||D.C. Council Homepage||Home Rule Act||Council Rules||Council Review Provisions||Contents of Legalese||D.C. Home Page||


OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL LEGALESE


February 2003 Council of the District of Columbia Vol. 9, No. 1


|| Message from the General Counsel|| Who We Are || Council Period 15 Rule Changes|| Federal Legislation|| Budget Summary|| History of Initiatives ||
|| Drafting Tips ||  Litigation || Council Legislative Review Chart|| Counting Days||  D.C. Official Code Resource Guide || Sunsets|| OGC Attorney Assignments ||


INSIDE THIS ISSUE

MESSAGE FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL

WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO

COUNCIL PERIOD 15 RULE CHANGES

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

BUDGET SUMMARY

HISTORY OF INITIATIVES

DRAFTING TIPS

LITIGATION

COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE REVIEW CHART

COUNTING DAYS

D.C. OFFICIAL CODE RESOURCE GUIDE

SUNSETS

OGC ATTORNEY ASSIGNMENTS

news171.gif









                      Message from the General Counsel

                      Charlotte Brookins-Hudson  Send email to Charlotte Brookins Hudson

            I am honored to have been appointed for the 5th time as General Counsel to the Council of the District of Columbia. In the 28-year history of the elected Council, there have been 6 General Counsels – Ed Webb (1975 to1979), James Christian (1979 to 1981), Larry Mirel (1981 to 1982), Greg Mize (1983 to 1990), Pat Baars (1991 to December 1994), and myself (1995 to the present). I am the first to serve more than 4 appointments as General Counsel. Last year, I would not have thought that I would have reached this milestone, having told many that I would be taking the early-out retirement in December 2002. For professional and personal reasons, I have decided to remain here at the Council. 

            As we commence a new Council Period, the 15th in the history of Home Rule, I look forward to building upon the work started by the first elected Council in 1975, by adhering to the highest standards of excellence in legal writing, research, analysis, and oral advocacy on behalf of the legislative branch of the District government, the Council of the District of Columbia. I thank the Chairman of the Council and the Members of the Council for giving me this unique opportunity to serve. I also want to thank the staff of the Office of the General Counsel for helping me do the legal work of the Council.

            This issue of Legalese contains several updates to earlier issues, as well as answers to some recurring questions about Council drafting and procedural rules. There is a discussion of the work that we do in the Office of the General Counsel and an overview of the persons who make up the Office of the General Counsel; an explanation on how to count days for certain legislative measures; a summary of the changes in the Council Rules of Procedures for Council Period XV; drafting tips; a detailed discussion about Initiatives; and a discussion on recent federal legislation and litigation that impacts the Council, in particular, and the entire District government, in general. As usual, I hope you find these articles useful.

Who We Are and What We Do

 

Everything You Always Wanted To Know

About the General Counsel’s Office

But Were Afraid To Ask

            The primary mission of the Office of the General Counsel is to assist the Members of the Council in producing sound laws and policies for the District of Columbia. In fulfilling its primary mission, the OGC is charged with myriad tasks, small and large, each of which it seeks to perform with the highest degree of professionalism, attention to detail, and legal scholarship.

      Our 9-person office consists of the General Counsel, a Legislative Counsel, a Codification Counsel, four Assistant General Counsels, a Codification/Legislative Assistant, and a Secretary/Administrative Assistant.

            As the legal adviser to the Council, we not only work to ensure the legal sufficiency of the legislation, we also respond to legal inquiries from Members, represent the Council and its members in litigation, codify the District’s laws, advise on parliamentary procedure, assist the Secretary in responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, and process the legislation. In addition, our office is constantly called upon to answer questions concerning Council procedures, the status of legislation, and interpretation of District law posed by representatives of the executive and judicial branches.

            The OGC can assist Members and their staffs at every point of the legislative process – drafting, introduction, mark-up, engrossment, and enrollment. We strive to involve ourselves in all aspects of the Council’s work, and encourage Council staff to utilize our resources to their fullest extent.

            We review every piece of legislation that is considered by the Council, reading it over and over to ensure that it withstands legal scrutiny and is carefully drafted in conformity with the Council’s drafting style. Our office is charged with engrossing bills after first reading and enrolling all legislation adopted by the Council. Between mark-up and enrollment, we make technical amendments to the legislation, which are recorded with the Secretary.

             Our office responds to numerous inquiries from Members covering a wide variety of legal issues. Upon request, we will issue formal, written opinions on pending legislation, procedural rules, and other matters of concern to the Members.

             Our attorneys represent the Council and individual Members in litigation before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the Office of Employee Appeals, and assist the Office of the Corporation Counsel in its representation of the District in litigation involving the validity of Council enactments.

             While working with a Member and his or her staff, our office will maintain what amounts to a confidential “attorney-client” privilege. That means, for instance, that responses to inquiries will remain confidential unless the Member who sought our advice consents to the release of the information. In the end, however, our client is the Council as a whole, and we remain dedicated to the ideal of producing the best possible legislation.

            Our current staff of seven attorneys is rich in experience. The average years of legal experience is more than 16. Our attorneys came to us after having practiced in the government, the private sector, and the public interest community. As a result of this vast array of collective experience, the OGC staff is uniquely qualified to address the many and varied issues that routinely arise at the Council. We strongly encourage Council staff to avail themselves of the expertise of the OGC attorneys.

             

General Counsel

            The General Counsel to the Council of the District of Columbia is appointed by the Council at the start of each Council Period and serves as its chief legal adviser. The current General Counsel, Charlotte Brookins-Hudson, recently was appointed for the fifth time, making her the first General Counsel to serve more than four appointments. She is responsible for all of the functions that the OGC performs.

             The General Counsel utilizes her vast knowledge of District laws to author and supervise the writing of many confidential, formal written legal opinions on a wide variety of complex and sensitive legal, personnel, and administrative matters in response to requests by Members and Officers of the Council. She daily responds to informal inquiries and requests for advice from Members and Officers of the Council, members of the private bar, executive and judicial branch employees, and members of the public concerning the Council’s authority and procedures. She also works diligently in educating the public as well as other governmental bodies about District laws, the District's legislative process, and the parameters of the Council's powers under the District's Home Rule Act through oral and written opinions, training sessions, lectures, and other forms of communication.

             In addition, she responds to numerous inquiries concerning statutory construction and the application of the Council’s legislative drafting conventions, devises successful solutions and strategies for all litigation efforts on behalf of the Council, and writes articles of interest to the Council and to others outside the Council in Legalese, a newsletter she launched in 1995, the year she became the General Counsel.

             This is Charlotte’s 13th year with the OGC, her ninth as General Counsel. She was first appointed General Counsel in 1995, after having served for four years as the OGC’s Legislative Counsel. A native Chicagoan, Charlotte is a graduate of the Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois and the Georgetown University Law Center. For more than 25 years she has been a member of the District of Columbia Bar. Currently, she is an elected member of the D.C. Affairs Section Steering Committee of the D.C. Bar and a member of the Legislative Committee of the D.C. Affairs Section of the D.C. Bar. She has been a frequent visiting lecturer at the UDC David A. Clarke School of Law, lecturing on legislative drafting and procedures.

             Her background includes trial and appellate litigation and governmental affairs practice. For 5 years, Charlotte was an attorney in the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, where she issued opinions interpreting various statutory and regulatory provisions and litigated cases in federal district and appellate courts and administrative forums throughout the United States. For two years, she served as an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Civil Division of the Office of the Corporation Counsel, where she litigated cases on behalf of the District in the local and federal district courts. Charlotte also served for 7 years as an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Appellate Division of the Office of the Corporation Counsel, where she defended decisions of various District of Columbia boards and agencies, and litigated civil and criminal appeals in the D.C. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Legislative Counsel

            The Legislative Counsel, Brian K. Flowers, is charged with the demanding task of reviewing each bill and resolution considered by the Council at a legislative meeting. He approves the form and style of all legislative measures during the engrossment and enrollment stages and certifies the validity and accuracy of legislation passed by the Council prior to its public release or transmittal to the Mayor. Additionally, the Legislative Counsel is responsible for ensuring that necessary technical amendments are made to pending legislative matters and filed with the Secretary.

            The Legislative Counsel is the office’s second-in-command and fills in on the dais at legislative meetings in the absence of the General Counsel. His numerous responsibilities include maintaining a legislative drafting manual and consulting with the General Counsel on litigation matters affecting the Council. The duties of the Legislative Counsel are very demanding and require the exercise of good judgment and careful attention to a vast number of details. Among other qualifications, the individual must have strong legal research and analytical skills; a comprehensive knowledge of the construction and content of District laws and regulations; and knowledge of legislative drafting procedures, and the role of the Council and its rules and procedures.

            Brian Flowers joined the Office of the General Counsel as Deputy General Counsel/Legislative Counsel in1997. His academic achievements include receiving a Juris Doctor degree from the Georgetown University Law Center, a Bachelor of Arts degree from Howard University, and graduating from the Chofu High School in Tokyo, Japan. During law school, he was a legislative intern in the office of Congressmen Sam Gibbons (D-Fla.) and William L. Clay (D-Mo.), and clerked for the Interstate Commerce Commission and the National Association of Home Builders here in Washington.

            Upon graduation from law school, Brian spent 4 years in private practice, where he represented individuals and corporate clients before District courts. He served 4 years as Executive Director/Attorney for Advisory Neighborhood Commission 5C and 2 years as a legislative and policy analyst for the D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development. Immediately prior to coming to OGC, Brian spent 10 years as an attorney in the Office of Documents and Administrative Issuances, where he reviewed countless numbers of rulemakings, executive orders, and administrative issuances for publication in the D.C. Register. From November 30, 1994, until May 2, 1995, he served as the Acting Administrator of that office.

            Currently, Brian is a member of the District of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review and a Commissioner at the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

             Brian also has held several elected positions, as an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner in SMD 5A09 for 6 years, as Chairperson of ANC 5A, and as the Adult Chairperson of the Neighborhood Planning Council No. 10.

Codification Counsel

            The Codification Counsel, Benjamin F. Bryant, is responsible for ensuring that the District laws are properly codified. He supervises the publication and distribution of the District of Columbia Official Code.

            In 2001, Ben oversaw the publication of the 2001 edition of the District of Columbia Official Code, a mammoth undertaking. The 2001 Edition of the District of Columbia Official Code marks the eighth time that a compilation of the laws of the District of Columbia has been published by, or under the authority of, the government of the District of Columbia or that of the United States. The time between the publication of the Seventh Edition (1981) and the Eighth Edition (2001) represents the longest period, by almost a decade, that the District of Columbia Code has gone unrevised in its 72-year history.

            In addition to ensuring that legislation passed by the Council is properly codified, Ben has computerized the General Counsel’s Opinions from 1970 to the present, and installed the D.C. Official Code Update Chart on the Council’s “V”drive. Committee and legislative staff now have access to up-to-date information on all changes to the D.C. Official Code since the last supplemental publication. Committee and legislative staff are encouraged to review the D.C. Official Code Update Chart whenever making changes to current legislation.

             Ben began working for the Office of the General Counsel in 1991. He also has worked with the Council on the staff of former Chairman John A. Wilson, and with the Office of the City Administrator under Mayors Sharon Pratt Kelly and Marion Barry. Currently, Ben also serves as a mediator in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

            Ben received a B.A. in International Relations from Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. He earned his Juris Doctor degree from George Washington University.

            

Assistant General Counsel

            The General Counsel assigns each of the office’s four Assistant General Counsels to assist designated Members and Council committees. The assistants are charged with advising their designated Members and committees on all aspects of the legislative process. They are responsible for reviewing all legislation generated by their Member or passing through their committee, researching legal issues, developing formal, written opinions on legal issues in consultation with the General Counsel, assisting in the drafting of legislation, responding to inquiries regarding Council rules and procedures, and providing advice on matters of policy that can be resolved legislatively.

            Johnnie Barton joined the Office of the General Counsel in 1996. Prior to joining OGC, Johnnie worked for two years as Counsel to the Committee on Consumer and Regulatory Affairs under Councilmember John Ray, where he was involved in drafting legislation and committee reports, conducting legal research, and making recommendations to the committee. His legal experience includes being an associate at the personal injury law firm of Williams & Harper for over a year, a staff attorney for the Neighborhood Legal Services Program, and a staff attorney for the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. During law school, he was employed as a legislative intern in the Office of Councilmember John Ray for approximately 9 months.

            Johnnie received a Bachelor of Science degree from Southwestern College in Texas and a Juris Doctor degree from the District of Columbia School of Law. He also has completed requirements towards a Master of Divinity degree from Howard University. He is a member of the bars of the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania.

            Donald S. Kaufman joined the Office of the General Counsel as an Assistant General Counsel on June 7, 1999. A long-time resident of Foggy Bottom, he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce of the University of Pennsylvania and a Juris Doctor degree from George Washington University Law School, where he graduated with honors. He is a member of the bars of the District of Columbia, Maryland, Florida, and New York.

             Don has worked in law firms, in public accounting, as corporate counsel, and for research organizations. He has had substantial experience in business and commercial matters, including taxation, securities, real estate, and litigation. Such experience covers a broad spectrum of corporate and commercial transactions, ranging from corporate asset and stock acquisitions and sales and tax-sheltered securities offerings to day-to-day contract matters, leasing, trademarks, administrative and regulatory matters, and corporate functions. The projects he has worked on have included real estate, research and development, natural resources, and operating business ventures. He has also been involved in litigation in support of his business clients and has experience in every stage of litigation, including several trials.

             John Hoellen joined the Office of the General Counsel as an Assistant General Counsel on September 11, 2000. He resides on Capitol Hill, in Ward 6. He came to our office with extensive analytical, writing, and advocacy skills honed through a decade of experience as a litigator. Equally important, he brought with him a heightened commitment to public service and unique perspectives learned from diverse experiences.

            John received a Bachelor of Science degree in Journalism from Northwestern University, where he graduated with honors. He also received a J.D. degree from Northwestern University School of Law, where he graduated cum laude and was a John Henry Wigmore Scholar (3-year, full-tuition scholarship). He is a member of the bars of the District of Columbia and Illinois.

            Prior to attending law school, John worked for 10 years as a journalist, mostly with The Chicago Tribune. Upon graduating from law school, John worked for five years as a staff attorney for the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, representing indigents in civil actions before courts and administrative agencies and practicing in the areas of employment, housing, public benefits, consumer, and domestic relations. After moving to the District, John worked for five years as a solo practitioner, representing indigents in criminal cases in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and clients in civil matters in the courts and before administrative agencies. He also served as a legal adviser for an international trade consulting company specializing in antidumping disputes, which included representing a large Italian corporation before the United States Court of International Trade.

            Katherine ("Kay") Westcott joined the Office of the General Counsel as an Assistant General Counsel on August 27, 2001. Kay is a resident of the Mount Pleasant section of Ward 1. She came to this office with extensive experience reviewing and analyzing case law, statutes, and regulations, and preparing and conducting bench and jury trials.

            Kay received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the Florida International University in Miami, Florida, where she graduated with honors. She received a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from the University of Florida School of Law, where she received the Book Award in Legal Drafting. She is a member of the bars of Florida and the District of Columbia.

            Prior to attending law school, Kay worked for Eastern Airlines as a flight attendant. Upon graduating from law school, she worked as an associate attorney for the law firm of Loewinger and Brand in the District, where she litigated landlord and tenant lawsuits, real estate and probate matters, wrongful death actions, small claims matters, and engaged in mediation. After leaving Loewinger and Brand, Kay worked at several major law firms, where she provided litigation support in civil litigation cases and reviewed contracts, agreements, SEC filings, business plans, and analyzed other complex legal documents.

Codification/Legislative Assistant

            The Codification/Legislative Assistant, Karen Barbour, prepares all engrossments and enrollments of legislation. She provides invaluable assistance to all seven OGC attorneys in the codification and processing of legislation and assists the Codification Counsel in coordinating the distribution of the D.C. Official Code. In utilizing our computer system, she provides assistance on computer operation, and develops macros for legislation, Council and General Counsel memos, technical amendment sheets, effective date clauses, and other standard forms.

            In addition, the Codification/Legislative Assistant maintains the office's opinions database, retrieves legislation from the Council LAN Computer System originating from Council offices to ensure the integrity of the legislation prior to engrossment or enrollment, provides editorial assistance in the publication of the office newsletter Legalese, and serves as back-up to the secretary in her absence to ensure that vital functions are performed.

            Karen Barbour, formerly known as Karen Westbrook, joined the Office of the General Counsel in March of 1988. She is a native Washingtonian who has worked for and is committed to doing quality work for the District of Columbia government. She is a highly professional and courteous person who is very skilled in managing legislation passed by the Council and knowledgeable of protocol procedures when dealing with various personalities and organizations.

Secretary/Administrative Assistant

            The Secretary/Administrative Assistant, Ada Arrington, answers our telephones, greets visitors to the office, maintains the office files, purges our legislative files from previous Council periods, obtains copies of laws, committee reports, and D.C. Registers, and prepares critical documents for binding. Prior to and after a legislative session, she will type the record and technical amendment sheets for legislation, and create transmittal sheets. The Secretary/Staff Assistant is also responsible for organizing and maintaining our law library and maintaining the appointment calendar for the General Counsel.

            Ada joined the OGC as Secretary on October 14, 1997. She is a native Washingtonian who is committed to the District of Columbia and to doing quality work. She is a highly professional and courteous person who is very skilled in managing a variety of functions, including filing, editing, and directing incoming and outgoing mail. She has excellent typing, computer, and proofreading skills, as well as other administrative skills that have been honed by her many years of service in the Federal Government. Her past work experience includes serving as Secretary to a Division Director in the Department of Agriculture; Secretary to the Deputy Assistant Inspector General in the U.S. Department of Justice; administrative support person at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission; administrative support person with the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and temporary support person with the National Institute of Health.


            

                                 Council Period 15 Rule Changes


            The following are summaries of some of the changes in the Council rules for Council Period 15:

Rule 231 now gives the Committee of the Whole responsibility for declaring government property surplus and for energy and public utilities. The name of the subcommittee on Labor, Voting Rights, and Redistricting has been changed to the Subcommittee on Public Interest. The COW has delegated the responsibility for energy and public utilities to the Subcommittee on Public Interest and has delegated the responsibility for declaring government property surplus to the Subcommittee on Human Rights, Latino Affairs, and Property Management.

Rule 232 was changed to clarify that the Committee on Consumer & Regulatory Affairs has jurisdiction over private health insurance matters.

Rule 233 was changed to clarify that the Committee on Economic Development has jurisdiction over the disposition of property for housing and economic development purposes.

Rule 236 was amended to delete the reference to the Commission for Men, which sunset, and to include the newly created Office of Veterans Affairs.

Rule 303(c) was amended to authorize the Chairman to add emergency and temporary measures to an additional meeting agenda with the written consent of a majority of the Members of the Council.

Rule 354 was amended to clarify that votes can be changed by Members of the Council during a legislative meeting before the results of a roll call have been announced.

Rule 358 was amended to clarify that members will only be summoned for votes on legislation, not on discrete amendments to legislation.

Rule 401 now limits the entities who may submit legislation directly to the Council to the Mayor and Charter independent agencies. The Charter independent agencies are: the Board of Elections and Ethics, the Zoning Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Armory Board, and the Board of Education. All other agencies (independent and subordinate) must submit their legislation to the Mayor for transmittal to the Council for consideration. It also changed the deadline to noon on the day prior to a legislative meeting for the Mayor or Charter independent agency to submit legislation to the Council for consideration at the legislative meeting. This deadline now conforms to the noon deadline for the circulation of a draft copy of emergency and temporary legislation that Members of the Council must meet for the consideration of such measures at the legislative meeting.

Rule 427a was renumbered as 428 and amended to include the legal, budget, and administrative certifications where there has been a waiver of Council Rule 231(c).

Rule 444 is a new rule that allows a majority of the Members of the Council to request that a committee submit an addendum to a committee report that explains the reasoning for amendments to the bill which were made at first or second reading.

Rule 453 is a new rule that outlines the Council’s process for processing Freedom of Information Act requests and designates the Secretary to the Council as the Council’s FOIA officer.

Renumbering of old rules - (a) due to the elimination of the former Rule 404 pertaining to the Financial Authority, Rules 405, 406, 407, and 408 were renumbered as 404, 405, 406, and 407; (b) due to the renumbering of former Rule 427a as Rule 428, Rules 428 and 429 were renumbered as 429 and 430; (c) due to the addition of Rule 444, Rules 444 through 451 were renumbered as Rules 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, and 452.

news172.gif

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Legislation In 108th Congress

Affecting the District of Columbia

District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act

            Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Congressman Jim Davis have introduced the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2002 (“Budget Autonomy Act”), a bill similar to the District of Columbia Fiscal Integrity Act of 2001, first introduced by Congresswoman Connie Morella on October 2, 2001. The legislation would eliminate the requirement that the Council submit the District’s budget to the President for transmission to Congress except during control years, as defined in section 305(4) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995. The legislation would require a 30-day Congressional review period for budget acts of the Council and include weekends and holidays in the count.

            Related to the Budget Autonomy Act, Congress, in Chapter 4 of Public Law 107-206, An Act Making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes (“D.C. Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 2002”), continued the CFO’s authority over personnel, procurement, and the preparation of fiscal impact statements to the same extent authorized during a control period. This authority will expire on July 1, 2003, or upon the Fiscal Integrity Act becoming effective, whichever occurs sooner. If Congress does not adopt the Fiscal Integrity Act or extend the CFO’s authority through separate legislation, the CFO’s authority over these areas will expire within the next 5 months.

District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act

            Congresswoman Norton plans to reintroduce the District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act (“Act”), which she earlier introduced in March 2002. The Act would subject each nonresident individual employed in the District to a tax equal to 2 percent of their wages from employment in the District or 2 percent of net earnings from self-employment in the District, but only if the individual receives a corresponding federal tax credit. Partners in partnerships and sole proprietors already subject to District tax and members of the military on active duty would be exempt from the tax.

            The Act would also amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that each taxpayer who is subject to this tax receives a credit against his or her federal tax liability. The revenue generated by the imposition of this tax would be dedicated to building and facility maintenance, construction, and capital improvement projects for District public and public charter schools, transportation related activities, improvement in the local government's information technology systems, and debt service.

bizm0003.gif

KEEPING TABS

ON THE DISTRICT’S BUDGET

 

A Summary and Update

         Congress has not yet passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, 2003. However, on January 10, 2003, the President signed a continuing resolution that, while falling short of a complete approval of the Appropriations Bill, will allow the District to spend all its locally raised revenue and authorize the expenditure of certain federal funds.

            The Budget Support Act is the legislative vehicle used to implement the District’s budget. This year, because of new fiscal challenges and the need to achieve a reduction in the budget submitted to Congress in June 2002, the Budget Support Act was amended to provide sufficient funds to balance the consensus budget and financial plan agreed to by the Mayor and the Council.

            Below is an overview of the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Support Act of 2002, effective October 1, 2002 (D.C. Law 14-190; 49 DCR 6968), and the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Support Amendment Act of 2002, signed by the Mayor on December 4, 2002 (D. C. Act 14-543; 49 DCR 11664), and presently pending Congressional review.

Budget Support Act

    

          The Reprogramming Policy Act amends Title 47 of the District of Columbia Official Code to change the budgetary reprogramming process to allow agencies to move funds to meet performance criteria.

          The Performance and Financial Accountability Act requires the Mayor to submit performance-based budgets for certain departments and agencies and requires that no agency budget go to the Mayor without an Office of Budget and Planning determination that it is a performance-based budget.

          The Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Company Reorganization and Amendment Act transfers the Office of Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Company, including all positions, personnel, property, records, and financial assets from the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs to the Department of Banking and Financial Institutions.

          The Insurer and Health Maintenance Organization Self-Certification Amendment allows insurers and health maintenance organizations to self-certify or attest that they meet all the requirements to conduct business in the District.

          The Tobacco Settlement Savings Fund Amendment Act allocates 100% of the annual savings from debt defeasance or prepayment to the Department of Human Services, the Child and Family Services Agency, and the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”) for FY 2003 and 2004, requires the Director of the Office of Medicaid Public Provider Operations Reform and DCPS to develop a savings plan certified by the CFO prior to receiving the funds. (see below for subsequent changes)

          The Tax Rate Revision Act sets the corporate franchise and unincorporated business franchise tax rates for 2003, 2004, and future years, delays the tax-rate reductions of the Tax Parity Act of 1999 for one year, and sets the income tax rates for 2003 through 2005.

          The Owner-Occupant Residential Tax provides for tax credit to owner-occupants of residential real property to limit the amount of the real property tax to 125% of the tax for the prior tax year.

          The Bonus Depreciation De-Coupling from the Internal Revenue Code Act amends Title 47 to de-couple District law from the depreciation provisions added to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and to clarify that the bonus depreciation allowed by the federal act will not be allowed under the District's tax laws.

          The Housing Production Trust Fund Amendment Act provides $11.5 million in FY 2003 for the Housing Production Trust Fund and modifies the funding of the Fund. (see below for subsequent changes)

          The Customer Service Operations Establishment Act establishes the Customer Service Operations Unit, which shall be the District's primary point of entry for citizens and customers attempting to access non-emergency services, solicit information, or register a complaint or comment.                  

          The Victims Of Violent Crime Compensation Amendment Act establishes a local nonlapsing, non-reverting Crime Victims Assistance Fund, which shall be used to assist victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse.

          The Children and Youth Investment Fund Amendment Act requires the Mayor to fund the Children and Youth Investment Trust Fund and authorizes the Mayor to make grants for the purpose of providing services to District children, youth, and their families.

          The Office of Medicaid Public Provider Operations Reform Establishment Act establishes the Office of Medicaid Public Provider Operations Reform and authorizes the Mayor to appoint a Director of the Office, who shall be advised by an External Medicaid Task Force to be established by the Mayor. The primary purpose of this new Office is to improve the operations management of Medicaid programs on an agency level.

          The Medicaid and Special Education Reform Fund Establishment Act establishes the Medicaid and Special Education Reform Fund, a nonlapsing, revolving fund, into which shall be deposited funds made available for Medicaid and Special Education reform.

          The Childhood Lead Poisoning Screening and Reporting Act establishes a requirement for periodic blood tests for children.                    

          The Unemployment Compensation Alternative Base Period Amendment Act establishes a criteria for individuals working less than full time to qualify for unemployment compensation.

          The Metropolitan Police Department Video Surveillance Regulations Act requires the Chief of Police to issue regulations governing the MPD's use of video surveillance cameras and technology.

          The Executive Compensation and Fiscal Responsibility Amendment provides that a subordinate agency head can be eligible for a bonus only if the agency head is bound by a performance contract, available to the public upon request, that clearly identifies measurable goals and outcomes, and the agency head has exceeded contractual expectations for that year.

          The Limitation on Department of Corrections' Use of Facilities on D.C. General Hospital Campus Act prohibits the Department of Corrections from using any new or renovated facility on the D.C. General Campus to house offenders or persons awaiting trial.

          The Office of Inspector General Domiciliary Amendment Act defines the criteria for a waiver of the District's residency and domicile laws for new hires.

          The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Submission Amendment Act limits an increase in spending. It provides that the Mayor shall not submit a budget for FY 2004 to the Council that increases spending by more than 4% of the FY 2003 budget.

 

Budget Support Amendment Act

          The Uniform Per Student Funding Formula For Public Schools and Public Charter Schools Second Amendment Act amends the Uniform Per Student Formula for Public School and Public Charter Schools and Tax Conformity Clarification Amendment Act of 1998 to revise the weighting formulas used to calculate funding for students attending schools in the District.

          The Housing Production Trust Fund Second Amendment Act amends the Housing Production Trust Fund Act of 1988 to provide that of the $11.5 million budgeted in the Budget Support Act of 2002 submitted to the U.S. Congress in June, $5 million is to be allocated to the Housing Production Trust Fund and $6.5 million be moved from the Housing Production Trust Fund to the local General Fund.

          The Tobacco Settlement Savings Fund Second Amendment Act amends the Tobacco

Settlement Trust Fund Establishment Act of 1999 to require the submission of financial and performance reports to the Council, to reallocate 100% of the residuals savings from Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 to the General Fund, and to reallocate 100% of the debt service savings from Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004 to specific agencies, and to require a savings plan certified by the Chief Financial Officer before such funds can be available for expenditure.

          The Imposition and Rates of Franchise and Unincorporated Business Tax Revision Amendment Act amends Title 47 of the D.C. Official Code to maintain the effective franchise tax rates on incorporated and unincorporated businesses at 9.975%.

          The Deed Recordation Tax Amendment Act amends the District of Columbia Deed Recordation Tax Act of 1962 to define qualified principal place of residence and to increase the rate on deed recordation transfer taxes and economic and real property tax.

          The Other-Type Funds and Adjustment to Other Fees and Charges Act amends Chapter 3 of Title 47 of the D.C. Official Code to allow for the transference of all or part of the balance of O-Type funds to the General Fund, with all transfers to be in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer. It authorizes the Mayor to increase fines, fees, and charges by an average of up to 30 percent without Council approval.

          The Real Property Tax Revision Act amends Title 47 of the D.C. Official Code to create a new class three category for vacant and abandoned property.

          The Inheritance and Estate Tax Act amends Title 47 of the D.C. Official Code to preserve an inheritance and estate tax in the District of Columbia.

          The Medicaid State Plan Amendment Approval Act approves amendments to the District of Columbia State Plan for Medical Assistance.

          The Bail Reform Act amends Title 23 of the D.C. Official Code to provide that no person may be released directly from the D.C. Jail or Correctional Treatment Facility for the purpose of employment, schooling, or other limited purposes.

          The College Savings Program Act amends Title 47 of the D.C. Official Code to authorize pre-tax college savings accounts for District residents and to eliminate the requirement that an account owner or the beneficiary be a resident of the District.

 

news173.gif

FYI:

        What is an Initiative Act?

      The right of initiative, whereby any registered qualified elector of the District of Columbia may propose laws (except laws appropriating funds) and present such proposed laws directly to the registered qualified electors of the District of Columbia for their approval or disapproval, was established in 1978 through the initiation of the first Charter amendment referendum authored by the Council.

 

      In 1977, the Council decided that it wanted to grant the electors in the District of Columbia the right of initiative. However, because the legislative power in the District is established by the Charter, the Council could not grant the right of initiative to the people by merely adopting an act of the Council through the regular legislative process. As a result, the Council authored the first Charter amendment referendum to achieve its goal.

            The Council adopted Bill 2-2, the "Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Charter Amendments Act of 1977" on first, amended first, and second readings on April 5, 1977, May 3, 1977, and May 17, 1977, respectively. The purpose of the act was to allow the voters of the District of Columbia to enact laws (except laws appropriating funds) directly without legislative action by the Council of the District of Columbia. The “laws appropriating funds” exception was placed into the initiative statute by the Council to prevent unbudgeted costs from being incurred by the District government as a result of the enactment of an initiative. Following the signature of the Mayor on June 14, 1977, this legislation was assigned D.C. Act No. 2-46 and submitted to the voters for ratification. After ratification by the voters and approval by the Congress, the legislation became effective on March 10, 1978 as D.C. Law 2-46.

            As a result of the Council’s action in 1977, registered qualified electors of the District now have the right of initiative. (D.C. Official Code §§ 1-204.101 and 1-1001.16(p)(1)). A registered qualified elector may propose a law that would amend existing laws or enact new laws. Electors who want to propose a law, must file a petition containing the signatures of 5% of registered electors with the Board of Elections and Ethics ("Board of Elections"). (D.C. Official Code § 1-204.102(a)). If the Board of Elections determines that the measure is a proper subject for an initiative, it can be placed on the ballot at the next primary, general, or city-wide special election held at least 90 days after the measure has been certified as qualified to appear on the ballot. (D.C. Official Code §§ 1-204.103 and 1-1001(p)(1)).

            The Election Code allows the Board of Elections to consult with the Council Office of the General Counsel to ensure that initiatives are in proper legislative form. In addition, the Office of the General Counsel comments on whether a proposed initiative is the proper subject for an initiative. Generally, the Office of the Corporation Counsel also submits comments on any proposed initiative. Initiatives are reviewed for compliance with the requirements of District law, including the Charter, the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Procedures Act of 1979, and judicial interpretations of the initiative law.

            While the power of initiative is a great one, it is not limitless. The power of initiative extends no further than the power of the legislative branch to enact legislative acts. If the Council cannot adopt a law covering certain subjects, neither can an initiative. In addition to being limited by the same constraints imposed on the Council, an initiative is further limited because it cannot involve a law appropriating funds. (D.C. Official Code § 1-204.101(a)). The appropriations limitation on initiatives is further clarified in the Initiative Procedures Act, which provides that a proposed initiative is not a proper subject for initiative if "[t]he measure would negate or limit an act of the Council of the District of Columbia pursuant to [D.C. Official Code] § 1-204.46." (D.C. Official Code § 1-1001.16(1)(D)). D.C. Official Code § 1-204.46 is the codification of section 446 of the Home Rule Act, which sets forth the process by which the Council enacts the budget for the District of Columbia, and transmits the budget to the President and to Congress. D.C. Official Code § 1-204.46 also provides that "no amount may be obligated or expended by any officer or employee of the District of Columbia government unless such amount has been approved by act of Congress, and then only according to such act."

            If an initiative measure has been ratified by a majority of the registered qualified electors voting on the measure, it is considered to be an “act” of the Council, and the Chairman of the Council is required to transmit it to Congress for the requisite 30- or 60-day period of Congressional review. (D.C. Official Code § 1-204.105) . This is the same procedure that is followed for any permanent act passed by the Council. After the conclusion of the completion of the mandatory Congressional review period, an initiative will become the law of the District of Columbia. Just as the Council may amend or repeal any act of the Council, it may likewise amend or repeal any initiative passed by the electorates, since initiatives are considered “acts” of the Council. [CB-H]

Next issue: What is a referendum - charter, advisory, or regular?

news174.gif

 

Drafting Tips

 


 Emergency Legislation


            The Office of the General Counsel periodically provides drafting tips in Legalese. The following tips cover some of the common mistakes found in drafting emergency legislation:

            Fiscal impact statements for emergency measures- Emergency legislation, like permanent legislation, must be accompanied, at the time of its consideration, by a fiscal impact statement that has been reviewed by the Council’s Budget Director or the District’s Chief Financial Officer. It is wrong for an emergency bill to refer to the fiscal impact statement being "in the committee report," because emergency legislation is not referred to a committee, and there is no committee report. Emergency bills that accompany permanent bills may refer to the fiscal impact statement contained in the committee report for the permanent bill, if the emergency and permanent are substantially similar. The only measures that do not have to contain fiscal impact statements are emergency declaration, ceremonial, confirmation, and sense of the Council resolutions. See Council Rule 443(c).

            Outdated and incorrect emergency effective date clauses - No effective date clause, or any other provision of Council legislation, should reference the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, which became dormant on September 30, 2001. Unfortunately, we are still receiving legislation with effective date clauses reflecting review by that defunct entity. Let’s keep that portion of our history in the past. Occasionally, we receive emergency legislation with an effective date clause that refers to Congressional review or publication in the District of Columbia Register. An emergency bill is not subject to Congressional review. Neither emergency bills, nor emergency resolutions, are required to be published in the D.C. Register to become effective. Examples of the 10 different types of effective date clauses can be found at pages 27 - 30 of the Legislative Drafting Manual (February 2001).

            Need for temporary legislation - When preparing an emergency bill, it is important to ascertain whether there is a need for a temporary bill. Usually, there will be a need. Remember, there is a rule against consecutive emergencies. At the expiration of the 90 days that an emergency is effective, the legal authority cannot be extended by movement of another emergency unless there has been a second reading of either a temporary or permanent version of that emergency act. In some cases, however, there is no need for a temporary bill. For instance, there is no need to adopt a temporary bill if the emergency is being considered at the same time as the permanent legislation. In that case, the permanent bill will serve the same function as the temporary bill – allowing Congress an opportunity to review any legislation designed to extend beyond the life of a 90-day emergency bill. Finally, remember that a temporary bill can never be moved without an accompanying emergency bill.

news175.gif

LITIGATION

U.S. District Court Upholds Council’s Ward Redistricting Plan

Appeal Of Decision Is Pending

            On August 14, 2002, Judge Gladys Kessler of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Council’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against all 13 members of the Council and Mayor Anthony Williams challenging the Ward Redistricting Amendment Act of 2001. Plaintiffs Kingman Park Civic Association and Chevy Chase Civic Association alleged that the District’s redrawing of its ward boundaries diluted African-American voting strength citywide and, in particular, in the community of Kingman Park in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and District law.

            Plaintiffs’ primary allegation was that the transfer of 1,840 African-American residents of Kingman Park from Ward 6 to Ward 7 resulted in the dilution of African-American voting strength in Ward 6 and “wasted” African-American votes in Ward 7.

             The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Voting Rights Act because they could not show that the opportunity of African-Americans to elect representatives of their choice had been impaired by the District’s ward plan. The Court found that African-Americans constituted an effective voting majority in 5 of the District’s 8 wards, including Ward 6, where African-Americans comprise 62.3 percent of the total population. The Court also emphasized that the specific remedy sought by the Plaintiffs, the return of Kingman Park from Ward 7 to Ward 6, would have no effect upon the ability of African-Americans to participate equally in the electoral process in either ward.

            After dismissing Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under District law, thereby dismissing those claims

            Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of Judge Kessler’s decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Plaintiffs argue that Judge Kessler erred by determining that the ward boundaries did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the U.S. Constitution, holding that the Council defendants had legislative immunity for their actions in adopting the ward boundaries, and failing to take supplemental jurisdiction of the local law issues after the federal claims had been dismissed. The parties are currently briefing the issues. Briefing is scheduled to be completed by March of 2003.

            In addition, Plaintiffs have filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging that the District defendants violated local law by drawing boundaries that crossed natural geographic boundaries, divided neighborhoods, and split census tracts. Plaintiffs’ primary contention is that Wards 4 and 7 are not compact and contiguous because Ward 4 crossed Rock Creek Park to enter what had been Ward 3, and Ward 7 crossed the Anacostia River to enter what had been Ward 6. Plaintiffs’ motion to suspend action on the case until its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has been decided was granted in December 2002.

 

COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE REVIEW CHART

            The Office of the General Counsel has prepared a 16-page Combined Council Legislative Review Chart containing an updated alphabetical and sequential listing of more than 300 District statutory provisions in which the Council retains an active role -- i.e., approval or disapproval of proposed actions, by resolution. We have also identified 175 agency reporting requirements found in various District statutes. Copies of these charts will be distributed to attendees at Legislative Drafting Sessions, and may be obtained from this office.

             This chart replaces the 1999 Council legislative review chart issued by this office. In reviewing this list, it should be noted that section 412(a) of the Home Rule Act provides that Council resolutions be used to "express simple determinations" of the Council and to approve or disapprove, in whole or in part, proposed actions of the Mayor and other District government entities. The Council is prohibited from using such resolutions to modify a proposed action.

            In reading this chart, you should note, in particular, the column of the chart with the heading '"No. Days". This column indicates the time period of review, if one is specified in the statute. The column entitled "Type Days" contains letters specifying the method for counting the days, where the Council has a finite period of review. For example, where the type day is "LD", it means Legislative Days, which excludes Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, and days of Council recess. Where the type day is "MCD", it means Modified Calendar Days, which excludes only days of Council recess. Where the type day is “MLD”, it means Modified Legislative Days, which excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. If a zero, rather than 30, 45, 60, or another specific number of days, appears in “No. Days” column, the Council has no time limit for its review. In such a case, the review is open-ended until the end of the Council period.

            The Council added approximately 100 new review provisions during Council Period XIV. During that same period, roughly 50 provisions were repealed, superseded, or permitted to expire. The Office of the General Counsel continues to monitor all D.C. Laws as they become effective, with regard to Council review periods. Please check with this office for updates as you need them. [BKF/CB-H]


calculator.gif

 COUNTING DAYS

 FOR COUNCIL REVIEW

 

            This article contains a comprehensive update of provisions, for which this office receives frequent inquiries, dealing with the time period the Council has to review certain matters.

            Council Rule 402(b) provides that "unless specifically provided otherwise by law, no matter transmitted for a period of Council review prior to its taking effect shall be deemed transmitted to the Council or the Chairman, and no time period for the Council review shall begin to run until the matter has been formally introduced by the Chairman at a legislative session or work session of the Committee of the Whole." Consequently, the first day counted for most purposes will be the day after the matter has been formally introduced at a COW or legislative session. Some exceptions to when the first counting day begins are: reprogramming requests and reorganization plans (count begins the day after the Chairman receives the request or plan), and review of contracts (count begins the first business day following its receipt by the Office of the Secretary-- see Council Rule 309(a)).  

Reprogrammings (D.C. Official Code § 47-363)

          Mayor submits request to the Chairman

          Chairman is to immediately circulate request to the members

          First counting day is the day after the Chairman's receipt of request

          Deemed approved on 15th calendar day if no notice of disapproval within 14 days

          If notice of disapproval filed within 14 days, deemed approved on 31st day if no approval or disapproval within 30 days of Chairman’s receipt of request

          Days of Council recess are not counted (Mayor cannot submit during recess)

          Count Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays

Reorganization Plans (D.C. Official Code § 1-315.04)

          Mayor submits plan to the Council

          Deemed approved on 61st day if Council does not disapprove

          Days of Council recess are counted

          Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are not counted

Mayoral Nominee Confirmations (D.C. Official Code § 1-523.01)

Executive Service (D. C. Official Code § 1-523.01(a))

          Mayor submits to the Council nominee to head subordinate agency (defined in D.C. Official Code §1-603.01(17))

          Deemed approved on 91st day if no approval or disapproval by the 90th day

          Days of Council recess are not counted

          Count Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays

Boards and Commissions (D. C. Official Code § 1-523.01(e)(f))

Active (D.C. Official Code § 1-523.01(e)):

             

          Mayor submits to the Council

          Deemed disapproved on 91st day if no approval by the 90th day

          Days of Council recess are not counted

          Count Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays

 

Passive (D.C. Official Code § 1-523.01(f)):

          Mayor submits to the Council

          Deemed approved on 46th day if no introduction of disapproval by the 45th day

          If resolution of disapproval introduced within 45-day period, the Council shall have additional 45 days of review

          Deemed approved on 91st day from submission if no disapproval within additional 45 days of review

          Days of Council recess are not counted

            Note: Pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 1-523.01(g), the Mayor makes direct appointments to boards and commissions that subsections 1-523.01(e) and (f) do not reference. Therefore, the statute that established the entity should be consulted to determine the Council period of review, if any.

Multiyear Contracts (D.C. Official Code § 2-301.05a(b)(1))

          Mayor must submit contract to the Council

          First counting day is first business day following receipt by the Office of the Secretary

          For a contract to be more than 5 years, the Council must authorize by a 2/3rds vote of members present and voting

          Deemed disapproved if the Council fails to approve within 45 calendar days of submission

          Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays not counted

          Pursuant to Council Rule 308(b)(1), contract may be transmitted to the Office of the Secretary for the Council during the 30-day period prior to the end of the summer recess of the Council

Contracts in excess of $1 million (D.C. Official Code § 2-301.05a(b)(2))

          Mayor submits contract to the Council

          First counting day is first business day following receipt by the Office of the Secretary

          Deemed approved on 11th day if no introduction of an approval or disapproval resolution within 10-day period of review

          If resolution is introduced within 10 days, deemed approved on 46th day if no disapproval of contract within 45 days of introduction of contract

          Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays not counted

          Pursuant to Council Rule 308(b)(1), contract may be transmitted to the Office of the Secretary for the Council during the 30-day period prior to the end of the summer recess of the Council

Streamlined Review of Contracts in excess of $1 million and Multiyear Contracts

(D.C. Official Code § 2-301.05a(j))

          Mayor submits contract summary to the Chairman

          First counting day is the first business day after receipt of the summary by the Chairman

           If a disapproval resolution signed by at least 3 Councilmembers is not introduced within the 5-day period following the receipt of the contrary summary by the Chairman, the contract will be deemed approved upon its being filed by the Mayor and time stamped by the Secretary

          If a disapproval resolution is introduced within the 5-day period, the Council review period will be extended by an additional 15 days from the date of the Mayor's submission of the contract. (Note: The 15-day period does not begin to run until the first business day after the Mayor submits the contract.)

          If the disapproval resolution is not approved within the 15-day review period, the contract shall be deemed approved

          Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are not counted for purposes of either the 5-day

Compensation Settlements (including arbitration awards)

(D.C. Official Code § 1-617.17)

          Mayor must submit all settlements to the Council with a budget request act, a supplemental budget request act, a budget amendment act, or a reprogramming (collectively "submissions"), whichever is appropriate, which fully funds the settlement; if a settlement has been fully funded by one of the above submissions already enacted, the Mayor shall submit a certification to this effect

          Settlement takes effect on 30th calendar day after Mayor and Council enact one of the above submissions, unless the Council accepts or rejects the settlement by resolution prior to the 30th day

          If a settlement has been fully funded by one of the above submissions, the settlement takes effect on the 30th calendar day after the Mayor's transmission of the settlement, unless the Council accepts or rejects the settlement by resolution prior to the 30th day

          Days of Council recess are not counted

          Count Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays

Career and Excepted Service Compensation Changes (for employees not covered by collective bargaining) (D.C. Official Code § 1-611.06)

          Mayor submits to Council

          If the Council approves the compensation change, without revision, the schedule for the change shall become effective on the date specified in the schedule submitted by the Mayor

          If the Council fails to take action within 60 calendar days of the submission, the compensation change is deemed approved on 61st day

          Days of Council recess are not counted          

          Count Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays

Disposition of Vacant and Abandoned Properties (to be codified at D.C. Official Code § 10-831)

          Mayor submits proposed resolution of disposition to Council

          Deemed approved on 6th day if no introduction of a disapproval resolution within 5 days

          If resolution of disapproval introduced by at least 3 Councilmembers within 5-day period, Council review period is 45 days from date of Mayor’s submission

          Deemed approved on the 46th day if Council does not approve the disapproval resolution

within 45-day period

          Days of Council recess are not counted

          Count Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays

[KW]

news176.gif

D.C. Official Code Resource Guide

            In order for you to take full advantage of the D.C. Official Code resources available to you, we have listed below materials that you should have in your office. If you do not have any of these materials, please contact our office. 

 

          At least one set of 23 bound volumes (colored black)

          One 2002 General Index

          2002 Pocket Part supplements to the 23 bound volumes

          November 2002 Interim Update Service supplement to the 2002 Pocket Parts         

          December 2002 Update Chart, supplementing the November 2002 Interim Update Service (also available on the V-drive under “Code_Supp”)

          November 2002 CD-ROM, D.C. Official Code

          D.C. Official Code link at the Council of the District of Columbia website

          The next supplement to the D.C. Official Code should be available in March 2003.            

                                                                

CHECK THE EXPIRATION DATE!

D.C. Official Code Sections That Will Sunset

Or Otherwise Expire Within Next 2 Years

2003

Section 1-606.08(b), concerning the retroactive applicability of payment of reasonable attorney fees in cases before the Office of Employee Appeals, will expire on June 28, 2003.

 

Section 44-103.03, concerning the special ALR licensure for community residence facilities, will expire on June 24, 2003.

 

2004

Section 1-204.95(a)(1) and (2) (Home Rule Act), concerning the elected Board of Education, will expire on July 7, 2004.

Sections 1-307.21 through 1-307.26, concerning the Clinic Liability Indemnification Assistance Program, will expire on September 23, 2004.

Section 4-1303.02a(j), concerning the obtaining of social worker licenses of individuals employed by the Superior Court and performing case management duties, will expire on October 1, 2004.

 

Section 2-301.05a(j), concerning the expedited Council procedures for contract review, will expire on December 31, 2004.

 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

ATTORNEY ASSIGNMENTS

Johnnie I. BartonSend email to Johnnie I. Barton

Government Operations (Orange)

Public Works (Schwartz)

Councilmember Adrian M. Fenty

OGC FOIA Counsel

Inquiries about Initiatives

OCC Litigation Liaison Counsel

Manual: OGC Operating Manual

 

Benjamin Bryant, Jr.Send email to Benjamin F. Bryant

Codification Counsel

Contracts

Committee on Education, Libraries, and Recreation (Chavous)

Federal legislation impacting the District

Manual: OGC Home Rule Act

 

Brian K. FlowersSend email to Brian K. Flowers

Legislative Counsel

OGC Ethics Counsel

OGC Training & Professional Development Counsel

Manual: Legislative Drafting


John HoellenSend email to John Hoellen

Human Services (Allen)

Judiciary (Patterson)

Subcommittee on Public Interest (Mendelson) (excluding public utilities)

Editor, Legalese

 

Donald KaufmanSend email to Donald Kaufman

Finance & Revenue (Evans)

Consumer & Regulatory Affairs (Ambrose)

Subcommittee on Human Rights, Latino Affairs & Property Management (Graham)

Public utilities legislation (Mendelson)

 

Kay WestcottSend email to Katherine Westcott

Committee on the Whole (Cropp)

Committee on Economic Development (Brazil)

Committee on Public Services (Catania)

Inquiries about District Appropriations Act

Manual: Boards & Commissions

 



 

Editor:

   John Hoellen

Contributors:

   Charlotte Brookins-Hudson, Brian K. Flowers,

   Benjamin Bryant, and Katherine Westcott

Editorial Assistant:

   Karen R. Barbour


NEWS YOU CAN USE!

Prepared by
Office of the General Counsel
Council of the District of Columbia
Charlotte Brookins-Hudson, General Counsel
Phone: (202) 724-8026
Facsimile: (202) 724-8129
Email: cbrookinshudson@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
cbrookinshudson@dccouncil.washington.dc.us

To Contact other staff of the Office of the General Counsel.