AN EDITORIAL Broadcast BY WMAL/AM/FM/TV, BROADCAST DURING THE WEEK OF MAY 5, 1968 BONDS FOR DEMONSTRATIONS We again urge that Congress pass legislation requiring that bonds be posted to cover possible damage caused by demonstrators within the District of Columbia. Such legislation was opposed this week before a House subcommittee by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Pollak. Pollak argued that such legislation might violate the First Amendment guarantee of peaceable assembly and the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances. Pollak contended that poor people might be deprived of these rights simply because they could not afford to post bond. Constitutionality is, of course, a matter for courts to decide. We note, however, that no large demonstration can be organized without substantial money. The estimated cost of the so-called Poor People's Campaign is $2 million. The amount of bond to be posted should certainly be scaled to the size of a demonstration. Furthermore, Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to ensure the general welfare. Destruction of property-public or private-is certainly not in the general welfare. OPINION OF CORPORATION COUNSEL RE PARTICIPATION IN POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, To: WINIFRED G. THOMPSON, Director, Department of Public Welfare. By memorandum, dated April 30, 1968, you inquired concerning the granting of public assistance, of various types, to the participants in the "Poor People's March". Due to the pressures of time and the desirability of responding to your inquiry as quickly as possible, we have not given the questions posed a detailed legal analysis and are, therefore, providing you at this time primarily with our conclusions in order that you may prepare to meet the demands upon the Department of Public Welfare posed by the forthcoming March. Since most requests for assistance during this period will be made by those applying for regular public assistance, about which you inquired in Question 1-c of your memorandum, we shall deal first with that issue. Question 1-c: Regular Public Assistance Programs. In Question 1-c you inquired whether the Department of Public Welfare may authorize assistance and services for persons who make application for one of 97-945 O 68-7 the regular public assistance programs because they are in need, are not receiring public assistance from any other state, and would appear to continue to be in need for an indefinite period, or for as long as they may continue to reside in the District of Columbia. A primary consideration in evaluating the responsi bility of the Department of Public Welfare to applicants for regular public assistance is the recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of Minnic Harrell, ct al v. Walter E. Washington, et al, in which the District Court enjoined the Department of Public Welfare. among other things, "From refusing to process any application for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Aid to the Blind, Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled, or General Public Assistance made to the District of Columbia Department of Public Welfare or in any way denying public assistance in any of the forementioned categories of aid to any resident of the District of Columbia solely for the reason that such person has not resided in the District of Columbia for a period of one year." It is important to note that although the District Court by its decree eliminated the durational requirement of one year's residence as a prerequisite to the granting of public assistance, it did not eliminate the residence requirement itself. In fact, in referring to the question of whether a state could constitutionally confine the benefits of its public assistance program to its own domiciliaries, the Court said: "We also are not called upon to decide this question, for it is not disputed that the plaintiffs are bona fide domiciliaries of the District who came for reasons disassociated from the desire to obtain relief not elsewhere available." Thus, it is clear that the residence requirement applies to all applications for regular public assistance albeit that the duration of such residence may, based upon the District Court's decision, no longer be a blanket one year. This interpretation of Section 3-203 of the District of Columbia Code in the light of the recent District Court opinion is reinforced by several considerations. First, there is no indication that Congress, in enacting the public assistance provisions of the District of Columbia Code, intended that the District assume the burden of rendering public assistance to anyone who was present in the District regardless of whether or not such person resided therein. Secondly, applying a practical approach to the question, it would make no sense to permit a resident of another state to come to the District, have himself placed on the welfare rolls and subsequently returned to his home state, which would be a consequence of eliminating the residence requirement in its entirety. Lastly, it must be acknowledged that the primary obligation of the Department of Public Welfare is to the bona fide residents of the District of Columbia which is neces sitated by the limited resources available to meet the needs of all persons requesting public assistance. It is thus clear that the Department of Public Welfare, in evaluating applications for regular public assistance, must apply the requirement that the applicant be a resident of the District of Columbia. The term "residence" has been defined by the courts of this jurisdiction to be "the place of abode, a dwelling, a habitation, the act of abiding or dwelling in a place for some continuance of time. To reside in a place is to abide, to sojourn, to dwell there permanently or for a length of time. It is to have a permanent abode for the time being, as contradistinguished from a mere temporary locality of existence." Residence has been considered not only to be the personal presence of one in a place but an attachment to the place by those activities or habits which express the closest conneetion between a person and a place. It is a place where an individual actively dwells and ordinarily has his home; the place where his wife and children reside, a fixed and permanent abode or dwelling place and more than a place of mere sojourning or transient visiting. The establishment of a home of some permanence with all its attendant characteristics such as the presence of family and household effects is evidence of the establishment of residence. In evaluating the location of the residence of an individual, the expression of intent to make a particular abode his home, as well as the duration of time during which he has resided there, are factors to be considered. In applying this guideline of residence to potential applications for public assistance by those participating in the "Poor Peoples March", it may be concluded that one who moves into an apartment of a friend or relative, bringing with him his family and household possessions, and manifests an intention to remain, may, upon meeting other requirements, be considered a resident for welfare purposes. However, if an applicant is encamped in so-called "Tent City", occupying Federal property under a permit with an expiration date, such an applicant would be considered a visitor and as such not a resident and, therefore, not entitled to assistance. Each applicant, of course, will have to be evaluated in terms of the definition of resident in the light of his particular factual circumstances. Question 1-b: Emergency Assistance Programs. In Question 1-b you inquired whether the Department of Public Welfare is authorized to provide assistance to those participants in the "Poor Peoples March" who make application for one of the Department's emergency assistance programs because they are faced with such crises as: lack of food, clothing, shelter, or medical services. It is to be noted at the outset that the Department of Public Welfare Handbook Release No. 149, dated April 25, 1968, Supplement 6, Family Emergency Services Program, Part II, sets forth the eligibility requirements which, among others, includes the requirement that the family must be domiciled in the District of Columbia. The foregoing analysis of the residence requirement may also be applied in the instance of applications for family emergency services since the requirement of domicile is even more stringent than of residence, requiring the showing of an intent to make his residence in a particular place permanent. A second factor which will narrow the demands upon the Department for emergency assistance is that the applicant must show that he has exhausted the other facilities available to meet his emergency needs. Since a number of other agencies and groups in the community are being established to provide food, housing, medical and other vital services, the Department should ask each applicant for emergency assistance whether and to which other groups he has applied for aid. If all other resources have, in fact, been exhausted, and if an individual were nonetheless in genuine need of crisis assistance for food or other vital services, it is my understanding that the Department would, out of humanitarian considerations, render emergency services to the extent of its resources. Question 1-d: Temporary Assistance for Families with Unemployed Parents. In Question 1-d you inquired whether the Department of Public Welfare may authorize services and assistance for persons who apply for Temporary Assistance for Families with Unemployed Parents by virtue of the fact that they are employable, but unemployed, and in need. The existing eligibility requirements of the Department of Public Welfare in Handbook Release No. 66, of December 10, 1965, Supplement 3, Temporary Assistance for Families of Unemployed Parents, Part IV, includes certain requirements which might serve to disqualify applications for such assistance by participants in the "Poor Peoples March". Among such requirements are the following: 1. That the applicant be registered with the U.S.E.S. and have evidence of application at the District of Columbia Work Training and Opportunity Center, established under Title V of the Economic Opportunity Act. 2. That the applicant apply for unemployment compensation benefits. 3. That the applicant be the head of the household in which there is at least one child under 18 years of age, or under 21, if attending a school or university. There are other requirements for such assistance, however, the ones listed are especially applicable to participants in the March. Question 2: Child Welfare Services Program. In Question 2 you inquired whether the Department of Public Welfare should be required through its Child Welfare Services Program to provide care and custody to children in families from other jurisdictions who are participating in the March and who may be referred to the Department for various needs. There is clearly no residence requirement applicable to those otherwise qualified for child welfare services and the full resources of the Department should be made available to meet the needs of any children of families participating in the March. Question 3: Food Stamp Program. In Question 3 you inquired whether the maintenance of a temporary domicile in the District of Columbia meets the Food Stamp Program requirement that applicants be living in the District of Columbia. The term "living" should be equated with the term "residence" for such purpose and the definition of residence given above applied in the case of those otherwise qualified for the Food Stamp Program. We trust that the above analysis will enable the Department of Public Welfare to adequately plan to meet the needs and requests for public assistance by participants in the "Poor Peoples March". Any such applications will have to be evaluated, however, on a case-by-case basis and we will, of course, be available to assist the Department in resolving any additional legal problems posed in regard to such applications as may be forthcoming. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Mr. JAMES T. CLARK, Clerk, House District Committee, Suite 1310, Longworth Building, DEAR MR. CLARK: Enclosed herewith is the material requested by Congressman Whitener concerning the activities of this Department in relation to previous special events and the current Poor Peoples Campaign. Very sincerely, Murray Grant, M.D., D.P.H., [Enclosure] EMERGENCY Programs for SPECIAL EVENTS, PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATIONS, AMESICAN LEGION AND SHRINE CONVENTIONS, OTHER DEMONSTRATIONS AND CIVIL DISTURBANCES In all special events, the D.C. Department of Public Health directs and coor dinates all activities related to medical care and public health services. A Central Medical Command Post with multiple telephone lines and a Civil Defense Emergency Radio Network is located in the Deputy Director's Office. Emergency communications with the Medical Aid Stations is provided by mobile units of the Civil Defense Emergency Radio Network. This Command Post remains in continuous operation from the onset of the activity or situation until termination or control has been achieved. I. PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATIONS, AMERICAN LEGION AND SHRINE CONVENTIONS A. Funding Congress had approved special funds in the budget to offset the cost of such activities to the District of Columbia. The language of the appropriation for these special funds authorized the Departments of Defense and Interior to participate in terms of personnel, equipment, supplies, and use of federal buildings. B. Medical Activities 1. First Aid Medical Clinics were housed in Army tents, Army ambulances, buses, Federal and District government buildings and Red Cross First Aid vehicles, which were set up at the staging area, along the parade route, and along dispersal areas. Medical evacuation was to the nearest hospital. 2. Pre-positioned Ambulances at the Medical Stations were secured from the Armed Forces, District Government, and the Red Cross. 3. Medical Care for Indigents. Commissioners' Orders were issued in the public interest to make nonresident, medically indigent cases eligible for emergency hospital care at District of Columbia expense. 4. Warming Tents for parade personnel at the staging area, depending upon the temperature, were supplied by the Army. C. Sanitation Facilities 1. Toilet Facilities were provided in Federal and District government buildings. National Park Service toilet trailers, rental toilet trailers, and chemical toilets were used. 2. Drinking Water facilities were supplied by temporary bubblers on fire hydrants when required by the season of the year. D. Food Surveillance 1. Food establishment personnel, temporary caterers and catered functions received intensive supervision and monitoring by the D.C. Department of Public Health personnel and additional food sanitarians on a temporary or contractual basis to insure safety and wholesomeness of food. 2. Canteen tents, supplied by the Army, were operated by the Red Cross for Disabled Veterans. E. Other Services 1. Holding Areas were set up for lost or stranded persons. 2. Horse Ambulances, manned by veterinarians and animal trainers, were provided on a rental basis. 3. Emergency Communications were provided by temporary telephones and the Civil Defense Radio Network. F. Additional Support to D.C. Government Department of Defense. National Park Service. General Services Administration. U.S. Public Health Service. Contract and Freedmen's Hospitals. Temporary contractual arrangements. A. Funding II. CIVIL RIGHTS DEMONSTRATION, AUGUST 1963 No additional appropriations were provided by Congress; the D.C. Government had to absorb the increase in costs. B. Medical Activities First Aid Medical Clinics were housed in Army hospital tents, Army ambulance buses and Red Cross vehicles set up on The Mall extending from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial. Pre-positioned ambulances were provided by the Army and the Red Cross. Medical evacuation was to the nearest hospital. C. Sanitation Facilities 1. Toilet Facilities were provided by fixed buildings on The Mall, including National Park Service toilet trailers and rental chemical toilets at this site and outside Union Station. 2. Drinking Water facilities were provided by attaching temporary bubbler units on the fire hydrants. D. Food Surveillance The D.C. Department of Public Health supervised catered food provided the marchers; and General Services, Incorporated set up food stands along The Mall. E. Other Services Emergency communications were provided by the Civil Defense Network. F. Additional Support to D.C. Government Department of Defense. National Park Service. D.C. Chapter American Red Cross. D.C. Medical Society. Contract and Freedmen's Hospitals. A. Funding III. TENT-IN, LAFAYETTE PARK Costs absorbed by D.C. Government. B. Medical Activities One Medical Aid Station was provided and manned by the D.C. Department of Public Health personnel. One pre-positioned ambulance was also provided by the D.C. Department of Public Health. Medical evacuation was to the nearest hospital. C. Sanitation Facilities One rented mobile toilet trailer and the toilet facilities in the park were available. NOTE: This Tent-In was terminated by an outbreak of dysentery. Additional support to the D.C. Government was by contractual arrangements. |