Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

evidence was adduced which tended to show other convictions. The Court held that the Board had no authority to consider the pharmacist's application at all because the statute 61 required that "in the month of November. ." a licensed pharmacist must present his application for renewal and the Board must act upon it ". . . in the month of November." In the instant case, the Board did nothing upon it until the following month

[ocr errors]

-December. The Court of Appeals expressed the view that the Board should have at least made an adequate notation in the record in order to take and preserve its jurisdiction. The Court implied that that notation should have been made in November 1947. The Court noted a number of irregularities in complying with the statute upon the part of the Board of Pharmacy and expressed the doubt that the Board fully understood its duties. The Court characterized the governing statutes as "... inaptly worded and confused by ambiguity and inconsistency. . ." and opined that they ". . . should be replaced by an entirely new Code," a view evidently shared by an increasing number

>> 62

of people.

A perusal of the statutes indicates several places where they are conspicuously vague or incomplete. A case arose on one such point. In Kaiser v. Real Estate Commission of the District of Columbia,63 the Municipal Court of Appeals was asked to decide, inter alia, if two out of three members of the Real Estate Commission could act in the name of the Commission pursuant to the statute, the statute being silent as to the constitution of a quorum. The Court held that in the absence of a specific requirement for a full board, a majority would suffice.

Although this report does not analyze all of them, the cases on record are too few to indicate a trend in judicial review. However, comparing the prevailing attitude of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding administrative review, it appears certain that to the extent pertinent issues are appropriately raised, the Court increasingly will require the various occupational and professional boards to hold

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

hearings, to make precise findings of fact and to base their decisions clearly upon evidence of record. If the proposed Administrative Code for the District of Columbia or some similar code were enacted, several statutory peculiarities could be eliminated and a general harmony among procedures in OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS could be substituted for the extreme divergence which now prevails.

IX. AUTHOR'S EDITORIAL COMMENT "To grasp this Sorry Scheme of Things entire, Would not we shatter it to bits—and then

Remould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!" "$

It is not the primary purpose of this writing to editorialize but to report. One conclusion, however, seems inescapable: the various boards, committees and commissions of OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS must inevitably publish systematic and coordinated rules which fulfill the established requirements of the law of administrative procedure. Whether the simpler and more coordinated procedure of LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS and its Board of Appeals and Review requires change would seem to be a totally different question, the answer to which must take into account not only the Department's volume but also the type of licenses it issues.

"Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

Mr. WATT. That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. If you have questions regarding S. 1363, or our more recent proposal, we will try to answer them for you.

Senator STEVENSON. I have not had a chance to study the new proposal, since it has only just now been advocated.

Do I understand now, Mr. Watt, you support the new proposal as opposed to S. 1363?

Mr. WATT. I am suggesting, sir, that we are laying before the committee an option, either of which would be quite acceptable to the District of Columbia government.

In terms of the concept, however, of increasing home rule for the District, I think the new proposal fits much more comfortably, because by the enactment of that proposal, the Congress would be saying to the City Council, these are matters of local interest, these are matters which a local legislature in another jurisdiction would concern itself with, and these are matters which we are prepared to transfer to the local municipality, rather than retaining them in some way in the hands of the Congress.

Senator STEVENSON. It would be very unusual for a legislature to convey to a municipality all of the licensing powers without at least some residual authority in the Congress. Would there be any such authority here?

Mr. WATT. Under the new proposal, there would not be except for the recapture of the delegated authority.

Bear in mind, however, that in a number of the areas of regulation, which are the subject of these 21 acts, the government of the District of Columbia is functioning as a State government rather than a local municipality.

We are inclined to refer to ourselves as a local government, or municipal government, but we do of course perform all of the functions of a State government, and in most States, perhaps all States, the regulation of professions and many of the occupations and callings are State-regulated functions.

I believe it would be appropriate for the Congress to look upon the District of Columbia Council as a legislative body. I hesitate to use the term because I think it has been misused of the city-State of the District of Columbia.

Senator STEVENSON. That is the point I was going to make.

Sometimes it suits your convenience, and very appropriately, to refer to yourselves as a municipality. In fact, I think you did in this testimony.

Are these licensing laws primarily for regulatory or for revenueproducing purposes?

Mr. WATT. They are primarily regulatory. For the most part, the establishment of fees has been related, or we have sought to relate them to the cost of the administration of the regulation. As a matter of fact, the next bill before the committee speaks directly to the matter of fees for a variety of acts and services provided by the District government, here the fee setting authority has been retained by the Congress.

The regulation of licenses, professions, occupations, and callings is to establish and maintain a desired standard of quality for the service being provided.

It is to provide a means whereby those who are unwilling or unable to maintain that standard of service believed to be necessary in the public interest, can be forbidden from practice, and a means of providing an adequate level of service.

It is a way of maintaining the necessary records, and accounts on those who are practicing occupations and professions in the District, and, of course, provides the revenue necessary to pay the cost of the administration.

Senator STEVENSON. S. 1363 contains no limitation on the power of the District to license for revenue-raising purposes-is that correct? Mr. WATT. My recollection, sir, is that it does not.

Senator STEVENSON. And clearly the new proposal would not? Mr. WATT. It would not-that is correct. S. 1363 would grant to the Council the opportunity to set, either increase or decrease the fees connected with the issuance of licenses. I believe there is a provision which requires the Council to take notice of the cost of administration in so doing.

Senator STEVENSON. I do not think there is much controversy over this bill.

At least, if there is any opposition to it, I am not aware of it.
Let us proceed, Mr. Watt, to the next bill.

Mr. WATT. All right, sir.

S. 1338

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, S. 1338, the next bill, would authorize the District of Columbia Council to establish fees now charged for municipal functions performed pursuant to certain acts of Congress. This bill is identical to legislation submitted to the Congress by the Commissioner on January 26, 1971. I ask that a copy of that transmittal be included in the record.

Senator STEVENSON. Without objection, it will be so included. (The documents follow :)

The PRESIDENT,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C., January 26, 1971.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Commissioner of the District of Columbia has the honor to submit herewith a draft bill "To authorize the Government of the District of Columbia to fix certain fees."

The purpose of this proposed legislation was stated by the President in his April 28, 1969, message to the Congress recommending legislation for the District of Columbia, as follows:

"The Reorganization Plan which established the present [District of Columbia] government left to Congress many mundane municipal functions which are burdensome chores to it but important functions for good local government. At present, Congress must allot a portion of its legislative calendar to setting ordinances for the District of Columbia, in effect performing the duties of a local City Council for the Capital. It thus deals with matters which are of little or no importance to the nation as a whole-the setting of a fee, for example, to redeem a dog from the city pound. The concerns of the District are frequently shunted aside to allow for higher-priority legislative business. 'No policy can be worse than to mingle great and small concerns,' argued Augustus Woodward, one of the founders of our city, when Congress considered establishing a territorial form of government in 1800. The latter become absorbed in the former; are neglected and forgotten.'

"Legislation will be proposed to transfer a number of specific authorities to the District Government-including authority to change various fees for user charges now fixed by statute... and modernize the licensing of various businesses, occupations and professions." (Emphasis and bracketed language supplied.)

The Commissioner of the District of Columbia accordingly proposes that the Congress enact legislation to authorize the District of Columbia Council to change, from time to time, a number of fees specified by the Congress in twentyone separate statutes. The fees provided by the statutes presently range from ten cents for certain notary services to $500 for licenses for pawnbrokers, private banks, and the stock exchange. The Commissioner believes that these fees, which are listed and described in the attached chart, should be examined from time to time and, if appropriate, increased or decreased to such amounts as the Council determines after public hearing to be reasonable in consideration of the interests of the public and the persons required to pay the fee, and in consideration of the approximate costs of administering each of the District's statutory duties related to the activity for which the fee is charged.

The Commissioner believes that legislation of this nature is highly desirable, both from the standpoint of relieving the Congress of these mundane municipal fee-fixing functions and from the standpoint of vesting in the municipal government and people of the District of Columbia more responsibility in local matters. Accordingly, the Commissioner recommends the enactment of the attached draft bill. The District of Columbia Council has expressed its support for this legislation.

Sincerely yours,

GRAHAM W. WATT,

Assistant to the Commissioner. For WALTER E. WASHINGTON, Commissioner.

Attachments.

FEES SPECIFIED IN ACTS OF CONGRESS RELATING TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[blocks in formation]

10. 35-402

$25.

$1.

$5.

$10 per year.

$1 to $20.
$1 to $10.

$5 to $50.

$3.

4. 29-414.

5. 29-807

Filing of certificate of incorporation of institution of learning.
Filing of amendment of articles by cooperative association...

6. 29-840.

7. 29-844.

8. 29-936.

9. 29-1092

Filing of certified copy of amended articles by cooperative association....
License of cooperative association..

Fees for licenses, filing documents, etc., by business coprorations.
Fees for filing documents and issuing certificates by nonprofit corporations.
Various fees for life insurance companies.

Service of process on Superintendent of Insurance.

Permit to do business in the District of Columbia from Superintendent of $5.
Insurance.

11. 35-905

12. 35-906.

13. 35-1113

Marine insurance company fees.

14. 35-1345.

Various fire, casualty, and marine insurance fees.

15. 35-1363.

License fee for financing insurance premiums.

16. 40-423.

Service of process on District Government for nonresident motorist.
Certificate of taxes and assessments due..

17. 47-306.

18. 47-1521.

19. 47-1564c.

20. 47-1706.

21. 47-1707.

22. 47-1708

23. 47-1801.

24. 47-1804.

25. 47-1903.

26. 47-2001.

27. 47-2002.

28. 47-2003.

29. 47-2101.

30. 47-2202.

31. 47-2615.

32. 47-3002.

33. 48-401.

Copy of income tax return furnished to taxpayer for a year prior to 1947.
Copy of income tax return furnished to taxpayer for 1947 and any year
thereafter.

Unincorporated private banks.

For business done on Washington stock exchange.
For note brokers.

Certificate of authority for insurance companies.
Filing of annual statement by insurance companies.
License fee for motor vehicle fuel importers..

For each dog owned or kept in the District of Columbia.
Certified copy of record of payment of dog fee.
Impoundment fee for stray dogs...

License fee for employment agencies..
Public auction permit..

Copy of sales tax return furnished to taxpayer.
License for closing out sale.

Registration of union label..

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »