D.C. Council wants to hold secret meetings
The D.C. Council wants to make it easier to hold secret meetings, drawing outrage from open-government advocates.
Why it matters: Council members say they need to meet confidentially about economic development projects, strategize against a hostile Congress, and have frank conversations with the mayor.
Not invited: The public, for discussions about the future of the District and how taxpayer dollars should be used.
State of play: All 12 council members support the proposal, which is poised to rapidly pass Tuesday after being introduced as emergency legislation — allowing it to bypass the traditional public hearing process.
The big picture: The proposal comes while the White House is pressuring the District, forcing local Democrats to prioritize pragmatism over progressive agenda items. Private meetings would allow space for candid scenario planning and internal disagreements to be aired.
Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said he wants a monthly breakfast between lawmakers and Bowser.
"We no longer have monthly Mayor-Council breakfasts, because neither side wants to publicly air disagreements — for instance, allow the Council to publicly and personally question and argue with the Mayor over something she is or is not doing," Mendelson wrote in an email last week to fellow lawmakers.
The current law limits the council's "ability to meet to discuss political strategy to best inform members of Congress" about budget issues, Mendelson added, "because we don't want these conversations to be public."
Mendelson says past attempts to have confidential meetings, such as during negotiations over improvements to Capital One Arena, faced legal pushback.
Reporters grilled Mendelson on Monday over the proposal to curtail public access and the need to move it without a public hearing. "I would rather clarify the law … then to continue with this uncertainty," Mendelson said Monday.
The changes would not authorize lawmakers to vote in secret meetings.
The other side: The proposal would "eviscerate" the Open Meetings Act of 2010, said Robert Becker, an attorney with the D.C. Open Government Coalition, in a letter on Monday urging D.C. Council members to vote against the bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
Ron Insana says Trump's spending bill unlikely to generate the economic boom he promised
As he did in his first term as president, President Donald Trump is once again predicting an economic boom the likes of which the U.S. has never before seen. In reviewing the publicly available economic data since Ronald Reagan, the period in which the U.S. grew the fastest with the most job creation did not occur in Trump's first term and is unlikely to do so in this term, the reasons why to be explained shortly. First, a brief review of recent economic history where the biggest economic boom actually took place. Former President Bill Clinton's eight years in office produced nearly 4% annual growth, over 240,000 jobs added per month and an inflation rate that averaged less than 3%, considered very low for that time. The unemployment rate when Clinton first took office was 7.3% and bottomed at 3.8% by April 2000. By contrast, in Trump's first term, the economy added under 200,000 jobs per month, roughly equal to that of former President Barack Obama, while GDP growth averaged 2.3%, again, roughly equal to Obama's last three years in office, while inflation was less than a quarter percentage point lower than in Obama's second term. (Trump's numbers, of course, were skewed by the Covid crisis, which featured the steepest and shortest recession in U.S. history.) All that leads me to the notion that a boom, the likes of which we have not seen, is unlikely even if the "Big Beautiful Bill" passes through Congress and lands on Trump's desk. And here's why. Nothing new to help growth First, the bill largely extends existing tax rates that were put in place in 2017, without further lowering corporate taxes, as once promised, from 21% to 15%. There are no major additional tax cuts included in the bill. The bill simply makes much of the existing code permanent. No change, no gain. It's true that taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security payments may be eliminated, but that could also lead to employers seeking out ways, in the first two cases anyway, to pay lower wages if tips and overtime go untaxed. Beyond that, there's not much new in the bill that would accelerate economic growth, nor would a failure of the bill's passage lead to a 68% tax increase for everyone in America, as the president has warned . Published analyses have suggested that 68% of Americans could see a 7% increase in their taxes, but not a 68% increase in what they pay. Given the prospects for rising inflation amid recently imposed tariffs, and a subsequent slowing in consumer spending, some of which is already taking place, the economy appears to be downshifting rather than speeding up. Job growth , as we saw on Friday, has moderated for several months in a row and while not reflective of a recession, we're also witnessing a jump in jobless claims, announced layoffs and, according to some published reports, consumers maxing out credit cards to buy the basics. Add to that the reductions in support for the poorest Americans, whether its access to Medicaid or food stamps, and the ingredients for a further slowdown are embedded in the bill, especially for those who can least afford to have government assistance reduced in a meaningful way. Big changes needed The Department of Government Efficiency spending cuts are also affecting government stimulus in so far as key funding in technology, medicine and education are being slashed, threatening the very areas that make the U.S. economy competitive and very much growth-oriented. The bill, by most accounts, also adds from $2.4 trillion to $3.3 trillion to the budget deficit over the next decade. With the current national debt standing at a record $36.2 trillion, higher federal borrowing needs could further push up borrowing costs as investors, especially international ones, now nervous about America's fiscal position could demand higher yields to compensate them for the risk, however unlikely, that the U.S. runs into trouble in paying its bills. During the Clinton administration, tax rates were higher, and yet growth was stronger, 22.7 million jobs were added and the budget deficit turned to surplus by the end of his term. None of those metrics are supported by existing or proposed policy initiatives today. The Clinton boom was second only to that of FDR, whose economy grew strongly as Roosevelt took over, quite literally, at the very bottom of the Great Depression. In modern times, Clinton's economy was stronger than that of any president who came before or after him. None of the policies currently being pursued by this administration offer the same prospects for growth though, even like Clinton, this president has a major technological revolution underway. That big, beautiful bill would require some big, bountiful changes if it hopes to stimulate growth in a way in which all Americans, rather than perhaps a handful of billionaires, will share meaningfully in any future prosperity.
Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
Sunny Hostin insists its 'not illegal' to be undocumented during immigration discussion on 'The View'
"The View" co-host Sunny Hostin declared Monday that it wasn't illegal to be undocumented because it's considered a civil offense. "Sixty percent of the American public, two-thirds of independents, 90% of Republicans and just a little under half of Democrats think the crime is in being undocumented," co-host Sara Haines said of Trump administration deportation efforts. "What I'm saying is, a massive amount of this country actually agrees with, not how he's doing it, but what he's doing." The co-hosts criticized President Donald Trump for sending in the National Guard on Monday to help quell rioting in Los Angeles over the weekend. "There's misinformation out there," Hostin said. "Let's axe that right now, because it is not illegal to be undocumented. It is not a crime to be undocumented. People are not illegal." "We need to put that information out there. It is a civil infraction," Hostin continued. Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin pushed back and said it wasn't a broad misunderstanding, referring back to Haines' argument. "I think that 60% of Americans believe it's a civil offense and that if you come here, and you're undocumented, that you should be deported," she said. Haines told her co-hosts that there was more support for deportations than they realized. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has also slammed Trump for sending in the National Guard. "I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command," Newsom wrote on X on Sunday alongside his letter to Trump. "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty – inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed." Several polls have shown broad support for deporting at least some illegal immigrants. A Pew Research Center poll released in late May found that 32% of U.S. adults say all illegal immigrants should be deported from the country, while 16% say none should be deported. About half of U.S. adults, however, said at least some immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported, although they couldn't reach a consensus on what factor should be grounds for deportation. A Fox News poll from October 2024 found that two-thirds of voters favored Trump's mass deportation plan.
Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
House Dems try to blame Trump for Los Angeles violence despite months of anti-ICE rhetoric
Democratic lawmakers are laying blame for the violent scenes in Los Angeles at President Donald Trump's feet, accusing the Republican White House of "baiting" rioters in California this weekend. Activists have taken to the streets of Los Angeles to protest Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations across the city, with many demonstrations growing violent as protesters were seen throwing rocks at law enforcement and cars being set ablaze. Trump allies have fired back, accusing those Democratic lawmakers of hypocrisy – citing weeks of anti-ICE displays and rhetoric coming from liberals. "For weeks now, the Left has been spewing anti-ICE rhetoric, leading to riots in LA. Trump is calling for law and order. The Left is defending chaos because it fits their narrative," Rep. Jeff Crank, R-Colo., told Fox News Digital. "Why won't they denounce these riots? Because it's not politically convenient for them." Crank's own home state of Colorado saw ICE crack down this year on a hotbed of reported gang activity by Tren de Aragua. But in Los Angeles, ICE raids on suspected illegal immigrants spurred residents to take to the streets. Images of masked protesters waving Mexican flags against the backdrop of burning cars and graffitied streets have captured national attention. Trump ordered the National Guard to provide backup to ICE agents despite objections from Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. "The Trump administration is baiting unrest instead of working to bring our nation together. We must not give them what they want and will meet this cruelty with non-violence to ensure the protections and safety of immigrant communities," Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., wrote on X on Monday. That Trump officials were fomenting the violence appeared to quickly become Democrats' main talking point. "Trump wanted this violent confrontation to pit people against one another and distract Americans from the ongoing meltdown in the White House, the increase in prices due to Trump's tariffs and our Nation's declining reputation among our long-standing allies around the world," Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., wrote on X. Newsom himself posted on the site shortly before midnight on the West Coast, "Let's get this straight: 1) Local law enforcement didn't need help. 2) Trump sent troops anyway – to manufacture chaos and violence. 3) Trump succeeded. 4) Now things are destabilized and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump's mess." Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said of Democrats' rhetoric: "Democrats just can't quit illegal aliens – even [if] they are terrorists and traffickers." "Americans are seeing this with their own eyes and they know who needs to be held accountable." The violence comes after weeks of Democrats criticizing ICE operations across the country, accusing the Trump administration of indiscriminately rounding people up without properly vetting their legal status or criminal histories. Three House Democrats and progressive Newark Mayor Ras Baraka clashed with ICE agents at Delaney Hall detention center in New Jersey last month, after leading a protest at the facility. Others, like Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., are appearing at anti-ICE rallies across the country. Jayapal is among the Democratic figures headlining a "Rally for An End to ICE Raids Targeting Immigrant Workers" in Washington, D.C., on Monday. She posted on Sunday, "I urge every person using their right to protest to continue to do so peacefully, even as the Trump Administration escalates violence." Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., who called federal immigration actions "hateful and divisive" at a protest in January, is also expected to attend the D.C. event, according to the Washington Post.
