||D.C. Council Homepage||Home Rule Act||Council Rules||Council Review Provisions||Contents of Legalese||D.C. Home Page||
March 2002 Council of the District of Columbia Vol. 8, No. 1
|| The Budget Process|| D.C. Official Code || Significant Federal Legislation|| Highlights of the D.C. Appropriations Act, 2002|| Litigation ||
|| End of Council Period XIV || Election Year Mailings || Council Review of Contracts|| Message from the General Counsel
||
MESSAGE FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL
2002 D.C. OFFICIAL CODE SUPPLEMENT PAMPHLET ARRIVES
SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION:
INITIATIVE REJECTED BY THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
END OF COUNCIL PERIOD XIV CONGRESSIONAL ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE
MESSAGE FROM GENERAL COUNSEL
In addition, this issue summarizes Congressional actions that apply exclusively to the District of
Columbia; an update on the way in which days are counted for the review of contracts by the Council;
important information from the Codification Counsel on the D.C. Official Code; and a status of some of
the litigation involving the Council or enactments of the Council. Finally, during each Spring, while
some are following the road to the final four college basketball teams, the Mayor and the Council are on
the road to the final adoption of the District's budget. To assist in the understanding of the budget
process, an article is included to outline the steps that are taken by the CFO, Mayor, and the Council
which culminate in the transmission of a Budget Request Act to the President of the United States and
the United States Congress. As usual, the Office of the General Counsel is available to answer any
questions you may have about these and other matters.
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act prescribes a procedure for the approval of the annual budget for the District of Columbia government. Using the estimates of the Chief Financial Officer, the Mayor
submits a budget to the Council for approval by the Council. If approved, it is transmitted to Congress, which appropriates the funds.
Under section 424(a)(5), the Chief Financial Officer prepares and submits to the Mayor and the Council annual estimates of all revenues of the District of Columbia (without regard to the source of such revenues), including proposed revenues. These revenue estimates are binding on the Mayor and the Council for purposes of the annual budget to be submitted to Congress, except that the Mayor and the Council may base the budget on estimates of revenues which are lower than those prepared by the Chief Financial Officer.
Under section 442(a), the Mayor prepares and submits a proposed annual budget to the Council. In preparing the annual budget, the Mayor may utilize a budget prepared by the Chief Financial Officer for this purpose under section 424(a)(2).
Under section 603(c), the Mayor is required to submit a balanced budget and identify any tax increases which shall be
required in order to so. The Council is required to adopt such tax increases to the extent the budget is approved. The annual budget submitted shall include, among other items, a multiyear plan for all agencies of the District government (as required under section 443) and a multiyear capital improvements plan for all agencies of the District government (as required under section 444).
Under section 446, the Council must hold a public hearing on the budget submission and, within 50 calendar days after receipt of the budget proposal from the Mayor, adopt a budget by act. The act is styled as the Budget Request Act (of the year of adoption) and requires only one reading. If the Mayor approves the budget act, he or she submits it to the President for transmission to Congress.
However, unlike other acts submitted to the Mayor for signature, the Mayor may exercise a line-item veto under section 404(f). If the Mayor disapproves an item or provision, he or she must attach to the act a statement of the item or provision which is disapproved and, within the 10-day period for approval or disapproval, return a copy of the act and statement with his or her objections to the Council.
The Council has 30 calendar days to reenact a disapproved item or provision by a two-thirds vote of the members of the Council present and voting. If an item or provision is reenacted, the Chairman submits it to the President for transmission to Congress. If the Mayor fails to return timely a disapproved item or provision to the Council, he or she shall be deemed to have approved the item or provision and the Chairman submits it to the President for transmission to Congress.
Unlike other legislation, the Budget Request Act does not become effective after a period of Congressional review--it never becomes law. Congress must appropriate all funds for the District of Columbia by Congressional Act, which may, but is not required to, include some or all of the provisions of the Budget Request Act.
The District government may not expend any funds until they are so appropriated by Congress. This includes all funds which were dedicated to revolving funds in a prior fiscal year. If money in a revolving fund was appropriated for expenditure in a prior fiscal year, but was not spent, it must be reappropriated for expenditure in the next fiscal year in order to be utilized.
As stated above, the Budget Request Act requires only one reading and is not subject to Congressional review. It does not become law and, therefore, will not be assigned a D.C. Law number. The appropriations act for the District government is a Congressional Act and is assigned a Public Law number.
In conjunction with the annual budget, the
Council enacts additional legislation, styled
as the Budget Support Act (of the year of
adoption), as may be necessary to implement
the items and provisions of the annual
budget. For example, legislation to adopt
tax increases approved in the budget, as
required under section 603(c), would be
included in the Budget Support Act.
The Budget Support Act is subject to the
usual provisions for the passage of legislation
contained in section 404(e), including
Congressional review. Because of the
Congressional review, in order to ensure that
provisions of the Budget Support Act
become effective by the beginning of the
fiscal year, the Council customarily passes
the Budget Support Act as an emergency act
after the second reading of the permanent
bill, except for those provisions which may
have already been the subject of emergency
legislation.
Accordingly, despite the inclusion of prior
emergency legislation in the permanent
Budget Support Act, Council staff must
continue to monitor the expiration dates of
the prior emergency legislation and move
separate Congressional review emergency
legislation as may be necessary.
In addition to the annual budget requests,
the Mayor, under section 442(c), may at any
time prepare and submit to the Council
proposed supplemental or deficiency budget
requests. In addition to the requests initiated
by the Mayor, the Mayor, under section
442(d), shall prepare and submit to the
Council proposed supplemental or deficiency
budget requests if the Council, by resolution,
requests the Mayor to do so.
A supplemental or deficiency budget
request is governed by the provisions of
section 446. It may be adopted by the
Council after a public hearing and, subject to
the line-item veto provisions of section
404(f), signed by the Mayor and submitted
to the President for transmission to
Congress. [DSK]
The 2002 D.C. Official Code Supplement Pamphlet has arrived at the Council. All amendments to
the D.C. Official Code, 2001 Edition, through D.C. Law 14-27, are contained in this one volume
paperback supplement. [BFB]
Electronically, all amendments to the D.C. Official Code through D.C. Law 14-28, the Fiscal Year
2002 Budget Support Act of 2001, are available on the Council's V-drive under the subdirectory
"code_sup", along with the most recent Code Update Chart.
In addition to extending the availability of the $5,000,000 initially earmarked for the creation
of incentives to promote the adoption of children who are in the District's foster care system
to September 30, 2003, the Act sets aside $1,000,000 of the $5,000,000 for the establishment
of a scholarship fund for District of Columbia children of adoptive families, and District of
Columbia children without parents due to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, to be used
for post-high school education and training.
Crime Victims Compensation Fund
The Act eliminates the $250,000 reserve requirement in the Crime Victims Compensation
Fund and the Congressional approval requirement before funds can be expended for direct
compensation payments to crime victims. The Act also requires that 50 percent of the Fund
balance be used for direct compensation payments to crime victims and 50 percent be used for
outreach activities designed to increase the number of crime victims who apply for such direct
compensation payments.
Payments for Representation of Indigents
The Act increases the hourly rate for attorneys appointed to represent indigents from $50 to
$65 and increases the maximum amounts attorneys can receive for each case.
Public Safety and Justice
The Act makes the provision of the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Support Act of 2001 (D.C. Law
14-28) that prohibits overtime compensation for senior managers in the Metropolitan Police
Department and the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department applicable to
employees hired before 1980.
Certification of Need by Chief Technology Officer
The Act amends the law governing the assignment of private-sector employees to District
agencies by allowing the Chief Technology Officer, instead of the Director of Personnel, to
certify the need for such employees assigned to the Office of the Chief Technology Officer.
Salary of the Chief Financial Officer
The Act sets the Chief Financial Officer's annual salary equal to the rate of basic pay payable
for level I of the Executive Schedule.
Federal Contribution for Enforcement of Law Banning Possession of Tobacco Products by
Minors
The Act approves a $100,000 federal contribution to the Metropolitan Police Department if
the District government enacts legislation banning the possession of tobacco products by
minors in the District of Columbia and imposing certain civil penalties for violation of the law.
Reserve Funds
Regarding the Reserve Fund, the Act makes the following changes: Contingency Reserve Fund
The Act renames the "Emergency Reserve Fund" established by section 450A of the Home
Rule Act to the "Contingency Reserve Fund", reduces the balance maintenance amount from
4% to 3% of the total budget appropriated for operating expenditures, and reduces the
applicable percentage for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 from 2% and 3%, respectively, to 0% for
each year.
Change in Effective Date for Law 14-41
Section 138 of the Act changes the effective date of Law 14-41, the Closing of Portions of
2nd and N Streets, N.E. and Alley System in Square 710, S.O. 00-97, Act of 2001 (intended
to be developed for the ATF National Headquarters Building ), from October 13, 2001, to
December 21, 2001. [BFB]
District of Columbia Police Coordination Amendment Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-113)
The Act amends the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law
105-33) to permit any federal law
enforcement agency to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the
Metropolitan Police Department to assist the
Department in carrying out crime prevention
and law enforcement activities if deemed
appropriate by the Chief of the Department
and the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia.
District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-114)
The Act redesignates the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia as the Family Court of the Superior Court for the stated purposes of recruiting and
retaining trained and experienced judges to serve in the Family Court, and promoting
consistency and efficiency in the assignment of judges to the Family Court and in the
consideration of actions and proceedings in the Family Court.
Among other things, the Act:
1) Sets the number of judges on the Family Court at 15, with leave for the Chief Judge to
assign more judges during emergency circumstances;
2) Sets 5 years as the initial term of service for judges assigned to the Family Court, with
less time required for judges currently serving in the Superior Court, and allows judges the
option of serving their entire term with the Superior Court in the Family Court;
3) Expands the role of mediation in Family Court cases;
4) Adopts a One Family, One Judge rule where a new case involving an individual who
has an immediate family member involved in a case assigned to a particular judge will be
assigned to the same judge;
5) Establishes training requirements for judges and nonjudicial personnel in the Family
Court, magistrate judges, and attorneys who practice in the Family Court;
6) Requires computerized tracking and management of cases and proceedings in the
Family Court;
7) Requires the Mayor to appoint a social services liaison between the Family Court and
the executive branch; and
8) Designates all hearing commissioners in the Superior Court as "magistrate judges" and
requires all magistrate judges serving in the Family Court, among other things, to be bona fide
residents of the District of Columbia. [BFB]
Proposed Federal Legislation Would Tax Nonresidents
On March 11, 2002, Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton introduced the District of
Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of
2002. The Act subjects 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 also amends the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that the
taxpayer who is subject to this tax receives a
corresponding credit against his or her
federal tax liability. Partners in partnerships
and sole proprietors already subject to
District tax and members of the military on
active duty are exempt from the tax. Congresswoman Norton estimates that
the tax will generate $413 million for the
District in FY 2003. 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. [BFB]
U.S. District Court Grants Councilmember Ambrose's Motion to Dismiss Boystown Suit in Father Flanagan's Boys Home v. The District of Columbia, et al. Father Flanagan's Boys Home (more
commonly known as Boystown) is seeking
to construct and operate a group home in the
District of Columbia, but has received
significant community opposition. When it
did not receive a building permit after eight
months, it filed an action in federal court
against the District of Columbia and several
other defendants, including Councilmember
Ambrose, alleging that they intentionally
discriminated against Boystown on the basis
of handicap and race under the Fair Housing
Act.
Boystown's legal theory was that because
of the activities of Councilmember Ambrose,
as well as other defendants, Boystown was
denied, by unjustified continuing delay, a
building permit to construct its project, a
group home for juveniles alleged to be
handicapped and predominantly members of
racial minorities.
As to Councilmember Ambrose,
Boystown alleged that she "publicly
announced her opposition to Plaintiff's
project," "attended opposition meetings and
activities," "gave interviews and statements
to the public media," and "publicly advocated
that the Girls & Boys Town project be
subjected to a costly, time-consuming
environmental impact study." In
addition, it alleged that she introduced
unfavorable legislation in the Council.
Councilmember Ambrose, represented by
the General Counsel, filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. As a matter of law,
Councilmember Ambrose was not within the
reach of the Fair Housing Act because she
did not have the authority to grant or deny
the building permit. Moreover, it was
argued, the application of the Fair Housing
Act under these circumstances would violate
the First Amendment because
Councilmember Ambrose's actions
constituted pure advocacy. The Court
granted her motion, dismissing the case
without a formal opinion. [DSK]
U.S. District Court Dismisses Suit Challenging ANC Reform Amendment Act of 2000 in Burnetta Coles v. Cropp, et al.
On February 25, 2002, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Hogan,
C.J.), granted the Council's request to dismiss a lawsuit filed against all 13 members of the
Council. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and repeal of the Advisory Neighborhood
Commission Reform Amendment Act of 2000, alleging that the Council had usurped the
personnel authority of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and denied her right to vote in a
referendum, and to equal protection of the laws. The Council's position was that the plaintiff had
suffered no injury as a result of the Council's action, and that there was no requirement for a
referendum on changes to laws affecting Advisory Neighborhood Commissions.
The Court held, in agreement with the Council's position, that the plaintiff did not establish
an actual injury, and thus did not have standing to maintain the action.
The Advisory Neighborhood Commission Reform Amendment Act of 2000 established the
Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions to provide technical, administrative, and financial
reporting assistance to the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. The Office is intended to
support the efforts of ANCs, but is not empowered to direct or supervise their actions. [BKF]
Suit Alleges District Ward Boundaries Unlawfully Drawn in Kingman Park Civic Association v. Anthony A. Williams, et al.
The Kingman Park Civic Association has
filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia against the Mayor and
all 13 Councilmembers alleging that the
District's recently redrawn ward boundaries
were drawn in violation of federal and local
law.
Plaintiff claims that the boundaries drawn
pursuant to the Ward Redistricting
Amendment Act of 2001 unlawfully dilute
the voting strength of African-Americans
citywide, and particularly in the community
of Kingman Park, by "packing" African-American voters in Wards 5, 7, and 8 in
violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C. §
1983, and D.C. Official Code § 1-1011.01.
Plaintiff also alleges that the District, in
drawing the boundaries, violated D.C.
Official Code § 1-1011.01 by failing to
divide the District into eight compact and
contiguous wards approximately equal in
size; observe natural geographic boundaries;
respect neighborhood cohesiveness; and
conform the boundaries to those established
by U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that
Councilmember Ambrose intentionally
excluded it from her Ward 6 Redistricting
Task Force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
and the Due Process and Equal Protection
clauses.
On behalf of the 13 Councilmembers, the
Office of the General Counsel has filed a
motion to dismiss or, alternatively, motion
for summary judgment. The motion urges
the court to dismiss the matter against all 13
Members of the Council on the grounds that
plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action,
the complaint fails to meet the threshold
requirements for establishing a case under
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the
action against the Councilmembers is
precluded by the District's Speech or Debate
Clause.
On March 12, 2002, the Board of Elections and Ethics rejected the proposed Treatment
Instead of Jail for Nonviolent Drug Offenders Initiative on the grounds that it "seeks to establish a
law which would appropriate funds in violation of District of Columbia law." The proposed
initiative provided that if an eligible offender requested drug treatment, the court shall stay all
proceedings against the offender pending the outcome of treatment. Certain offenders who are
ineligible for treatment as a matter of right must, upon request, be provided treatment. The
initiative also establishes an Ombudsman's office in the Department of Health, and establishes a
Substance Abuse Treatment Fund.
The D.C. Election Code allows the Board of Elections to consult with the Council's Office of
General Counsel to ensure that initiatives are in the proper legislative form, or are the proper
subject for an initiative. Proposed initiatives are reviewed for compliance with the requirements
of District law, including the Charter, the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Procedures Act of
1979, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002, and judicial interpretations of those
statutes. Based on this review, the Office of General Counsel concluded that the Initiative, as
currently drafted, was not a proper subject for an initiative under District law because it is a law
appropriating funds, and a measure that would negate or limit an act of the Council relating to the
budget.
The prohibition on an Initiative containing provisions which appropriate funds 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 section 446 of the Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code § 1-204.46)."
Section 446 of the Home Rule Act 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.
The Council's response to the drug treatment issue, was to enact the Choice in Drug
Treatment Act of 2000, effective July 18, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-146; 47 DCR 4350). This act
included the establishment of an Addiction Recovery Fund. Monies from the fund are to be used
only for payments directly to treatment providers, and as the sole source for payments to
treatment providers under the Drug Treatment Choice Program. Appropriations for this purpose
were included in both the District's Budget Request Act, and the Human Support Services title in
the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002. The initiative, if approved, could have had
the effect of limiting, or negating these actions, as those terms have been construed by the D.C.
Court of Appeals. The Initiative's requirements, to the extent they necessitate increased funding,
would affect the Council's ability to prioritize and allocate funds among competing programs.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has interpreted this "negate or limit an act of the
Council" language to mean that an initiative could not be used to negate or limit the provisions of
a Budget Request Act passed by the Council, because the Council had preserved its ultimate
control over the allocation of revenues. The court specifically stated that an initiative "could not
amend the allocation in a Budget Request Act, to require, for example, that additional revenues be
devoted to [housing] or that all revenues from a particular source, new or old, be devoted to a
specific purpose." The proposed Treatment Instead of Jail Initiative seeks to do precisely what
the Court of Appeals has said is prohibited - require that additional revenue be devoted to drug
treatment, and that all revenues from this source be devoted to that purpose. For that reason, it is
not the proper subject of an initiative.
A final point of discussion concerned the impact of section 127 of the D.C. Appropriations
Act, 2002 ("Barr Amendment"), which prohibited the use of appropriated funds to pass a law that
would legalize or reduce penalties associated with marijuana. One proposed Initiative was
submitted containing language which appeared to conflict with the Barr Amendment, and another
proposed Initiative was submitted without that language.
Because the proposed Initiative would interfere with the appropriation power to identify
revenues and allocate them among competing programs and activities, it violates the appropriation
limitation on initiatives under D.C. Official Code § 1-204.101(a), would negate or limit a budget
act of the Council under D.C. Official Code § 1-1001.16(b)(1)(D), and was therefore found not a
proper subject for an initiative. [BKF]
END OF COUNCIL PERIOD XIV AND CONGRESSIONAL ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE
How To Make Sure Your Bill Clears Congress Before End of 2002
Congress is scheduled to adjourn sine die
with a target date of October 4, 2002. When
the Congress adjourns sine die, any Council
enacted legislation that has not concluded its
30- or 60-day Congressional review prior to
the adjournment will have to start a new
count when the 108th Congress convenes
sometime in January 2003. Legislation for
which a new count begins in January 2003
will not become law until, at the earliest, the
end of February or March 2003.
If enactment in 2002 or Council Period
XIV is a goal, legislation requiring a 30-day
Congressional review must have its second
reading by the Council no later than July 1,
2002. For legislation requiring a 60-day
period of Congressional review, the deadline
for final Council passage is May 7, 2002.
These calculations are based on the worst-case scenario of the Mayor taking his full 10
business days to review legislation.
Legislation must be transmitted to
Congress no later than May 22nd to
conclude its 60-day review period and July
17th to conclude its 30-day review period
prior to the scheduled October 4th
adjournment. Congress is scheduled to be
out from May 25 through June 2; June 29
through July 7; July 29 through July 31; the
entire month of August; and September 1
through 3. This means that there are 20
review days in June, 15 in July, 0 in August,
19 in September, and maybe 4 in October
available to complete Congressional review
prior to their scheduled adjournment date.
[CB-H] Will End of Council Period XIV
Mean the End of Your Legislation? Council Period XIV will end on December
31, 2002. This means that any introduced
legislation, other than temporary legislation,
that has not received final Council approval
prior to December 31, 2002, will lapse,
subject to reintroduction in Council Period
XV. Council Rule 449(a) prevents the lapse
of any temporary legislation that has had
first reading by December 31, 2002.
Consequently, any bill or resolution that has
not had final Council approval by the last
legislative session in December 2002 will
lapse except for a temporary bill that has
had first reading. Any matter that has lapsed
at the end of a Council period can be
introduced in the new Council period,
subject to committee referral, committee
action, and Committee of the Whole and
Council approval.
However, legislative matters (resolutions,
reprogramming requests, contracts in excess
of $1 million, etc.) that have an unexpired
Council review period at the end of Council
Period XIV will not lapse. Council Rule
449(a) prevents the lapsing of any matter
that has been transmitted by the Mayor or an
independent agency for a designated period
of Council review. It allows such legislation
that is pending at the end of a Council
period to retain the same status in the new
Council period as it had at the end of the
prior Council period.
This means that if a legislative measure
required a 60-day period of Council review
and Council Period XIV ends on the 30th
day of review, the first day of the new
Council Period XV will be day 31, not day
1, of the 60-day review period. [CB-H]
Official Mail, Mass Mailings and the Upcoming Elections
With two elections fast approaching, the Office of the General Counsel
would like to remind everyone of the Council's rules regarding official
mail and mailing deadlines. According to Council Rule 805, a
Councilmember who is a candidate for office may not mail, as official
mail at public expense, a mass mailing within the 90-day period
immediately preceding a primary, general, or special election.
"Official mail" is defined in Council Rule
801(3) as correspondence pertaining directly
or indirectly to the legislative process or a
legislative function, to the official duties of
a Councilmember, or to other matters of
public concern or public service. "Mass
mailing," according to Council Rule 801(1),
is the transmission through the mails of
more than 100 substantially identical
newsletters, news releases, or similar
material during any 30-day period.
The District's Board of Elections and
Ethics has scheduled this year's primary
election for Tuesday, September 10, 2002,
and the general election for Tuesday,
November 5, 2002. June 11, 2002 will be
the last date to have a mass mailing of
official mail for this year's primary election.
August 6, 2002, will be the last date to have
a mass mailing of official mail for this year's
general election.
As usual, the Office of the General
Counsel is available to answer any questions
you may have regarding this matter and to
review any material to determine if it
qualifies as official mail. [JIB]
COUNTING DAYS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF CONTRACTS
1. Council Streamlined Review of Contracts in Excess of $1 Million and
Multiyear Contracts (D.C. Official Code § 2-301.05a(j))
2. Council Standard Review of Contracts in Excess of $1 million and Multiyear
Contracts (D.C. Official Code § 2-301.05a((a)-(i); HRA § 451; Council Rule
309)
Contracts in Excess of $1 million (D.C. Official Code § 2-301.05a(a)(b)); HRA §
451(b):
Multiyear Contracts (D.C. Official Code § 2-301.05a; HRA § 451(c)):
Editor:
John Hoellen
Contributors:
Charlotte Brookins-Hudson, Brian K. Flowers,
Editorial Assistant:
Karen R. Barbour
CHARLOTTE BROOKINS-HUDSON
Every even year three things happen -- the second year of a Council Period, the Congressional
adjournment sine die, and the elections for half of the positions in the Council. This issue of Legalese
addresses the effect of these events on the ways the Council conducts its affairs. Council legislation that
has not had final reading, with few exceptions, will die at the end of the Council Period. Bills that have not
concluded their mandatory review periods prior to the date of the Congressional Adjournment Sine Die will
have to restart the count when the 108th Congress convenes in January 2003. Members of the Council who
are seeking reelection to their positions may not send mass mailing as official mail after certain deadlines.
If you are affected by any of these matters, this issue of Legalese should address your questions.
IT'S BUDGET SEASON:
HERE'S HOW IT WORKS
Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children
The redistricting of the District's eights
wards resulted in the community of Kingman
Park being transferred from Ward 6 to Ward
7. The Kingman Park Civic Association
claims to represent 1,840 residents of that
community. [JH]
*Note: This initiative was redrafted and subsequently approved by the Board of Elections and Ethics.
The Council has two procedures for reviewing contracts - its streamlined review and the
standard review process. The streamlined review procedure is scheduled to expire December 31,
2002. This article will outline both processes.
Benjamin Bryant, Johnnie Barton, John Hoellen, and Donald Kaufman
To contact staff in the Office of the General Counsel.