Current Shareware 1994 January/SHAR194.ISO/textfile/foiast11.zip/DC2.TXT

Text File | 1993-11-01 | 27KB | 617 lines

COURTESY OF FATHERNET BBS [phone] 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,"