COURTESY OF FATHERNET BBS (718) 494-1719 PCBoard 15.0 USR-DS 16.8K Just make your 1st call *after* 8 PM Eastern because there's immediate callback verification. No Handles. *************************************************************** PART I. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT TITLE 1. ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 15. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SUBCHAPTER II. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION D.C. Code @ 1-1521 (1993) @ 1-1521. Public policy Generally the public policy of the District of Columbia is that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 1993 SUPPLEMENT (LAWS APPROVED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1992) PART I. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT TITLE 1. ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 15. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SUBCHAPTER II. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION D.C. Code @ 1-1522 (1993) @ 1-1522. Right of access to public records; allowable costs; time limits (a) Any person has a right to inspect, and at his or her discretion, to copy any public record of the Mayor or an agency, except as otherwise expressly provided by @ 1-1524, in accordance with reasonable rules that shall be issued by the Mayor or an agency after notice and comment, concerning the time and place of access. (b) The Mayor or an agency may establish and collect fees not to exceed the actual cost of searching for or making copies of records, but in no instance shall the total fee for searching exceed $ 10 for each request. For purposes of this subsection, "request" means a single demand for any number of documents made at 1 time to an individual agency. Documents may be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge where the Mayor or agency determines that waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public. Notwithstanding the foregoing, fees shall not be charged for examination and review by the Mayor or an agency to determine if such documents are subject to disclosure. (c) The Mayor or an agency, upon request reasonably describing any public record, shall within 10 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) of the receipt of any such request either make the requested public record accessible or notify the person making such request of its determination not to make the requested public record or any part thereof accessible and the reasons therefor. (d) In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in subsection (c) of this section may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for extension and expected date for determination. Such extension shall not exceed 10 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays). For purposes of this subsection, and only to the extent necessary for processing of the particular request, "unusual circumstances" are limited to: (1) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or (2) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among 2 or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein. (e) Any failure on the part of the Mayor or an agency to comply with a request under subsection (a) of this section within the time provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall be deemed a denial of the request, and the person making such request shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request, unless such person chooses to petition the Mayor pursuant to @ 1-1527 to review the deemed denial of the request. HISTORY: Oct. 21, 1968, Pub. L. 90-614, title II, @ 202; 1973 Ed., @ 1-1522; Mar. 29, 1977, D.C. Law 1-96, @ 2, 23 DCR 9532b. NOTES: SECTION REFERENCES. --This section is referred to in @@ 1-1527 and 1-1528. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-96. --See note to 1-1521. INSURANCE REGULATORY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORTS. --Possession and ownership indicates that Insurance Regulatory Information System reports are within the exclusive control of the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and are, therefore, "agency records" within the meaning of this section and are subject to the presumption of disclosure. Belth v. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 115 WLR 2281 (Super. Ct.). CITED in Washington Post Co. v. Barry, 115 WLR 2249 (Super. Ct.); Newspapers, Inc. v. Metropolitan Police Dep't, App. D.C., 546 A.2d 990 (1988); Hines v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, App. D.C., 567 A.2d 909 (1989). D.C. Code @ 1-1522 (1993) PART I. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT TITLE 1. ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 15. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SUBCHAPTER II. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION D.C. Code @ 1-1523 (1993) @ 1-1523. Letters of denial (a) Denial by the Mayor or an agency of a request for any public record shall contain at least the following: (1) The specific reasons for the denial, including citations to the particular exemption(s) under @ 1-1524 relied on as authority for the denial; (2) The name(s) of the public official(s) or employee(s) responsible for the decision to deny the request; and (3) Notification to the requester of any administrative or judicial right to appeal under @ 1-1527. (b) The Mayor and each agency of the District of Columbia shall maintain a file of all letters of denial of requests for public records. This file shall be made available to any person on request for purposes of inspection and/or copying. HISTORY: Oct. 21, 1968, Pub. L. 90-614, title II, @ 203; 1973 Ed., @ 1-1523; Mar. 29, 1977, D.C. Law 1-96, @ 2, 23 DCR 9532b. NOTES: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-96. --See note to @ 1-1521. PART I. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT TITLE 1. ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 15. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SUBCHAPTER II. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION D.C. Code @ 1-1524 (1993) @ 1-1524. Exemptions from disclosure (a) The following matters may be exempt from disclosure under the provisions of this subchapter: (1) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from outside the government, to the extent that disclosure would result in substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained; (2) Information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (3) Investigatory records compiled for law-enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records would: (A) Interfere with enforcement proceedings; (B) Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication; (C) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (D) Disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a law-enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source; (E) Disclose investigative techniques and procedures not generally known outside the government; (F) Endanger the life or physical safety of law-enforcement personnel; (4) Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; (5) Test questions and answers to be used in future license, employment, or academic examinations, but not previously administered examinations or answers to questions thereon; (6) Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than this section), provided that such statute: (A) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or (B) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; (7) Information specifically authorized by federal law under criteria established by a presidential executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy which is in fact properly classified pursuant to such executive order; (8) Information exempted from disclosure by @ 28-4505; and (9) Information disclosed pursuant to @ 4-317. (b) Any reasonably segregable portion of a public record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of those portions which may be withheld from disclosure under subsection (a) of this section. (c) This section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated in this section. This section is not authority to withhold information from the Council of the District of Columbia. This section shall not operate to permit nondisclosure of information of which disclosure is authorized or mandated by other law. (d) The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to the Vital Records Act of 1981. HISTORY: Oct. 21, 1968, Pub. L. 90-614, title II, @ 204; 1973 Ed., @ 1-1524; Mar. 29, 1977, D.C. Law 1-96, @ 2, 23 DCR 9532b; Mar. 5, 1981, D.C. Law 3-169, @ 3(c), 27 DCR 5368; Oct. 8, 1981, D.C. Law 4-34, @ 29(i), 28 DCR 3271; June 19, 1982, D.C. Law 4-119, @ 2(f), 29 DCR 1952. NOTES: SECTION REFERENCES. --This section is referred to in @@ 1-1522, 1-1523, 1-1527, 1-1528, 6-737, and 6-959. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-96. --See note to @ 1-1521. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 3-169. --Law 3-169 was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 3-107, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on October 28, 1980 and November 12, 1980, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on November 25, 1980, it was assigned Act No. 3-300 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 4-34. --Law 4-34 was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 4-161, which was referred to the Committee on Human Services. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on June 16, 1981, and June 30, 1981, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on July 20, 1981, it was assigned Act No. 4-58 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 4-119. --Law 4-119 was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 4-135, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on March 23, 1982, and April 6, 1982, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on May 4, 1982, it was assigned Act No. 4-182 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. REFERENCES IN TEXT. --The "Vital Records Act of 1981", referred to in subsection (d), is D.C. Law 4-34. CONSTRUCTION. --Just as the provisions of the act giving citizens the right of access are to be generously construed, so the nine statutory exemptions must be approached with a jaundiced eye. Indeed, these exemptions are to be narrowly construed, with ambiguities resolved in favor of disclosure. Washington Post Co. v. Minority Bus. Opportunity Comm'n, App. D.C., 560 A.2d 517 (1989). POLICY FAVORS DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION. --The general policy underlying the District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act favors disclosure of information about governmental affairs and the acts of public officials, including a narrow reading of exemptions from disclosure. Dunhill v. Director, D.C. Dep't of Transp., App. D.C., 416 A.2d 244 (1980); Newspapers, Inc. v. Metropolitan Police Dep't, App. D.C., 546 A.2d 990 (1988). SUBSECTION (A)(1) DIFFERS FROM THE CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN THE FEDERAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, which exempts "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential." Washington Post Co. v. Minority Bus. Opportunity Comm'n, App. D.C., 560 A.2d 517 (1989). SUBSECTION (A)(2) DOES NOT PREVENT DISCLOSURE WHERE SUBSECTION (C) APPLIES. -- Although it is true that paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section expressly exempts from disclosure certain "[i]nformation of a personal nature," this exemption, as well as the others in subsection (a), may not be invoked to prevent disclosure when subsection (c) of this section applies. Dunhill v. Director, D.C. Dep't of Transp., App. D.C., 416 A.2d 244 (1980). Where the information sought is available without limitation under a District of Columbia regulation, disclosure is "authorized or mandated by other law" under subsection (c) of this section, and the Department of Transportation cannot deny disclosure based on paragraph (2) of subsection (a). Dunhill v. Director, D.C. Dep't of Transp., App. D.C., 416 A.2d 244 (1980). ORDINANCE NOT A STATUTE UNDER SUBSECTION (A)(6). --The Duncan Ordinance, which provides that unexpurgated adult arrest records can only be obtained by law enforcement agents for legitimate law enforcement purposes, is not a statute within the meaning of subsection (a)(6) of this section; thus, although the Duncan Ordinance continues to have the full force and effect of law, it is not a statute authorizing the Metropolitan Police Department to withhold the disclosure of arrest records otherwise available under the FOIA. Newspapers, Inc. v. Metropolitan Police Dep't, App. D.C., 546 A.2d 990 (1988). VOLUNTARY, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION can suffer no competitive injury or economic harm and therefore may not claim protection from disclosure under subsection (a)(1). Belth v. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 115 WLR 2281 (Super. Ct.). APPLICATION OF SUBSECTION (A)(3). --Subsection (a)(3) is designed to protect a governmental interest and applies only to documents which have been compiled for investigation of specific, suspected violations of law, and not to documents generated in the routine administration, surveillance or oversight of governmental programs. Belth v. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 115 WLR 2281 (Super. Ct.). MAYOR'S SECURITY EXPENSES. --Documents relating to expenses for the Mayor's security were not exempt from disclosure as investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes. Barry v. Washington Post Co., App. D.C., 529 A.2d 319 (1987). INTER-AGENCY OR INTRA-AGENCY MEMORANDUMS. --Independently initiated, prepared and funded reports of a private organization which are not generated, initiated, solicited, contracted for, paid for, or supervised by a government agency or whose ultimate contents are not controlled by such agency, but which are used by such agency as the basis for important public policy decisions are not "inter-agency" or "intra-agency" memorandums immunized from disclosure under subsection (a)(4). Belth v. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 115 WLR 2281 (Super. Ct.). MAYOR'S CEREMONIAL FUNDS. --Documents relating to the discretionary and ceremonial funds for the Mayor were not exempt under subsection (a)(6) of this section since the statutes authorizing the discretionary and ceremonial funds, @@ 1-355 and 1-356, do not specifically exempt anything from disclosure. Barry v. Washington Post Co., App. D.C., 529 A.2d 319 (1987). BURDEN OF PROOF. --One who seeks to invoke one of these exemptions must prove that it applies; the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. Washington Post Co. v. Minority Bus. Opportunity Comm'n, App. D.C., 560 A.2d 517 (1989). TRADE SECRETS, ETC. --The party seeking to invoke the paragraph (a)(1) exemption must show that: (1) the party from whom the information was obtained faces actual competition, and (2) disclosure will cause substantial competitive injury. Washington Post Co. v. Minority Bus. Opportunity Comm'n, App. D.C., 560 A.2d 517 (1989). INMATE RECORDS. --Pre-sentence reports, mental health assessments, academic records, and records concerning inmates' institutional adjustment and progress are exempt from disclosure under this section. Hines v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, App. D.C., 567 A.2d 909 (1989). Public disclosure of psychological reports forwarded to the Board of Parole by the Department of Corrections is prohibited under the District of Columbia Mental Health Information Act, @ 6-2001 et seq. Hines v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, App. D.C., 567 A.2d 909 (1989). PRODUCTION OF NON-EXEMPT MATERIALS. --In the sensitive area of national security information, an agency must produce any reasonably segregable non-exempt parts of classified documents. Washington Post Co. v. Minority Bus. Opportunity Comm'n, App. D.C., 560 A.2d 517 (1989). REQUIREMENTS ON APPELLATE REVIEW. --Appellate courts are ill-equipped to conduct their own investigation into the validity of specific claims of exemption, and the trial judge should therefore articulate the precise relationship between each such claim and the contents of specific documents held to be exempt. Washington Post Co. v. Minority Bus. Opportunity Comm'n, App. D.C., 560 A.2d 517 (1989). CITED in Washington Post Co. v. Barry, 115 WLR 2249 (Super. Ct.); Marrow v. United States, App. D.C., 592 A.2d 1042 (1991). PART I. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT TITLE 1. ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 15. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SUBCHAPTER II. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION D.C. Code @ 1-1525 (1993) @ 1-1525. Recording of final votes Each agency having more than 1 member shall maintain and make available for public inspection a record of the final votes of each member in each proceeding of that agency. D.C. Code @ 1-1525 (1993) HISTORY: Oct. 21, 1968, Pub. L. 90-614, title II, @ 205; 1973 Ed., @ 1-1525; Mar. 29, 1977, D.C. Law 1-96, @ 2, 23 DCR 9532b. NOTES: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-96. --See note to @ 1-1521. PART I. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT TITLE 1. ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 15. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SUBCHAPTER II. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION D.C. Code @ 1-1526 (1993) STATUS: CONSULT SLIP LAWS CITED BELOW FOR RECENT CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT <=1> LEXSEE 1993 D.C. ALS 241 -- See section 9. @ 1-1526. Information required to be made public D.C. Code @ 1-1526 (1993) Without limiting the meaning of other sections of this subchapter, the following categories of information are specifically made public information: (1) The names, salaries, title, and dates of employment of all employees and officers of the Mayor and an agency; (2) Administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public; (3) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases; (4) Those statements of policy and interpretations of policy, acts, and rules which have been adopted by the Mayor or an agency; (5) Correspondence and materials referred to therein, by and with the Mayor or an agency, relating to any regulatory, supervisory, or enforcement responsibilities of the agency, whereby the agency determines, or states an opinion upon, or is asked to determine or state an opinion upon, the rights of the District, the public, or any private party; (6) Information in or taken from any account, voucher, or contract dealing with the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds by public bodies; (7) The minutes of all proceedings of all agencies; and (8) All names and mailing addresses of absentee real property owners and their agents. "Absentee real property owners" means owners of real property located in the District that do not reside at the real property. HISTORY: Oct. 21, 1968, Pub. L. 90-614, title II, @ 206; 1973 Ed., @ 1-1526; Mar. 29, 1977, D.C. Law 1-96, @ 2, 23 DCR 9532b; Mar. 17, 1993, D.C. Law 9-241, @ 9, 40 DCR 629. NOTES: EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. --D.C. Law 9-241 added (8). EMERGENCY ACT AMENDMENTS. --For temporary amendment of section, see @ 3 of the Real Property Tax Sale and Public InformationEmergency Amendment Act of 1992 (D.C. Act 9-331, December 18, 1992, 40 DCR 5). LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-96. --See note to @ 1-1521. D.C. Code @ 1-1526 (1993) LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 9-241. --Law 9-241 was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 9-199, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on December 1, 1992, and December 15, 1992, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on January 5, 1993, it was assigned Act No. 9-375 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 9-241 became effective on March 17, 1993. D.C. Code @ 1-1527 (1993) @ 1-1527. Administrative appeals (a) Any person denied the right to inspect a public record of a public body may petition the Mayor to review the public record to determine whether it may be withheld from public inspection. Such determination shall be made in writing with a statement of reasons therefor in writing within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of the submission of the petition. (1) If the Mayor denies the petition or does not make a determination within the time limits provided in this subsection, or if a person is deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies pursuant to subsection (e) of @ 1-1522, the person seeking disclosure may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. (2) If the Mayor decides that the public record may not be withheld, he shall order the public body to disclose the record immediately. If the public body continues to withhold the record, the person seeking disclosure may bring suit in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the public body from withholding the record and to compel the production of the requested record. (b) In any suit filed under subsection (a) of this section, the Superior Court for the District of Columbia may enjoin the public body from withholding records and order the production of any records improperly withheld from the person seeking disclosure. The burden is on the Mayor or the agency to sustain its action. In such cases the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of such records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in @ 1-1524. (c) If a person seeking the right to inspect or to receive a copy of a public record prevails in whole or in part in such suit, he or she may be awarded reasonable attorney fees and other costs of litigation. HISTORY: Oct. 21, 1968, Pub. L. 90-614, title II, @ 207; 1973 Ed., @ 1-1527; Mar. 29, 1977, D.C. Law 1-96, @ 2, 23 DCR 9532b. NOTES: SECTION REFERENCES. --This section is referred to in @@ 1-1522, 1-1523, and 1-1528. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-96. --See note to @ 1-1521. REDELEGATION OF AUTHORITY UNDER D.C. LAW 1-96, THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1976; RESCISSION OF MAYOR'S ORDER 87-6. --See Mayor's Order 89-188, August 30, 1989. CITED in Dunhill v. Director, D.C. Dep't of Transp., App. D.C., 416 A.2d 244 (1980); Hines v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, App. D.C., 567 A.2d 909 (1989). D.C. Code @ 1-1527 (1993) D.C. Code @ 1-1528 (1993) @ 1-1528. Oversight of disclosure activities On or before the 30th day of June of each calendar year, the Mayor shall compile and submit to the Council of the District of Columbia a report covering the public-record-disclosure activities of each agency and of the executive branch as a whole during the preceding calendar year. The report shall include: (1) The number of determinations made by each agency not to comply with requests for records made to such agency under this subchapter and the reasons for each such determination; (2) The number of appeals made by persons under @ 1-1527(a), the result of such appeals, and the reason for the action upon each appeal that results in a denial of information; (3) The names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial of records requested under this subchapter, and the number of instances of participation for each such person; (4) A copy of the fee schedule and the total amount of fees collected by each agency for making records available under this subchapter; (5) Such other information as indicates efforts to administer fully this subchapter; and (6) For the prior calendar year, a listing of the total number of cases arising under this subchapter, the total number of cases in which a request was denied in whole or in part, the total number of times in which each exemption provided under @ 1-1524 was cited as a reason for denial of a request, and the total amount of fees collected under @ 1-1522(b). Such report shall also include a description of the efforts undertaken by the Mayor to encourage agency compliance with this subchapter. HISTORY: Oct. 21, 1968, Pub. L. 90-614, title II, @ 208; 1973 Ed., @ 1-1528; Mar. 29, 1977, D.C. Law 1-96, @ 2, 23 DCR 9532b. NOTES: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-96. --See note to @ 1-1521. D.C. Code @ 1-1529 (1993) @ 1-1529. Definitions For purposes of this subchapter, the terms "Mayor," "Council," "District," "agency," "rule," "rulemaking," "person," "party," "order," "relief," "proceeding," "public record," and "adjudication" shall have the meaning as provided in @ 1-1502. D.C. Code @ 1-1529 (1993) HISTORY: Oct. 21, 1968, Pub. L. 90-614, title II, @ 209; 1973 Ed., @ 1-1529; Mar. 29, 1977, D.C. Law 1-96, @ 2, 23 DCR 9532b. NOTES: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-96. --See note to @ 1-1521. D.C. Code @ 1-1531 (1993) @ 1-1531. Definitions For purposes of this subchapter: (1) The terms "Mayor," "Council," "District," "agency," "rule," "rulemaking," "person,"