed, “lay men” Michael Hibey, David J. Mallof, and Robin Diener of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association (DCCA). After about two hours of debate and discussion, Diener was dismissed because she had not filed the proper protest against Hank’s; a flashback to the previous meeting with the ABRA where she had been dismissed under the same grounds. The group of protesting neighbors, however, were not dismissed, and went onto the following testimony stage, which would go on for another four hours.

Leeds was represented by Andrew Kline, a well respected local attorney, who deals with a large amount of DC restaurant cases. Witnesses for both sides testified under oath. The big shocker came when Diener, who had just been dismissed from the rest of the meeting, came back as a witness. Ultimately, the ABRA adjured the meeting with the resolve that they have a few weeks to make a final decision on whether or not to terminate the voluntary agreement.

The ABRA seemed to get impatient with the residents because they did not have legal counsel. Mallof stated that he was annoyed at Leeds’ lawyer because he did not warn them that they were being summoned, but board member Brooks reminded Mallof, “His law firm doesn’t represent you guys… You have a responsibility to know the process and not rely on someone else.”

Another large portion of the meeting was dedicated to trying to come to a conclusion whether or not Leeds and her lawyer would comply with a “good faith attempt” to reach a compromise about the voluntary agreement by creating an amendment to it. According to the residents, Leeds was simply intent on terminating the voluntary agreement, and resisted discussion. But, Leeds and her lawyer deny this accusation, stating multiple mediation attempts.

The voluntary agreement between Hanks Oyster Bar and residents occurred in 2005, where Leeds faced similar opposition to the opening of the restaurant. After lengthy legal proceedings, Leeds compromised with residents and created their voluntary agreement, finally opening the doors to Hanks Oyster Bar on 1625 Q Street NW. She was surprised that she would face such opposition to expansion after five years of such a successful run for her business.

Some residents are in support of Hanks Oyster Bar’s expansion, but under the resident’s terms. Robin Diener of the DCCA, one of Leed’s opponents in the case explains, “The DCCA loves Hanks Oyster Bar and has no objection to expand it.” She describes Leeds as a “gracious hostess”, but emphasizes that Hanks Oyster Bar has “flourished under the voluntary agreement,” between Hanks Oyster Bar and the surrounding Dupont community.

Other residents are not so enthusiastic about the restaurants expansion. “I am opposed to the expansion,” says resident Suzanne Poozesh who lives right next to the building that is the proposed expansion of Hank’s. Poozesh attended the meeting with her husband, and are both concerned about their quality of life if the restaurant does expand. “We are going to live in noise,” she says. Because her home shares a wall with Hank’s, she is also worried about the value of her building decreasing. She described that doing normal activities such as bringing home her groceries would be, “very odd”. She also thinks, “it’s an invasion of privacy… Coming and going would be uncomfortable,” she says.

Despite protests, Leeds is dedicated to doing everything she can to ensure the expansion of Hank’s Oyster Bar. After all, “They have the best oysters in town!” says Kline.

Councilman Gray Holds Youth Oversight Hearing

City Council Meeting October 9, 2010

Micah Deligdish

City Council Chairman Vincent Gray held a hearing about youth mentorship programs in the schools of DC yesterday afternoon. Representatives from each mentorship program presented their program’s mission statement and discussed their programs’ goals and accomplishments with Gray.

Chairman Gray holds youth oversight meetings like this one every first Saturday of the month in order to get a perspective on the youth of D.C. public schools. In attendance of the hearing were five youth mentorship programs, their families, and their supporters in the community.

Among the mentorship programs was City Year, I AM... We Are, DSK Mariam Youth Group, and Time Dollar Youth Court.

City Year is a civic engagement group where 17-24 year olds pledge a year of community service. The leaders are united with DC schoolchildren through tutoring, mentoring, afterschool programs and summer camps. The goal of City Year is to keep children in school and engage them in the community.

“I deferred my acceptance to Lafayette College for a year so that I could do City Year,” City Year representative Nadia Purvis said.

Gray was impressed by Purvis’s dedication to the program and commended her for her service.

“It’s almost even greater than a college education being with City Year,” Gray said.

Chairmen Gray grew up and attended D.C. Public Schools, and has made public education reform a priority of his chair position.

“There is no greater priority…than ensuring that our children receive a quality education that prepares them for the modern-day workforce,” Gray said.

Among the education reforms discussed was the change to a longer school day for D.C. public schools. Purvis transferred from a public school to a charter school where the school day ran until 5 p.m.

“I think [the longer day] is a great idea,” Purvis said. “It would allow for more instruction [and] more time for that instruction would be good.”

According to Chairman Gray, keeping kids in school longer would keep them off the streets and out of trouble. After school programs and sport events held right after school would also help.

Another mentorship program in attendance at the hearing provides assistance to students who have gotten into trouble. Time Dollar Youth Court provides alternative sentencing to first-time juvenile offenders. Peer-to-peer mentoring and mock courts are among the programs participants attend.

“The mission of the program is to restore youth where they made bad decisions and help put them back on track,” Youth Court representative Geraldine Martin said.

One of the Youth Court representatives had actually been through the program, and was proof that it could help. After getting into a fight at his high school, Lamar Peterson, 17, became involved in Youth Court.

“Because of youth court I’m up for a full scholarship to college,” Peterson said.

Chairman Gray’s interactions with the representatives of these programs encouraged those at the hearing that their participation was helping reform the city’s public school system.

“It’s almost as if we’ve become a society where the government has to do everything for us just because we pay taxes,” Gray said. “But the taxpayers are the ones who own the streets.”

Chairman Gray continued to show his support for these programs by inviting them to future youth oversight hearings and encouraging them to stay involved.

“How can we get adults to step up and beyond to be role models?” Gray asked.

The meeting was successful in bridging the gap between the grassroots civilians and policy makers. Gray was supportive and engaging of the panelists. Youth oversight hearings give perspective to what is really going on with youth in the D.C. public school system, and how the government can help.

Vincent Grey meets with youth to discuss the issues they face

DC Council Chairman and presumptive mayor-elect Vincent Gray led a meeting that discussed issues that face the youth of the city and the programs that help them succeed on Oct. 9, 2010.

The Committee of the Whole hosts a meeting on the first Saturday of every month to allow the council to get a youthful perspective in issues that directly affect them such as education, safety, employment, housing and economic development. October’s meeting brought in panels from different youth programs from around the district to testify about how their group has a positive impact on the community.

Gray asked the different panels about their opinions on how they think the problems young people encounter should be fixed and how effective the programs available today are.

“Its an opportunity for young people to connect with the leaders of the city,” said Gray.

City Year was the first group to discuss their program with Grey. Nadia Purvis, 19, represented City Year, a group that provides tutors, mentors, and role models to help kids stay in school. Grey discussed the quality of DC’s schools with Purvis who transferred from the public school Amidon Elementary to KIPP a local charter school that has longer school days.

“I was bored, hey weren’t giving me the individual support that I needed to succeed,” said Purvis.

Gray said the proposed a bill that would extend the school day in DC public schools. Purvis said she thought the extension on the school day is a good idea to keep kids on track because five pm is about the time parents arrive home to supervise their kids.

“It would certainly give a chance for our young people to receive more instruction,” said Gray.

Gray asked what Purvis thought a good tactic was to get adults to step up and serve as role models for students. Purvis said encouraging parents to partake in their kids after school programs is a good way to help kids make the most of their schooling.

The second panel had members of Time Dollar Youth Court, a program that provides alternative sentencing to first-time juvenile and serves as a unique pre-petition diversion program for non-violent offenders. TDYC said their goal is to divert offenders, ages 13–17, away from the juvenile justice system and provide an alternative to the traditional format in juvenile cases.

The most of the representatives of TCYC personally participated in the program and said it helped them turn their lives around.

“ Because of youth court I’m up for a full scholarship to college,” said Lamar Peterson, 17, who sent to the program after an altercation at school and continues to volunteer. “I learned a lot, it improved my leadership skills.”

Gray said he was happy that programs such as youth courts are available to give kids that find themselves in trouble a second chance.

I Am… We Are, a community service based group told Gray about their efforts to clean up the community and draw awareness to voter registration. Gray asked why voter registration was important to the group.

“It is a positive impact, we remind people who are registered to vote to vote and those who aren’t registered to sign up,” said Darius Grey, 12, a member of the group if you don’t vote it can be a dramatic change in what happens.”

Grey asked the group what the youth could do to encourage more people to vote. “I think asking people why they don’t vote and doing what were doing handing out flyers and stuff should help,” said DeAndre Lee, 14.

The group is working to put more pressure on their peers to recycle.

“We need to give back to what the earth needs so it can give back to what people need,” said Hebron Adenew, 9, an active member.

The DSK Mariam Youth Group discussed how they are working to be a positive influence for kids. They are reaching out to the youth mentoring kids who need role models. They group said they work to help the children with school work in addition to helping them by being a spiritual mentor that crates a safe place for young people to go for guidance.

“If we could get youth around the city to get to recreation centers I think it would be a great way to reach out to kids,” said Younesse Mekonnen, a group mentor.

The group has over 100 college students involved with the program

“Its nice because they give you a family to go back to every week,” Said Mekonnen.

The final group to speak was the Sasha Bruce Youth Group, which is a group that also mentors but is strictly for females.

“ I haven’t really figured out how I’m going to do this with the young people at the next level, we might be able to help people with town hall meetings we’ll hear from them answer questions but the most important thing for them to see is that there is someone who is listening and will help them find solutions,” said Gray.

American Forum

Is your vote up for grabs? Karen Finney and Kevin Madden are certainly trying.

By: Claire Rychlewski

Democratic political strategist Karen Finney and Republican political strategist Kevin Madden sparred over partisan issues at last night’s American Forum, while the audience furiously narrated the debate on a “Live-Tweet” projection behind them.
             The question for discussion last night was, “Is your vote up for grabs?” Both Finney and Madden answered with a resounding yes, as they gradually slipped out of their initial bipartisan positions and began to assert their own political opinions—possibly in hopes of swaying their mostly 18-24 aged audience. 

The American Forum is an hour-long recorded interactive program with a live town-hall audience. Typically, analysts that specialize in national and international media issues are brought to answer audience questions. Jane Hall, former LA Times Reporter, and associate professor of communications at American University, hosts the forum. The panelists were Karen Finney, MSNBC political analyst and former communications director for the Democratic National Committee, and Kevin Madden, a public relations executive, Republican strategist and former press secretary to Governor Mitt Romney's campaign and House minority leader John Boehner.

             The discussion started off neutrally. Finney and Madden both agreed that the use of social media and popular culture are most effective in getting the youth vote. Candidates and their campaign staff are learning to engage in what Finney called an “ongoing, two-way conversation” with young voters, and this is mostly happening online. In fact, the concept of social media was not only present in the discussion. Behind the panelists, there was a projection screen allowing the audience to tweet their opinions of the forum using an American Forum hashtag as the forum was happening.

             Quickly, though, the discussion shifted, when a question as raised as to whether President Obama would be able to get the youth vote like he did in 2008. Right away each panelist swung back into partisan politics, as Finney maintained that Obama is very popular with the base, and will turn out the base, while Madden said that young voters will hold him and his party accountable for the lack of change they see.

             Debates on Obama’s presidency and approval rates and Tea Party motives followed and took over the discussion, as Karen Finney repeated, “I’m going to have to be partisan here,” several times. The objective of the forum revealed itself to be a provocation of bipartisan debate, as some of the moderator’s questions were politically loaded—questions like whether President Obama was lecturing young people about voting in a recent article in Rolling Stone, or whether the media is backing President Obama.

Melissa Elgendy, a junior at American University, was unimpressed with the discussion. While she agreed with some of the points about the use of social media to galvanize young voters, she also felt like she did not learn anything new. “It kind of just seemed like they were attacking each other, just coming at each other with numbers and statistics,” she said.

The American Forum: Is Your Vote Up For Grabs?

The American Forum: Is Your Vote Up For Grabs?

Micah Deligdish

What was supposed to be a panel discussion about the participation of young voters in the upcoming midterm elections turned into a bipartisan debate about the current administration last night at American University’s American Forum.

The Forum’s topic was about the recent report published my American University graduate students stating that there has been a decline in young voter’s interest in the upcoming midterm elections. However the panelists only stayed on topic briefly, bringing up their party’s talking points and getting into debates about Obama’s presidency.

The Panelists were Karen Finney, MSNBC political analyst and former communications director for the Democratic National Committee, and Kevin Madden, public relations executive, republican strategist and former press secretary to Governor Mitt Romney's campaign and House minority leader John Boehner. The discussion was moderated by associate professor of communications at American University Jane Hall.

“I’m going to have to be partisan here,” Finney said at least three times during the panel discussion.

The moderator had trouble reeling in the panelists and allowed the discussion to get off topic. At some points her questions provoked the bipartisan debate.

“Do you think the media has been backing Obama?” Hall asked.

Students were frustrated and confused by the outcome of the panel discussion. Many of the students even voiced their opinions on the live Twitter screen being projected about the panelists.

“Instead of focusing on the youth vote, Finney and Madden were more concerned about talking about their own party’s issues with the current administration and past voting,” Keegen Gillette, a sophomore in the school of arts and sciences said. “They should have talked more about why the youth vote is important, not just for their candidates but for society.”

The youth voters who attended the American Forum were able to witness firsthand the shortcomings of bipartisanship in the attempt to discuss the importance of the youth vote in congressional elections.