WORKING GROUP REPORT ME: GOVERNMENT 0; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA mayor.dc.gov/dcfaces BOWSER, MAYOR CONTENTS 3 Letter from the Chairs 4 DCFACES Working Group 5 Namesake Legacy, DC Values and Working Group Charge 10 Assets: Defined and Prioritized 11 Engagement: Voices from District Residents 11 Summary of engagement activities 13 Policy Impacting Naming and Removal of Assets 16 Asset Analysis: Determining Persons of Concern 17 DCFACES Working Group Recommendations FACES Working Report DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADC FACILITIES ANDGroup COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS LETTER FROM THE CHAIRS When history revisits the summer of 2020, not only will it recall the impact of the COVID19 pandemic, but also the death of civil rights icon John Lewis, a historic vote for DC Statehood in the House of Representatives and the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Together and separately, each of these events fueled winds of change and unprecedented levels of activism in the battle for inclusion, equality and justice. The movement following Floyd’s death led cities, states and the federal government to reflect and reconsider commemorations in the modern context. The District of Columbia is unique among other jurisdictions, serving as the seat of the federal government and home to 702,000 proud Washingtonians. In this space, monuments, memorials, statues and parks are named after national figures. In Districtowned facilities – students attend schools, senior citizens receive services, families reside in housing complexes, residents conduct business and visitors enjoy parks and libraries named after some of these same figures. To ensure these individuals reflect contemporary DC values, you formed the working group District of Columbia Facilities and Commemorative Expressions (DCFACES). Since July 15, we have worked with eight working group members and more than twenty staff members to engage residents, examine policy and conduct research in making the recommendations contained herein. Our decision-making prism focused on key disqualifying histories, including participation in slavery, systemic racism, mistreatment of, or actions that suppressed equality for, persons of color, women and LGBTQ communities and violation of the DC Human Right Act. The working group recommendations are centered around three asset areas: (1) living, learning and leisure environments, (2) public spaces and (3) landmarks/commemorative works. In each area we recommend whether an asset should be removed, renamed or contextualized based on our research. In some instances, more research is necessary before a determination can be made. In all instances we believe strongly that all District of Columbia owned public spaces, facilities and commemorative works should only honor those individuals who exemplified those values such as equity, opportunity and diversity that DC residents hold dear. Thank you for your vision in establishing this group and articulating its charge. It was our honor to serve as DCFACES Working Group co-chairs and to submit these recommendations to you for your consideration. Sincerely, Beverly Perry, Chair Richard Reyes-Gavilan, Chair DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 3 DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DCFACES WORKING GROUP Mayor Bowser charged the District of Columbia Facilities and Commemorative Expressions (DCFACES) Working Group with evaluating named DC Government-owned facilities and making recommendations as to what, if any, actions need to be taken if the namesake is inconsistent with DC values and in some way encouraged the oppression of African Americans and other communities of color or contributed to our long history of systemic racism. The Working Group tasks were divided into three areas. Working Group members were assigned to an area and committees led by staff from District agencies: 1. Engagement Committee engaged District residents and stakeholders to obtain feedback and information. 2. Policy Committee reviewed and assessed processes and policies for renaming, removal and determined decision-making authority. 3. Research Committee gathered information on assets and individuals critical to decision making. CHAIRS Beverly Perry Senior Advisor to the Mayor Working Group Members Committee Staff ENGAGEMENT POLICY RESEARCH Kimberly Bassett Keith Anderson Delano Hunter Ashley Emerson Dr. Lewis Ferebee Malaika Abernathy Scriven Maryann Lombardi Jeffrey Marootian David Jones Associate Director Gianelle Rivera Associate Director David Maloney Associate Director Thierry Tchenko Committee Coordinator Lanesha Kearse Committee Coordinator Lauren Carpenter Committee Coordinator Committee Staff Rich Harrington Committee Coordinator Committee Staff Faith Broderick Hazle Crawford Tiwana Hicks Quinting Lacewell Abideen Onigbanjo Sarah Parker Project Director: Steven Walker 4 Richard Reyes-Gavilan Executive Director - DCPL Committee Staff Shanita Burney Ronan Gulstone Garrett Lee Chris Shaheen Angela Scott Matthew Holzgrafe Declan Kingland      Derek Gray      Nick Kushner David Jackson Todd Jones Operations Manager: Andre Eken DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NAMESAKE LEGACY, DC VALUES AND WORKING GROUP CHARGE Mayor Muriel Bowser announced the formation of the District of Columbia Facilities and Commemorative Expressions Working Group or the DC FACES Working Group to review the legacy of namesakes, including buildings, parks, public spaces and monuments, in order to ensure the individuals’ personal and public policy views did not contribute to the nation’s history of slavery, systemic racism and other biases, and, instead, are consistent with our DC values — empowering and uplifting African Americans and other communities of color. No matter your race, your faith, your sexual orientation, your gender identity, your background — you should be able to live, work and play in Washington, DC without fear of violence or discrimination. ~ Mayor Bowser In completing the most recent District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan, the Office of Planning conducted District-wide engagement with residents and stakeholders resulting in eight (8) DC values: ACCESSIBILITY DIVERSITY OPPORTUNITY PROSPERITY EQUITY LIVABILITY RESILIENCE SAFETY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 5 DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IMPERATIVES Commemoration on a District of Columbia asset is a high honor reserved for esteemed persons with a legacy that merits recognition. The DCFACES Working Group assessed the legacy of District namesakes, with consideration to the following factors: 1. Participation in slavery – did research and evidence find a history of enslaving other humans, or otherwise supporting the institution of slavery? 2. Involvement in systemic racism – did research and evidence find the namesake serving as an author of policy, legislation or actions that suppressed persons of color and women? 3. Support for oppression – did research and evidence find the namesake endorsed and participated in the oppression of persons color and/or women? 4. Involvement in supremacist agenda – did research and evidence suggest that the namesake was a member of any supremacist organization? 5. Violation of District human rights laws – did research and evidence find the namesake committed a violation of the DC Human Right Act, in whole or part, including discrimination against protected traits such as age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and natural origin? These imperatives guided the Working Group’s decision-making process and are further outlined in Table 1. The Working Group reviewed each namesake and made one of the following decision points, based on whether evidence suggested the person violated one or more of the imperatives listed below and outlined in Table 2. 6 1 Recommend renaming the asset 2 Recommend removal of the asset 3 Recommend contextualization of the asset 4 Clear namesake from further review 5 Recommend additional research prior to final decision point DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 1 – DCFACES Working Group Decision Rubric IMPERATIVES PRIORITIES DECISION POINTS Conditions / issues that disqualify an honor Order recommended rename/removal should proceed Category of Working Group recommendations 1. Enslaver of people ASSET GROUP 1 – Learning, living and leisure 2. Author of policy / legislation environments that suppressed persons of 1. Public schools color and women 2. Residential buildings and campuses 3. Proponent of policy / 3. Community and recreational legislation that suppressed centers persons of color and/or women. 4. Member of a supremacist organization active in the suppression of people of color. 5. Committed violation of the DC Human Right Act ASSET GROUP 2 – Public spaces 4. Parks, fields and playgrounds 5. Government buildings 6. Streets, roads and bridges 1. Recommend renaming the asset 2. Recommend removal of the asset 3. Recommend contextualization of the asset 4. Clear the namesake from further review 5. Recommend additional research or decision point ASSET GROUP 3 – Landmarks, and commemorative works 7. Statues and memorials DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 7 DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 2: DC FACES Working Group Scope of Work 8 SUMMARY INFORMATION RESEARCH SCOPE For each person subject to review, the Working Group will receive the following information The Research Committee will gather information on assets and individuals critical to decision making. SUMMARY DATA ASSET ANALYSIS 1. List of names of all facilities in each focus area (i.e. I Street, Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue)Total number of unique facilities in each focus area 2. Total number that includes people’s names 3. Total number that includes black people’s names 4. Total number that includes white people’s names 5. Total number that includes other people’s names 6. Total number that includes women’s names 7. Total number that includes names of other persons of color 8. Total number that includes names of native Washingtonians 9. Summary /breakdown of namesake’s profession 10. Named after US Presidents 11. Named after DC Mayors and Councilmembers 1. Is the asset District or federally owned? 2. When was the DC Government-owned property named after the person? 3. What group(s) selected or lobbied to name the DC Government owned property after that person? 4. When was the DC Government-owned property named? 5. Does a marker exist for the named asset? NAMESAKE LEGACY 1. Did the person contribute positively to African Americans and other people of color? 2. Did the individual have personal growth in her/his legacy with enslaved persons or other forms of discrimination? 3. Was the person a DC resident? 4. Was the person integral or important to DC history? 5. Is the asset named for a neighborhood? 6. Is the person living or deceased? 7. Can we find a reason the person was honored with the naming? DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENGAGEMENT SCOPE POLICY SCOPE The Engagement Committee will gather information from District residents and key stakeholders. The Policy Committee will assess processes and policies for renaming, removal and determine what bodies share decision making. ENGAGEMENT SCOPE POLICY DRIVERS 1. What are District residents views of the namesake? 2. What are District residents views of the asset? 3. How were stakeholders engaged in the naming process? 4. What information can District agencies provide about the asset? 5. Was there outcry for or against any namesake? FOLLOW UP DRIVERS 1. Who owns implementation? 2. What is the feedback loop to engage public? 3. Process to inform and engage residents for implementation. 1. What policy or laws guide commemoration of a namesake? 2. What individual / entity has decision making authority? 3. What is the process by which the asset is named? 4. What are the budget implications for name/rename? FOLLOW UP DRIVERS 1. Is asset in line for CIP/modernization 2. Process to engage Federal assets DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 9 DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASSETS: DEFINED AND PRIORITIZED The Working Group used the Commemorative Works on Public Space Amendment Act of 2000 in guiding the categorization of assets. The Act defines a public space as “any public street, alley, circle, bridge, building, park, other public place or property owned by or under the administrative control or jurisdiction of the District of Columbia and a commemorative work as “any statue, monument, sculpture, streetscape or landscape feature, including a garden or memorial grove.” Assets reviewed by the Working Group included both public spaces – largely owned or managed by the District of Columbia - and commemorative works - mostly on Federal Government property or federally owned. In making decisions the Working Group put priority on assets based on the following groups: ASSET GROUP 1 ASSET GROUP 2 ASSET GROUP 3 Learning, living and leisure environments Public spaces Landmarks, and commemorative works The Working Group put highest priority on assets where District residents learn, live and recreate. Namesakes of the location should inspire residents from all eight wards and reflect the District’s diversity and inclusion of culture and other identities. This asset group includes other District-owned facilities and locations, including parks, government buildings and roads. With few exceptions, these assets include commemorative works located on Federal government land and/or owned and managed by the Federal government. These assets include: • All public schools • Residential buildings, campuses and neighborhoods These assets include: • Parks, fields and playgrounds • Government buildings • Streets, roads and bridges These assets include: • Statues • Landmarks and memorials • Community centers, libraries, senior centers and recreation centers The following questions drove assessing each namesake’s legacy: 1. Did the person contribute positively to African Americans and other people of color? 2. Did the individual participate in slavery or support other acts of discrimination? 3. Was the person a DC resident? 4. Was the person integral or important to DC history? 5. Can we find a reason the person was honored with the naming? 10 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASSETS: DEFINED AND PRIORITIZED PURPOSE OF ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE Amidst a powerful national conversation on systemic racism, the DCFACES work presented a timely opportunity to engage residents and gather feedback on the naming of public spaces in the District of Columbia. Lead by the DCFACES Working Group Engagement Committee, the opinions of District residents were obtained via survey, translated into six languages, and a virtual town hall meeting. Other stakeholder groups were directly engaged during one-on-one calls to solicit feedback on assets and potentially, new persons to honor. OVERVIEW OF KEY ENGAGEMENT DATES Survey Release Release of Translated Surveys Radio Ad Pushed Live July 23, 2020 August 11, 2020 August 14, 2020 Virtual Townhall August 19, 2020 SUMMARY OF ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 275 20+ 2,300+ 80% Residents attended the Virtual Town Hall meeting District residents completed the web survey, including more than 150 responses from each Ward Years the majority of respondents resided in the District of respondents expressed strong support to remove or rename assets where the namesake’s legacy was inconsistent with or did not align with the District’s core values of equity, opportunity, and prosperity. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 11 DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY When asked how the District should make changes to public spaces or commemorative works, 26% 22% of respondents indicated their interest in renaming public assets of participants indicating that they would prefer moving the public asset to a museum, park, or different public space. Survey respondents expressed the strongest support for renaming public assets when asked how to confront public spaces and commemorative works named after problematic figures. “Moving public assets not in alignment with DC Values to a museum, park, or another public space” received the 2nd most support from residents. Survey respondents were encouraged to provide information on DC or Federal Government public spaces, or commemorative works that do not align with District values. Woodrow Wilson High School, Francis Griffith Newlands Memorial Fountain, the J. Edgar Hoover building, the Andrew Jackson Statue, and the Emancipation Memorial were the most cited public assets not in alignment with District values. 12 In total, survey respondents provided the Working Group with over 65 41% DISTRICT OWNED named public spaces or commemorative works 59% FEDERALLY OWNED DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY POLICY IMPACTING NAMING AND REMOVAL OF ASSETS The Working Group Policy Committee, alongside the Research and Engagement committees, worked with District agencies to gather and assess the laws and policies by which public spaces and commemorative works are named in Washington, DC. That information, along with the Committee’s own research and conversations with over a dozen agency directors and staff, have helped us to understand the key policies and laws that govern the processes by which District-owned assets are named and the gaps and inconsistencies that exist therein. As a result of these conversations, the DCFACES Policy Committee is proposing key recommendations to aid the District as it considers how to rename, remove, or contextualize the namesakes of public spaces or commemorative works moving forward. The Policy Committee’s research and engagement identified inconsistencies in the manner by which public assets are named. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 13 DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A summary of policy and process to name assets in included as Table 3. Table 3. Naming Policies and Authority by Asset Type ASSET TYPE  NAMING POLICY  NAMING AUTHORITY  DC-Owned Buildings8  COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ON PUBLIC SPACE AMENDMENT ACT OF 2000 (D.C. Law 13-275; D.C. Official  Code §9-204.019.204.24. Public Space Names and Commemorative Works.)  Council may approve legislation introduced by the Mayor or a councilmember, after a public hearing; and the Mayor approves via the signing of the passed legislation  DPR Rec Centers, Parks & Fields  D.C. Official Code §9-204 .01 et seq and D.C. Official Code §10-304. (Park adoptions and sponsorships.)  Council may approve legislation introduced by the Mayor or a councilmember; Mayor approves via the signing of the passed legislation. For sponsored parks & fields the Mayor approves the naming if it is detailed in an agreement between the Mayor and the entity adopting or sponsoring the field.  DCPS Schools  D.C. Official Code §9-204.01 et seq and DCPS School Naming Policy (5-E DCMR 3510)  Per DCPS’s Policy, DCPS makes a naming recommendation to the Mayor for Council approval, after a community  engagement process. However, per §9-204.01, Council can introduce legislation as well.  DC Public Library Independent Agency  DCPL Library Naming Policy 19 DCMR§ 808 and DCPL Interior Spaces and Programs Policy, notwithstanding DC Official Code §9204.01 et seq  Names can be changed upon the written recommendation of the Director of the Public Library and the action of the Board of Library Trustees. Board approved interior space names can be changed with a Board vote after undergoing due diligence process. Director can approve commemorative naming proposals. Council and Mayor can also introduce legislation.   Streets & Alleys  §9-204.01 et seq and DDOT Internal Policy.   Council may approve legislation introduced by the Mayor or a councilmember; and the Mayor approve via the signing of the passed legislation  Other Public Spaces  DCMR Title 24: Public Space and Safety allows for three types of commemoration in public space: 1) Statues in certain public space; 2) Tree Markers; and 3)  Personalized Markers (installed by the Make a Difference Foundation).  Public Space Committee within DDOT reviews all applications for nonstandard elements in public space.  The Make a Difference markers are reviewed by a Committee whose members are defined in legislation.  DC Statues & Commemorative Works  D.C. Official Code §9-204.01 et seq  Council may approve legislation introduced by the Mayor or a councilmember; and the Mayor approves via the signing of the passed legislation.  No known laws or policies in place.  Neighborhood names often originated from property owners or developers during the platting of subdivisions administered by the Office of the Surveyors, but there is no formal process for assigning neighborhood names.  Neighborhoods  Federal Monuments and Commemorative Works    14 D.C. Official Code   40 USC Ch. 89: NATIONAL CAPITAL MEMORIALS AND COMMEMORATIVE WORKS    House Rule X / Senate Rule XXV(k)  National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission must provide feedback to US House Natural Resources Committee and US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources  The House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Accountability Committee have jurisdiction over “municipal affairs of the District of Columbia, except appropriations therefor”  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS  BUDGET / OTHER  Names for new facilities can be discussed as part of legislation funding the building.  Council/the Mayor can move to rename facilities at the behest of the community, ANC’s, and civic leaders. Each name request requires a formal hearing and fiscal impact statement.  Costs vary across building type, project, etc.   Initiator of legislation must share a copy, for review and public comment, with each ANC in which the public space is located, 30 days prior to the public hearing.  Costs vary, but typically $5k-15k to rename recreation centers; design elements minimal  Engagement is based on need: 1) Recommendation Review: Solicit name options from community; and, 2) Community Engagement: Surveys, Direct Communication and Civic Meetings.  Costs vary by school type/size; generally $50-250k at elementary level and $500k-1M at secondary level  Pending the Director’s library naming recommendation, the Board of Library Trustees refers the request to the relevant committee for consideration in public meetings and the full Board. Notice of proposed action shall be published in the D.C. Register for no less than 30 days. Additional notice provided to libraries affected, media, and press.  Minimal costs implications beyond commemorative plaques or lettering; often absorbed as soft costs in capital projects.  Official designations require the initiator of the legislation to notify residents and ANC of the name change proposal. Initiator must collect resident signatures and submit a surveyor’s plat of the asset. ANC must be notified of symbolic designation prior to hearing.  Costs vary and range from approximately $3,800 - $11,400 per asset.   Non-standard Statues, Tree markers and Make a Difference personalized markers are reviewed by the Public Space Committee through a process that includes sending public space applications to affected ANC’s for review and comment. Committee meetings are open to the public and allow for public participation.  No cost to the District.  Cost and budget implications vary depending on the type of application, but all items are non-standard and the applicant is responsible for their installation and maintenance.  Three of the 12-member Commemorative Works Committee are public members appointed by the Mayor; 9 are ex-officio members representing District agencies. The Committee holds public, open meetings. Applications are forwarded to effected ANC’s for comment and the public participates in Council’s hearing process.  Costs vary. Five statues and commemorative works have been approved since 2003, with costs ranging from $250,000 to $1.5 million.  Some neighborhoods are proactive in changing names and others change as new residents and development define where they live.  N/A  The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission must hold public hearings. The House and Senate Committees also hold hearings on the bills  N/A - Federal Funds  Bills follow the normal engagement process for federal legislation. No specific carve-out for input from local DC government or constituents.  Bills approved through this channel can direct DC to use local funds to carry out the bill’s provisions.  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 15 DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASSET ANALYSIS: DETERMINING PERSONS OF CONCERN The Research Committee conducted a review of over 1,300 District of Columbia assets, including public spaces and commemorative works to first identify whether the asset was named for an individual and then assessing the namesake’s legacy. Research for the study began with complete lists of District government properties provided by the DC Office of the Chief Technology Officer. The lists were supplemented with additional information obtained from District agencies and public websites. Properties not named for persons were eliminated from further consideration. The research team investigated each person for whom a District property was named. Given the closure of research facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic all research was conducted online and from published reference materials. Analysis focused on identifying persons of concern whose life stories may have conflicted with the values of the residents of the District of Columbia today, as expressed in the DC Comprehensive Plan. Names were divided into three “stoplight” categories, indicating whether the person’s life story clearly conflicted (red), may have conflicted or warrants further investigation (yellow), or did not conflict (green) with these DC values. A “person of concern” is defined as a namesake whose legacy warranted Working Group review and decision. Based on this information, the Working Group reviewed the namesake legacy of 153 assets, including schools, residential housing, streets, neighborhoods, parks, recreation centers, libraries and monuments. The below table summarizes reviewed assets and those listed as “red” persons of concern. ASSET NAMED PROPERTIES PERSONS OF CONCERN DC Public Schools 149 141 19 DC Public Charter Schools 113 36 3 DC Housing Authority 56 30 6 DC Public Libraries 26 10 2 Other Buildings 393 29 10 Recreation Centers 118 107 11 Parks and Playgrounds 126 75 12 1,597 742 78 Bridges and Highways 241 17 2 Neighborhoods 141 54 10 Monuments (Federal/DC) 90 90 3,050 1,330 Streets TOTAL ASSETS 16 ALL PROPERTIES 3 Fed / 0 DC 153 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 1k 1k WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS The Working Group recommends thot the following District ossets be renomed. Additionolly, the Working Group has mode severol recommendations to stondordize and improve the processes by which ossets ore nomed going torword. DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASSET GROUP 1: Learning, living and leisure environments PUBLIC SCHOOLS Recommendation: Using the existing processes, rename the following public schools 1. Alexander Graham Bell – Bell Multicultural High School 12. William Winston Seaton – Seaton Elementary School 2. Robert Brent – Brent Elementary School 13. Benjamin Stoddert – Stoddert Elementary School 3. Jehiel Brooks – Brookland Middle School 14. Strong John Thomson – Thomson Elementary School 4. James Monroe – Bruce-Monroe Elementary School @ Park View 15. John Tyler – Tyler Elementary School 5. James Birney – Excel Academy/Lee Montessori PCS – East End (at Birney School) 16. John Peter Van Ness – Van Ness Elementary School 6. Charles William Eliot – Eliot-Hine Middle School 17. Joseph Rodman West – West Education Campus 7. Anthony T. Hyde, Henry Addison – Hyde-Addison Elementary School 18. Woodrow Wilson – Woodrow Wilson High School 8. Thomas Jefferson – Jefferson Middle School 9. Francis Scott Key – Key Elementary School 10. Zachary Taylor – Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School 11. John Walker Maury – Maury Elementary School 18 19. C. Melvin Sharpe – Bridges PCS Sharpe Campus 20. William Benning – DC Prep PCS, Benning Elementary 21. Matthew Gault Emery – Emery School (CHOICE Academy) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASSET GROUP 1: Learning, living and leisure environments RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND CAMPUSES Recommendation: Using existing District government and Housing Authority processes, rename the following building and campuses 1. Arthur Capper – Arthur Capper Senior Housing 2. James D. Barry – Barry Farm Dwellings 3. William Benning – Benning Terrace 4. Daniel Carroll of Duddington – Carroll Apartments 5. James Greenleaf – Greenleaf Gardens (family and senior) 6. Benjamin Stoddert – Stoddert Terrace 7. Thomas Jefferson – Potomac Job Corps Center, Thomas Jefferson Hall 8. John Tyler – Potomac Job Corps Center, Tyler Hall 9. Woodrow Wilson – Potomac Job Corps Center, Woodrow Wilson Hall DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 19 DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASSET GROUP 2: Public Spaces PARKS, FIELDS AND PLAYGROUNDS Recommendation: Using existing District government processes, rename the following assets 1. James D. Barry – Barry Farm Playground 6. Henry Foxall – Foxhall Playground 2. William Benning, Benjamin Stoddert – Benning Stoddert Playground, Garden 7. Thomas Jefferson – Jefferson Field 8. Guy Mason – Guy Mason Playground 3. Robert Brent – Brentwood Playground, Brentwood Hamilton Field 9. William Henry Harrison – Harrison Playground 4. James Monroe – Bruce-Monroe Community Garden 11. Benjamin Stoddert – Stoddert Playground 5. Matthew Gault Emery – Emery Heights Playground, Garden 20 10. James Greenleaf – King-Greenleaf Playground 12. Abel P. Upshur – Upshur Playground DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASSET GROUP 2: Public Spaces GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS Recommendation: Using existing District government processes, rename the following assets 1. Francis Preston Blair, Jr – Blair Shelter (occupies Blair School) 5. Matthew Gault Emery – Emery Shelter Clinic 2. Robert Brent – Brentwood Square Center 6. Andrew Jackson – Jackson Arts Center (occupies Jackson School) 3. Jehiel Brooks – Bellair (Brooks Mansion) 7. Francis Scott Key – Key Bridge Boathouse 4. Benjamin Franklin – Planet Word (occupies Franklin School) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 21 DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASSET GROUP 3: Landmarks, and commemorative works STATUES AND MEMORIALS Recommendation: Using the Mayor’s position on the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, recommend the Federal government remove, relocate, or contextualize the following assets: 1. Christopher Columbus – Columbus Fountain (federal) 5. George Mason – George Mason Memorial (federal) 2. Benjamin Franklin – Benjamin Franklin Statue (federal) 6. Francis Griffith Newlands – Newlands Memorial Fountain (federal) 3. Andrew Jackson – Andrew Jackson Statue (federal) 7. Albert Pike – Albert Pike Statue (federal) 4. Thomas Jefferson – Jefferson Memorial (federal) 22 8. George Washington – Washington Monument, George Washington Statue (federal) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS DC FACES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Additional overarching recommendations FOCUS AREA RECOMMENDATION TACTIC Recommendations Identify diverse candidates The Working Group’s research revealed that more than to fortify DC to honor. 70% of assets named in the District of Columbia are named Values for white men, many of whom were not District residents. Recommendations Strengthen community to increase public engagement engagement Recommendations Preserve District history and promote DC to promote DC Statehood Statehood and preserve DC history Recommendations to streamline process Priority should be placed on ensuring future assets, especially and including those recommended for renaming by this Working Group, include more women, people of color and LGBTQ Washingtonians. The Working Group recommends a robust community engagement process is followed for future commemorations to ensure culturally and neighborhood appropriate selections. The District should develop a consistent engagement process to ensure robust feedback and participation from as many residents as possible. The Working Group recommends preserving District history and promoting DC statehood in naming efforts. The following actions will help in this regard. 1. Appoint a District of Columbia State Historian to shepherd Working Group recommendations through implementation and link with ongoing preservation and planning processes. 2. Develop an easily accessible inventory of all named public spaces and commemorative works, both to inform commemorative procedures and to inspire the public with life stories. 3. Direct the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) to ensure the development community is aware of the District’s aspirations and goals focused on future commemorative opportunities. 1. Fully utilize the Commemorative Works Committee and other existing processes to create guidelines to standardize the naming process across agencies to ensure future naming of District government-owned properties following the same process, including required survey or community engagement. 2. Align and streamline approval and engagement processes via Mayor’s Order or regulations across agencies/asset types, especially in areas where agencies do not have official guidance (naming of internal rooms, agency awards or recognitions, etc.). DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES AND COMMEMORATIVE EXPRESSIONS 23 2* l'l'l rm)? WASHINGTO 8 GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MURIEL BOWSER, MAYOR