GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of the

Transcription

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of the Attorney General --
***
February 7, 2013
The Honorable Tommy Wells
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 402
Washington, D.C. 20004
RE: OAG Responses for FY 2012 Performance Oversight Hearing - February 27, 2013
Dear Chairman Wells:
I am advised that on February 27, 2013, the Committee on the Judiciary and Public
Safety will hold a performance oversight hearing on the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).
In preparation for that hearing and in answer to questions that your office previously provided,
we submit the following responses. Both a hard copy and electronic version of the responses are
being provided to your office. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you and the Committee
on OAG-related matters. Should you have questions or concerns, please contact me or Victor
Bonett, Legislative Affairs Officer, at (202) 724-5562.
441 Fourth Street, NW, Suite 1100S, Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 727-3400, Fax (202) 741-0580
1. February 7,2013
Page 2 of32
Please provide, as an attachment to your answers, a current organizational chart for the
agency with the number of vacant, frozen, and filled FTEs marked on each box. Include
the names of all senior personnel, if applicable. Also include the effective date on the
chart.
ANSWER: Please see the attached organizational chart, designated as Attachment #1 for
identification purposes.
2. Please provide, as an attachment, a Schedule A for the agency, which identifies all
employees by title/position, current salaries, fringe benefits, and program office, as of
January 23,2013. This Schedule A should also indicate any vacant or frozen positions in
the agency. Please do not include social security numbers.
ANSWER: Please see the attached Schedule A, as of January 31, 2013, designated as
Attachment #2 for identification purposes.
3. (a) For fiscal year 2012, please list each employee whose salary was $110,000 or more.
Provide the name, position title, and salary. Also, state the amount of any overtime and
also any bonus pay for each employee on the list.
ANSWER: Please see the attached document, designated as Attachment #3(a) for
identification purposes. No employee earning $110,000 or more received overtime or
bonus pay.
(b) For fiscal year 2013, please list each employee whose salary was $110,000 or more.
Provide the name, position title, and salary. Also, state the amount of any overtime and
also any bonus pay for each employee on the list.
ANSWER: Please see the attached document, designated as Attachment #3(b) for
identification purposes. No employee earning $110,000 or more received overtime or
bonus pay.
4. Please list in descending order the top 25 overtime earners in your agency in fiscal year
2012. For each, state the employees name, position or title, salary, and aggregate
overtime pay.
ANSWER: In FY 2012, five OAG employees received overtime pay as a result of either
employee time entry error or Peoplesoft error for a total of $1,699,97. The Office of Pay
and Retirement Services opted not to recoup the three payments caused by Peoplesoft
error. The remaining two payments, totaling $433.15, are still being examined.
5. February 7,2013
Page 3 of32
For fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 20 13 (to date), please provide a list of employee bonuses
or special award pay granted that identifies the employee receiving the bonus or special
pay, the amount received, and the reason for the bonus or special pay.
ANSWER:
Fiscal Year 2011 Payment
Name
Sherry Glazer
Amount
$2,286.00
Reason
Performance bonus due from FY 2009
pursuant to collective bargaining agreement
Fiscal Year 2012 Payments
Name
John Grimaldi
Amount
$500.00
Reason
FY 10 Charles Reischel Writing Award
funded with donated private dollars
Mary Wilson
$500.00
FY 11 Charles Reischel Writing Award
funded with donated private dollars
Fiscal Year 2013 Payments
None
6. For fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (to date), please list all intra-District transfers to or from
the agency.
ANSWER: Please see the attached document, designated as Attachment #4 for
7. For fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (to date), please identify any special purpose revenue
funds maintained by, used by, or available for use by your agency. For each fund
identified, provide: (1) the revenue source name and code; (2) the source of funding; (3) a
description of the program that generates the funds; (4) the amount of funds generated by
each source or program; and (5) expenditures of funds, including the purpose of each
expenditure.
ANSWER: Provided below is the list of Special Purpose Revenue funds that are under
the authority of OAG. The description of the fund and the balances as of the dates
specified above are also provided:
February 7, 2013
Page 4 of32
FY 2012
Revenue Source Name and Code: TANF - 0603
Source of Funding: Child support collections on behalf of families in the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (T ANF) program. Pursuant to Section 457 of the Social
Security Act, the District transfers 50 percent of its collections to the federal government
and keeps the remaining 50 percent for the child support program.
Description of Program Generating the Fund: Child support collections on behalf of
families in the TANF program.
Amount of Funds Generated: $2,879,791.00
Expenditures: $795,145.57
Purpose of Expenditures: Non-personal services support (supplies, copier lease) on
behalf of child support enforcement.
Revenue Source Name and Code: Title IV-D Reimbursement & Fees - 0604
Source of Funding: Application Fee pursuant to Title IV-D ofthe Social Security Act
Under the act, the office is required to charge an application fee to parents who are not
receiving TANF benefits.
Description of Program Generating the Fund: Child support application fee
Amount of Funds Generated: $58,664.80
Expenditures: 0
Revenue Source Name and Code: Child Support Interest Income - 0605
Source of Funding: Interest on the District's child support bank account. The child
support enforcement division collects child support payments from non-custodial parents
and holds them in a bank account for distribution to custodial parents, which must take
place within 48 hours of receiving the payment. The money in the account bears interest
during the time between collection and distribution.
Description of Program Generating the Fund: Interest income on child support bank
account
Amount of Funds Generated: $1,526.30
Expenditures: 0
FY 2013
Revenue Source Name and Code: TANF - 0603
Source of Funding: Child support collections on behalf of families in the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. Pursuant to Section 457 of the Social
Security Act, the District transfers 50 percent of its collections to the federal government
and keeps the remaining 50 percent for the child support program.
Description of Program Generating the Fund: Child support collections on behalf of
families in the TANF program.
Amount of Funds Generated as of 1/23/13: $445,389.18
Expenditures as of 1/23/13: $142,426.30
February 7,2013
Page 5 of32
Purpose of Expenditures: Personal and non-personal services support (supplies, copier
lease) on behalf of child support enforcement.
Revenue Source Name and Code: Title IV-D Reimbursement & Fees - 0604
Source of Funding: Application Fee pursuant to Title IV-D ofthe Social Security Act
Under the act, the office is required to charge an application fee to parents who are not
receiving TANF benefits.
Description of Program Generating the Fund: Child support application fee
Amount of Funds Generated as of 1123113: $8,327.43
Expenditures as of 1123/13: 0
Revenue Source Name and Code: Child Support Interest Income - 0605
Source of Funding: Interest on the District's child support bank account. The child
support enforcement division collects child support payments from non-custodial parents
and holds them in a bank account for distribution to custodial parents, which must take
place within 48 hours of receiving the payment. The money in the account bears interest
during the time between collection and distribution.
Description of Program Generating the Fund: Interest income on child support bank
account
Amount of Funds Generated as of 1123/13: $7.41
Expenditures as of 1/23/13: 0
8. Please list all memoranda of understanding (MOU) entered into by your agency during
fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 (to date). For each, indicate the date entered, and the
termination date.
9. Please provide, as an attachment, a list of all budget enhancement requests (including, but
not limited to capital improvement needs), for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 (to date). For
each, include a description of the need and the amount of funding requested.
ANSWER: Please see the attached documents, designated as Attachment #6 and
Attachment #7 for identification purposes.
10. Please list in chronological order every reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year
2013 (to date) of funds into and out of the agency. Include a "bottom line" - the revised,
final budget for your agency. For each reprogramming, list the date, the amount, the
rationale, and the reprogramming number.
ANSWER: There were five reprogramming requests submitted in FY 2012. The budget
at the fiscal year close was $56,530,722 an overall reduction of $130,000 to the original
February 7,2013
Page 6 of32
budget of $56,660,722. To date, there has been no reprogramming for FY 2013. Listed
below are the reprogrammings for FY 2012.
Reprogramming Date - 12/6/2011
Reprogramming Amount - $100,000
Reprogramming Number - 2012-01
Funds were reprogrammed from the Settlements and Judgments Fund to support the
Charles F.C. Ruff Law Fellows Program. OAG hired recent District of Columbia law
school graduates from the University of the District of Columbia, George Washington,
and Georgetown as Ruff Fellows to provide legal services. The costs will be subsidized
by sponsoring, local law schools that will pay half of the law fellows' salaries. The
reprogramming resulted in an increase of $100,000 to the local budget.
Reprogramming Date -04/30/12 Reprogramming Amount - $370,000 Reprogramming Number - 2012-02 Funds were reprogrammed from the Debt Service Repayment of Loans and Interest
account to the OAG to support the agency's increased litigation costs, and expanded the
Charles F.C. Ruff Law Fellows Program by one additional fellow. The reprogramming
resulted in an increase of $370,000 to the local budget.
Reprogramming Date -07/30/12
Funds were reprogrammed within the Child Support program from non-personal to
personal services to support the District of Columbia match requirement for seven new
approved positions.
Reprogramming Date -09/11112
Funds were reprogrammed within the agency from the Civil Litigation Division to the
Agency Management division. The funds were requested to renovate OAG's space
located at One Judiciary Square. The renovation included acquisition and replacement of
furniture and computer equipment within the conference and training rooms.
Reprogramming Date -10/09/12
February 7, 2013
Page 7 of32
Funds were reprogrammed from OAG by the Mayor's Office of Budget and Finance to
agencies with spending pressures. The reprogramming resulted in a decrease to the local
budget.
11. (a) Please list each grant or sub-grant received by your agency in fiscal year 2012 and
FY 2013 (to date). List the date, amount, and purpose of the grant or sub-grant received.
(b) How many FTEs are dependent on grant funding? What are the terms of this
funding? If it is set to expire, what plans (if any) are in place to continue funding?
ANSWER to (a) and (b): Please see below.
GRANT TITLE: Child Support Enforcement (CSSD) The CSSD grant is funded by the Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. It is an ongoing reimbursable grant and renews each fiscal year. The grant supports approximately 140 FTEs. Grant Purpose: Child Support Establishment and Enforcement Grant Award Date
Amount (in dollars) FY 2012
10/0112011
0110112012
04/04/2012
3,541,460.00 3,484,680.00 3,704,180.00 FY2013
Not yet received GRANT TITLE: Access & Visitation
Grant Purpose: Support and facilitate child support non-custodial parents' access to and
visitation with their children. This grant funds non-personal costs.
FY 2012
Grant Award Date
Amount (in dollars)
1112212011
100,000.00
GRANT TITLE: Prince George's County Erasing Boarders Grant
The Erasing Borders grant was funded by the Maryland State Department of Human
Resources. The grant supported programs administered by CSSD. The agreement was
February 7, 2013
Page 8 of32
not extended for fiscal year 2013. The three FTEs the grant supported were transferred to
the CSSD grant for fiscal year 2013
FY 2012
12. Grant Award Date
Amount (in dollars)
06/1112012 144,000.00
Please provide a detailed description for each open capital project (including, but not
limited to projects within the master equipment lease and projects that are managed or
overseen by another agency or entity), from fiscal year 2013, or prior. Also include the
budgeted funds and the funds spent by fiscal year. Please also provide the timeline for
each proj ect.
ANSWER:
Office Space Renovations
In January 2013, the Department of General Services (DGS) completed renovations to
OAG's One Judiciary Square 163,000 square feet of office space. The renovations began
in FY 2006 and concluded in FY 2013. The total renovations cost approximately $5
million. DGS has not provided OAG with the specific amount expended per fiscal year.
The renovations included constructing knee walls for over 200 workstations, replacing
and/or repairing ceilings, installing new voice/data outlets, constructing nursing stations,
repainting and installing new carpet throughout OAG's space. New reception areas, large
conference rooms, and a training center are the main features of the renovated space,
which has improved the workspace for our valued employees.
nCCSES Enhancement Project
In FY 2003, the Council approved approximately $6 million in capital budget dollars to
fund a feasibility study (Project Phase I) and ultimately, the design and development of a
replacement system for the antiquated DC Child Support Enforcement System
(DCCSES) (Project Phase II). In July 2005, OAG and OCTO executed an MOU to begin
the DCCSES Replacement Project, with OCTO managing the project. The Triage Group
was selected in FY 2008 to perform the feasibility study. The study was completed in
December 2008 and submitted to the federal government for approval.
Based on the results of the feasibility study, Phase II of the project had to be modified.
The feasibility study estimated the cost for the design and installation of a replacement
system to be $84.3 million dollars. The reality is that the proposed system is well beyond
the ability of the government or the child support enforcement program to fund. As a
result of budgetary constraints, OAG and OCTO explored a different course of action for
Phase II. The feasibility study was put on hold and OAG requested to use the remaining
February 7, 2013
Page 9 of32
funds from the capital budget to design and develop a web-enabled and based system.
The Office of Contracts and Procurements awarded the contract in FY 2012.
CSSD completed its planning and requirements gathering sessions. The vendor is
actively working on the database conversion project that is expected to last 18 months
and cost approximately $1.4 million. The projected completion date of the database
conversion stage is the second quarter of FY 2014.
The final stage of Phase II will entail using a modular approach to design and develop
modules of the DCCSES system. There will be a module for each component of case
processing in child support enforcement including the following: Intake, Paternity
Establishment, Enforcement, Locate & Investigation, Finance/Fiscal Operations, Legal
Services/Court, Policy & Outreach, and Management Reports. Using a modular
approach allows the DCCSES Enhancement Project to continue despite current fiscal
challenges. The remaining capital budget money will be used to develop the modules for
DCCSES. Thereafter, when the initial capital budget money has been exhausted an
individual solicitation will be advertised for each module based on availability of funds.
This prevents a projected completion date for the DCCSES Enhancement Project from
being established but allows the enhancement project to continue.
13. Please list all capital projects completed in fiscal year 2012, including whether each
project was completed on time and within budget.
ANSWER: There were no capital projects completed in FY 2012 for OAG.
14. Please list all pending lawsuits that name the agency as a party. Please identifY which
cases on the list are lawsuits that potentially expose the city to significant liability in
terms of money and/or change in practices and their current status. We are not asking for
your judgment as to the city's liability; rather, we are asking about the extent of the
claim. For those identified, please include an explanation about the issues for each case.
identification purposes, listing all pending cases against OAG. Based on the review of
the supervising attorneys and division deputies for the cases listed, none of the cases
expose the District to significant liability in terms of money and/or change in practices.
15. Please list and describe any ongoing investigations, audits, or reports of your agency or
any employee of your agency, or any investigations, studies, audits, or reports on your
agency or any employee of your agency that were completed during fiscal years 2012 and
2013 (to date).
ANSWER: The Child Support Grant was audited in FY 2012 as part of the District-wide
single audit for grants in excess of $5,000,000. The federal child support office is
currently conducting a limited cost review of the CSSD grant. In addition, in FY 2012
February 7, 2013
Page 10 of32
and year to date in FY 2013, OAG has investigated a handful of personnel and EEO
complaints against employees, which are privacy-protected by law and confidential.
The Office of Contracts and Procurements conducted an audit of OAG's purchase card
program for December 2012. The audit is not yet final. The Office of the Inspector
General conducted a similar inquiry and although OAG has not received a final report,
the investigators conducting the investigation noted that the subject of the investigation
had such detailed policies, procedures and practices for handling purchase card
transactions that he should teach a class to all District Government cardholders.
16. Please list the following information in table format regarding the agency's use of
SmartPay (credit) cards for agency purchases: individuals (by name) authorized to use the
cards in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 to date; purchase limits (per person, per day, etc.);
total spent in fiscal years 2012, and 2013 to date (by person and for the agency).
ANSWER: Please see the below chart for FY 2012 and 2013 (as of January 22,2013).
Cardholder
Name
FY'12
Spending
Limit
FY'12 Total
Expenditures
FY'13
Spending
Limit
FY'13 Total
Expenditures
Allen, Joseph
Black, Paulette
Hungeiford, Joan
Malry, Frances
Mitchell, Rebecca
Moy, Grant
Nelson, Lawrence
Payne, Shirley
Yates
Peterson, Sandra
$30,000
$40,000
$15,000
$30,000
$15,000
$10,000
$112,000
$25,000
$26,126.90
$38,937.41
$10,943.18
$26,871.63
$13,465.23
$6,334.40
$110,901.76
$20,291.58
$20,250
$20,000
$10,000
$20,000
$10,000
$10,000
$100,000
$20,000
$5,776.87
$6,740.48
$7,571.36
$3,451.41
$0.00
$4,869.50
21306.75
$406.58
$50,000
$47,843.70
$35,000
$5,671.55
Robert..., Sherry
$50,000
Williams, Tia
Totalfor Roberts and
Williams:
$29,352.28
$17,284.40
$46,636.68
$46,445
$4,225.20
$7,310.81
$11,536.01
Williams, Daisy
$13,377.14
$5,000
$4,234.23
$3,500
OAG TOTAL - JP Morgan
Chase
$361,729.61
*
$71,564.74
Note: All limits per day/per transaction cannot exceed $2500
OCPlBank card imposed spending limit is $10,000 per month or $120,000 per year. The above
figures represent OAG-imposed annual limits to ensure
spending does not exceed budgeted funds.
• As of 1/22/2013
17. February 7, 2013
Page 11 of32
(a) What procedures are in place to track individuals or units assigned to possess mobile
communications and mobile devices (including, but not limited to smartphones, laptops,
and tablet computers)? Please include how the usage ofthese devices is controlled.
ANSWER: All telecommunication device usage is monitored on a monthly basis to track
usage and billing. Random audits are conducted on at least 15% of the devices monthly.
Unusual activity is noted and the employee is asked to justify that activity. If personal
usage is found, the employee is counseled on authorized usage and asked to reimburse
the District.
(b) How does your agency manage and limit its mobile communications and devices
costs?
ANSWER: Devices are issued to employees only when justification and approval are
provided by the Division Deputy. Zero and low activity on devices is also monitored.
When zero activity is identified, the device is suspended.
(c) For fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (to date), what was the total cost (including, but not
limited to equipment and service plans), for mobile communications and devices?
18. Please provide the total number of vehicle accidents involving your agency's vehicles for
fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (to date). What is your plan for reducing accidents?
ANSWER: Please see the below chart. In FY 2012, there were two minor accidents
caused by hit and run drivers that resulted in damage to the side mirrors of two vehicles.
A third incident was caused by wind damage to the satellite dish of the Child Support
Services Division Mobile Outreach Van. There have been no accidents reported in FY
2013.
Since there have been no accidents reported in FY 2013 and circumstances beyond
OAG's control caused three incidents in FY 2012, no remedial action is necessary at this
time.
Description
FY 2013 to Date
No accidents
reported in FY
2013.
Dateof
Incident
I
I
Vehicle
Type
Justification
OAGTitie
Description
February 7, 2013
Page 12 of32
Date of
Incident
FY2012
Driver found cables • 9/20/2012
snapped and satellite dish broken from base on Child Support Mobile Van. Investigator found
1117/2011
passenger side mirror damaged • when she prepared
i to leave for her first
assignment. Investigator found 1117/2011
vehicle with damaged driver side mirror at the beginning of his workday. Vehicle was parked at a meter on 4th and E Streets, NW.
19. Vehicle
Type
!
Justification
OAGTitle
Employee
responsible for
mail delivery Motor Vehicle Operator Honda
Civic
Employee
responsible for process service of
child support
orders. Investigator Honda
Civic
Employee
responsible for conducting civil and criminal investigations, process service. Investigator Winnebago
I
I
(a) D.C. Law prohibits chauffeurs, take-home vehicles, and the use of SUVs (see D.C.
Code §§ 50-203 and 50-204). Is your agency in compliance with this law? Please
explain any exceptions.
ANSWER: OAG is in compliance with the above-referenced law.
(b) If there are exceptions, please provide the following: (1) Type of vehicle (make,
model, year); (2) individuals (name/position) authorized to have the vehicle; (3)
jurisdictional residence of the individual (e.g., Bowie, MD); and (4) justification for the
chauffer or take-home status.
ANSWER:N/A
20. In table format, please provide the following information for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and
2013 (to date) regarding your agency's authorization of employee travel: (1) individuals
(by name and title/position) authorized to travel outside the District; (2) total expense for
each trip (per person, per trip, etc.); and (3) justification for the travel (per person).
February 7, 2013
Page 13 of32
ANSWER: Please see the attached table, designated as Attachment # 10 for identification
purposes, containing information for FY 2011, 2012, and 2013 (to date) regarding OAG's
authorization of employee travel.
2L Please provide, as of January 18, 2013, the current number of WAE contract, and term
personnel within your agency. If your agency employs WAE contract, or term personnel,
please provide, in table format, the name of each employee, position title, the length of
their term or contract, the date on which they first started with your agency, and the date
on which their term or contract expires.
22. Please provide your anticipated spending pressures for fiscal year 2013. Include a
description of the pressure, the estimated amount, and any proposed solutions.
ANSWER: OAG does not anticipate any spending pressures for FY 2013.
23. (a) Please provide, as an attachment, a copy of your agency's fiscal year 2012
performance plan. Please explain which performance plan objectives were completed and
whether or not they were completed on-time and within budget. If they were not, please
provide an explanation.
(b) Please provide, as an attachment, a copy of your agency's fiscal year 2013
performance plan as submitted to the Office of the City Administrator.
24. What are your top five priorities for the agency? Please provide a detailed explanation
for how the agency expects to achieve or work toward these priorities in fiscal years 2013
and 2014.
ANSWER:
The top five current priorities for OAG are as follows:
1. Provide the Absolute Best Possible Legal Representation for the District In
Handling Affirmative and Defensive Litigation and Providing Legal Advice.
My highest priority as Attorney General continues to be building on the important work
of my predecessors and on the work we have done in the past 25 months towards the goal
of maintaining a first-class legal office for the District of Columbia. In addition to
February 7, 2013
Page 14 of32
training, recruiting, mentoring and consultation with attorneys on specific matters,
continuing to build morale is critical. This is particularly true in this challenging
budgetary environment where we have been subject to a long-standing freeze on the
provision of bonuses or, with limited exceptions, salary raises for our hard-working
lawyers and staff.
In 2012, I continued what has since my first week on the job in January 2011 been a
directed effort to set and maintain a tone of excellence in our work and openness in the
office. Since then, I have done my best to follow through on that promise, maintaining
an open-door policy in the same building where most of the staff works and keeping an
open mind, both as to matters of OAG policies and practices and as to substantive legal
positions. I have met regularly with the lawyer union and OAG staff union
representatives, and as a result issued our modified and relaxed dress-code policy to
respond to their concerns, a change that has continued to receive a very favorable
reception from our lawyers and staff. In addition, I was pleased to receive permission
recently from the City Administrator to provide modest merit-based salary raises to a
substantial number of our top performers at OAG, demonstrating our commitment to high
quality work and rewarding its performance.
Along with my senior staff, I have closely studied concerns the union and individual line
attorneys have raised with an emphasis on an open line of communication and respectful
dialogue. Consistent with the open-door policy I have instituted at OAG, I have met
individually and collectively with numerous staff and line attorneys to address their
concerns, have participated in formal labor-management meetings, and have attended
informal gatherings of the line attorneys. We have also expanded the OAG suggestions
program, and have implemented a number of suggestions to make our OAG personnel
more efficient-for example, we are seeking to ensure that they have paralegal support as
resources allow so that they minimize their time on non-substantive work, and at the
same time we have convened a committee to improve the organization and allocation of
our paralegal staff. We have also accepted the good suggestion from staff to designate
resident experts in electronic discovery issues, as well as another suggestion that OAG
reinstitute an internal periodic newsletter to maintain cohesiveness, inter-divisional
communication, and morale.
We have also focused on training, despite having a dramatically reduced training budget
from some of the years before I arrived at the OAG. For example, in 2007, the training
budget was about $500,000. Now, it is well under $100,000. We have worked with the
National Association of Attorneys General and the U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia to provide training to keep our attorneys and staff on the cutting edge of
developments in their various areas of practice. In addition, we have been fortunate
enough to have a number of judges from the federal and local bench volunteer to provide
cost-free training and practice insights to our attorneys. I note that, as a testament to the
skills and reputation of our lawyers, this has been a two way street. Several
organizations-including the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the National
February 7, 2013
Page 15 of32
Association of Attorneys General - have asked OAG to send its lawyers to train and
teach judges and lawyers, and I have been pleased to provide our lawyers' time and
talents for these programs, which by all accounts have been well-received. In addition, as
a result of the efforts of U.S. Magistrate Judge Facciola in support of the office, we have
received a sharply discounted rate on attendance at the Sedona Conference, an important
national conference covering best practices in electronic discovery, an issue that public
and private law offices must have well in hand at the peril of sanctions and other costly
consequences if we do not have a quality program.
I have also done my best to recruit to our office outstanding lawyers with proven track
records with outside law offices. Among these superb lawyers are Ariel Levinson
Waldman, my senior counsel, who came from the Office of General Counsel at the U.S.
House of Representatives where he was my Assistant Counsel and before that was a star
litigator at WilmerHale under former Corporation Counsel John Payton and others; Andy
Fois, our Deputy Attorney General for Public Safety and a former Assistant U.S.
Attorney in the District, Assistant U.S. Attorney General under Janet Reno, and a partner
at the Venable law firm; Sally Gere, an Assistant Deputy in our Civil Litigation Division,
who came to us from a partnership at the Troutman, Sanders firm; Jonathan Pittman, who
heads one of our trial sections, came to us from his partnership position in Crowell &
Moring's Litigation Department; William Causey, formerly a partner at Nixon, Peabody
and later an attorney in the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of
Justice who joined our Public Interest Division; and Janet Robins, whom I hired to return
to the OAG to be our Deputy of the Legal Counsel Division after an extensive career in
private practice with the Dickstein Shapiro firm in the District and a number of years of
service at OAG under then-Corporation Counsel John Ferren. These attorneys, along
with a significant number of outstanding lawyers who were already with the office when
I arrived, have been instrumental in communicating and demonstrating our high ideals
and helping to upgrade the quality of our work and to enhance the morale in the office.
Further, I am proud to report that we will next month (March 19, 2013) be holding the
second annual OAG Incentive Awards Ceremony. This program will recognize the work
and achievements in calendar year 2012. We had a standing room only group in the Old
Council Chambers in our building at One Judiciary Square last year, and based on
numerous formal and informal reports, I believe it has helped continue our momentum
towards an office dedicated to excellence and with improved morale. At that event, I will
highlight and thank our lawyers and staff for some of our major OAG accomplishments
from the last year, a small sampling of which includes:
- We made major, demonstrated progress in our class action consent decree cases.
In February 2012, we secured -- as the former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for
the District Court aptly put it, "historic" -- victory in the Dixon case on behalf of the
District's Department of Mental Health -- ending federal oversight of DMH in that 37
year-old- class-action lawsuit and with the Court dismissing the lawsuit. In November
2012, in the Petties case, we obtained dismissal of a case that involved 17 years of federal
February 7,2013
Page 160f32
court supervision over the District's special-education transportation program and special
education payments.
- We obtained a ruling by the D.C. Court of Appeals that effectively brought to an
end the litigation that has held up the Skyland Shopping Center redevelopment, litigation
that has saved more than $9 million in land costs for the project. With the litigation
against the former owners and shopkeepers concluded, the District will be able to make
significant strides in this economic redevelopment project that is projected to create
hundreds of jobs, provide affordable housing opportunities, and encourage private
economic development in this Ward 7 neighborhood.
- We obtained a series of major favorable consumer protection settlements arising
out of our multi-state investigations, including obtaining: a settlement against major
financial institutions for mortgage-related fraud under which $40 million became
available to D.C. homeowners, and a $4.6 million payment was made to the District, a
portion of which the District through the DISB has allocated towards obtaining housing
counselors for District residents; a settlement with a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson
concerning improperly marketing of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal for which the
District received over $4 million; a settlement with Abbott Laboratories over allegations
of illegal off-label marketing of its drug Depakote, under which the District received over
$1 million; and a $635,000-plus settlement with drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline,
LLC, resolving the District's Medicaid fraud claims arising from the sales, marketing,
and pricing of several widely-used drugs. Each of these resolutions also included
important injunctive relief for District consumers.
- We secured a settlement of over $7.5 million for the District treasury of taxes
owed for prior tax years based on the value of a private firm's leasehold interest at Union
Station.
- We provided critical litigation representation and transactional advice in the
District's economic development project for the air rights over Interstate 395, where the
District is planning a large mixed-use development above freeway that will re-establish
connections between the surrounding neighborhoods and add to the vitality of and tax
contributions from the city's booming downtown area.
- We obtained from the D.C. Court of Appeals a rwing dismissing all claims
brought by the Fraternal Order of Police and nine current and former Metropolitan Police
Department officers who had sought $15 million from the District in a lawsuit asserting
that they were disciplined because they were whistleblowers. The court set aside a jury
verdict of $12,000 obtained by one officer, affirmed jury verdicts and lower court rulings
against all other claims by the officers, and set aside an award of more than $430,000 in
attorneys' fees that the lower court had granted to the FOP lawyers. The Court of
Appeals ruled that plaintiff is not entitled to any recovery against the District.
February 7,2013
Page 17 of32
- After a bench trial, we secured a ruling from the D.C. Superior Court judge
rejecting a claim by a multi-national corporation seeking $766,000 in damages from the
District for moving services.
- In the online hotel case, we secured a judgment for liability that these
companies, such as Expedia and Travelocity, owe the District retail hotel taxes for the
more than a decade. We are now preparing for a trial on damages to determine how many
tens of millions in taxes, interest and penalties are owed to the District.
- We also had significant success in our criminal enforcement work through our
Public Safety Division. For example, working with the MPD and the aCME, we have
fully restored and improved our drunk driving breath-testing program so that we can
continue to enforce our impaired driving laws. We now have state of the art, properly
calibrated equipment, along with a fully updated statute (which our lawyers drafted) to
prosecute drivers who pose a threat to public safety. We have recently secured
convictions using these updated tools, and our Civil Division has resolved all of the civil
cases deriving from the failure of the equipment several years ago. For this work, our
Public Safety Division team received the 2012 WRAPPY award from the Washington
Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP).
- We also secured convictions following trial of eleven Occupy DC participants
relating to their failure to obey u.S. Park Police orders at a wooden structure in
McPherson Square after an all-day standoff with the police, and we obtained a guilty plea
from an attorney and former tax preparer who formerly headed two banks in the District
on charges of violating District tax laws for falsely claiming Florida residency to avoid
paying DC income taxes.
- We joined amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court in several significant cases,
including in support of the validity of the federal health care bill, which was sustained by
the Supreme Court, and in support of the constitutionality of the University of Texas'
race-conscious admissions policy, which the Court currently has under review.
- Finally, I am also proud of the work that we have done at the Mayor's direction
on campaign finance. We performed extensive legal and policy research of best practices
nationwide and in the District and produced a proposed campaign finance reform bill
that, as Public Citizen stated, would if enacted by this Council "be among the strongest in
the nation". This legislation can bring accountability and transparency to our campaign
finance system, helping avoid even the appearance of corruption in the District's political
leadership, in support of the rule of law in the District.
Over the next year, we will continue to look for more ways to help our lawyers so
that they are better trained, equipped, motivated, and appreciated so that they can
continue to provide top quality legal service to the District, its government and its
residents.
February 7, 2013
Page 18 of32
2. Help Resolve Major Class Actions Against the District Involving Judicial
Oversight And Significant Unnecessary Expense
It is critical that we continue to work with the agencies, affected stakeholders, and the
courts to resolve the long-standing major class action litigations against the District.
Judicial oversight of our government programs or operations - however necessary it may
have been in the past is a significant impediment to full self-government and has had
adverse financial and other impacts on the District over the past several decades. We
will continue to pursue frank and results-driven conversations with our agency clients,
with the plaintiffs' bar, the courts, and other stakeholders to find solutions to these
matters and chart a path forward. My goal has been to work with our agency clients so
that they will fulfill the exit criteria that have been established so our office can
demonstrate to all interested parties, including the courts, that the terms of the various
consent decrees have been satisfied, that the District is in full compliance with the
governing laws, and that the time has come to end judicial oversight over the day-to-day
operations of the District's executive branch agencies. We are making progress and will
continue to focus on this goal.
We have had some great successes, and we also face some tough further challenges. In
2011, we secured a settlement in the Blackman case, which had been in the federal courts
since 1997 and involved the issue of prompt hearings on due process complaints under
the IDEA. As noted above, and as detailed further below in response to Question 30, we
secured major victories in 2012 in the Dixon and Petties matters. Though much more
work remains in the remaining litigations, these cases demonstrate the commitment by
the Mayor and his team and our office to ensuring that the District agencies can and do
demonstrate that they are able to fulfill their legal mandate without a federal or Superior
Court judge and costly court monitors overseeing the administration of the city's agency
functions. It is a high priority of ours that the resolution of these cases serve as a model
for the remaining major class action consent decree cases and the District's progress in
meeting the terms called for by the law and the plaintiffs' lawyers and courts recognizing
the progress made by the District and, ultimately, supporting the return of control over
these agency functions to the District of Columbia government.
3.
Continue to Improve OAG's Capacity By Leveraging Our Resources and
Pursuing Necessary Legal Reform
To help ensure that our legal teams have the necessary capabilities and manpower
without adding materially to our costs, we continue to pursue a two-track plan.
First, we are working to maximize our capability through the increase of lawyers at little
or no cost to OAG. We have actively pursued an expansion of the OAG's pro bono
attorney support from the local private bar, and of OAG's law student internship
programs. This has led to a number of courtroom victories and excellent briefs filed by
February 7, 2013
Page 19 of32
pro bono counsel, working with and under the supervision of OAG lawyers. In addition,
I am proud to announce that we have begun year two of the Charles Ruff Fellowship
program. Under this program, we have secured commitments from area law schools
including the University of the District of Columbia, George Washington, and
Georgetown, to fund on a matching basis with the District salaries for Fellows- recent
law school graduates with outstanding records who are committed to public service-to
join the office for one year. These Fellows are assigned within OAG, including several
who just completed service in our Public Safety Division, to provide much needed relief
to our prosecutors, whose caseloads remain substantially higher than they should be.
Eleven Fellows are approaching the completion of their Ruff Fellowship year, and I am
delighted to say that we have hired at least five of them for permanent positions in four
different Divisions. We have also been able to expand this fine program, and seventeen
Ruff Fellows will be joining us for 2013-2014, almost all of whom have been sworn in
and have already started making contributions.
Second, we continue to work in partnership with the Mayor and his team to promote key
legislative initiatives that will augment our capacity. For example, we are seeking to
restore the subpoena authority ofOAG that was reduced by the Council in 2010. We are
grateful for the Chairman's support on the issue. Restoring OAG's subpoena power will
allow our investigators and attorneys to do their work on behalf of the District more
effectively and efficiently. We have also recommended changes in the FOIA laws, the
wrongful incarceration statute, and the civil forfeiture laws, which will improve our
efficiency and better serve the District. On the federal level, we helped secure a change
in the Hatch Act, which will allow a future elected Attorney General to run for reelection
and will permit more candidates to run for the District's elective offices. Weare also
pursuing proposed legislation in Congress, which will expand our criminal jurisdiction so
that our office will have authority to prosecute matters where the District is the victim of
fraud or misrepresentations.
4. Reaffirm the OAG's Independence and Prepare for an Elected AG.
We must continue to ensure the independence of the Office of the Attorney General
especially when it comes to the provision of legal advice, the rendering of opinions, and
investigations. As I have repeatedly communicated to this Committee: I strongly endorse
the Mayor's emphatic public statements that OAG must be independent of the Mayor and
the Council and must have as its principal client the District of Columbia; the city's
interests are our lodestar. Of course, we continue to represent the Mayor, his cabinet and
We have discharged our legal
individual agencies, officials and employees.
responsibilities with the professionalism and impartiality that is expected of this office,
and will continue to do so. OAG must be - and must be perceived as being
independent, non-political, and non-partisan. I have taken several steps to reaffirm this
office's commitment to this goal. Upon taking office, I returned the principal office of
the Attorney General of the District of Columbia from the Wilson Building to the
Judiciary Square office, the office building near the courthouses and in which nearly all
February 7,2013
Page 20 of32
of the OAG attorneys are located.
OAG has not shied away from difficult or
controversial matters, including our successful civil suit against then-Councilmember
Harry Thomas, Jr. for unlawfully diverting District funds, and, more recently, our
testimony several weeks ago to the Board of Elections advising that in our judgment it
would violate the Home Rule Act to place on a referendum ballot the budget-autonomy
related Charter Amendment passed by the Council and signed by the Mayor. We will
and must continue to call the law "straight down the middle" and as we see it after our
best reading, free from political passion or prejudice. I applaud the Mayor for following
through on his pledge to ensure our independence and we will continue to do what the
law requires of us and what we think is right and in the interests of the District, without
regard to partisan or political winds.
Another important challenge, looming in the near future, is preparing the agency for an
elected Attorney GeneraL We are just over a year away from the 2014 primary for
election of our first elected Attorney GeneraL We see significant issues in connection
with that development that need to be addressed promptly -- and hopefully early in this
calendar year before specific candidates emerge for the election -- for a smooth transition
to an elected Attorney GeneraL This win require thoughtful action by the Administration
and legislation by the Council in determining, among other things, what the reporting
lines should be for agency counsel once there is an elected Attorney General, as well as
what functions and responsibilities should continue under the control of an elected
Attorney General and which should be transferred to agencies or persons under the
control of the Mayor. It is our expectation that, as requested by this Committee, a
legislative proposal will be transmitted to the Council later this month to address these
matters.
5. Protect the Integrity of the District's Treasury Through Litigation.
In light of the ongoing budget challenges that the District of Columbia continues to face
even with recent reports of a substantial surplus OAG is committed to working to
maintain the integrity of the District's treasury. The most important role we play is the
protection of the District's fiscal well-being; each year, we resolve several hundred
million dollars of litigation exposure for the District at a very small fraction of that
number - through victory on dispositive motions and trial and through settlement where
they are warranted. In the last year, we resolved hundreds of suits where the total
demand against the District was approximately $732 million. As a result of settlements,
motions and trials, we resolved all of these actions for about $17.1 million, a tiny
percentage of our exposure.
In addition, subject to there being necessary resources, OAG has been and will continue
to pursue affirmative litigation on a number of fronts, using in some cases statutory
provisions for treble damages and attorneys' fees, to recover money owed to the District
by those corporations and individuals who have taken advantage of the District's
government or its citizens. These actions, along with collection efforts on behalf of our
February 7, 2013
Page 21 of32
sister agencies, could in the long-term recoup hundreds of millions of dollars for the
District. For example, as noted above, in 2012, we received partial summary judgment
on liability in our tax case in the online hotels matter against Expedia and other online
travel companies. That matter is not over, but the award of a judgment of liability that
we secured (which is subject to a future appeal) was a major step forward in this case
where we are seeking many tens of millions of dollars in damages and penalties.
As to the OAG affirmative matters fully resolved in 2012, the results have been terrific.
Last year, I reported that in Fiscal Year 2011, OAG secured over $10 million dollars in
damages in litigation for the District. For Fiscal Year 2012, we are still compiling the
precise numbers, but the amount is even higher than the previous year: it is over $20
Million, comprising of over $8 Million in consumer protection cases, over $7.5 Million in
the Union Station-related tax matter - cases I mentioned above -- and over $5 Million
from other civil enforcement cases. We continue to have a major, positive impact on the
District's treasury -- indeed, just this week we initiated a major securities and consumer
protection suit on behalf of the District against Standard & Poor's based alleged
misrepresentations in the offerings of securities in the District and to the District
government seeking disgorgement and other relief. We are committed as well to
continuing to play a vital role in protecting and recovering the District's dollars going
forward.
25. Please provide the number of FOIA requests for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (to date).
Include, the number granted, partially granted, denied, pending, average response time,
the estimated number of FTEs processing requests, and the estimated hours spent
responding to these requests.
ANSWER: In FY 2012, OAG received 54 FOIA requests, 19 of which were granted in
whole. An additional 20 requests were partially granted, six requests were denied in
whole, four were referred to other public bodies, one request was withdrawn, and for four
requests, no responsive records were found. None of the FY 2012 FOIA requests are
currently pending. In FY 2012, the median number of days for OAG to respond to a
FOIA request was 15 days.
In FY 2013 (as of January 31, 2013) OAG has received 24 FOIA requests, eight of which
are currently pending. Of the remaining requests, two were granted in whole, six were
granted in part, and there were no records found for eight requests.
OAG has one FOIA Officer that processes requests; however, most FOIA requests
require coordination among different divisions, and some requests involve numerous
attorneys and staff working to ensure a proper response. Though we do not track hours
spent on FOIA, the FOIA Officer estimates that he spends approximately 30 percent of
his work hours handling ~AG's FOIA requests and dozens of OAG personnel are forced
February 7, 2013
Page 22 of32
by FOIA requests to spend substantial time reviewing documents for responsiveness,
privilege, and related issues.
26. What are the statuses of ~AG's collective bargaining agreements?
ANSWER: The current relationship between OAG and AFGE Local 1403 is governed
by its first collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") signed in 2004. Because of
subsequent litigation before the Superior Court, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals and the Public Employee Relations Board ("PERB"), the parties have not signed
successor agreements. Litigation before PERB in connection with the CBA for the
period October I, 2011 through September 2013 is pending on several areas management
believes are non-negotiable. The parties are also awaiting a decision on several impasse
issues before an interest arbitrator. In addition, litigation in the Superior Court is pending
regarding the failure to implement a 2007 interest arbitrator's award which the District
believed was premature under D.C. Code § 1-617.15. However, the parties recently
resumed settlement discussions, as both parties would like to resolve all outstanding
litigation.
With regard to AFSCME, the District's relationship is governed by the CBA signed in
October 2006, which expired by its terms in September 20 I O. The parties have
negotiated a successor agreement, which is awaiting review and signature.
27. What is the status of the District's breath testing program and prosecution of DUIIDWI
cases? What performance measures are in place to gauge the efficacy of this program?
ANSWER: I am pleased to report to the Committee that, as has been publicly discussed
for the last several months, the breath-testing program is operational and prosecution of
DUI/DWI cases is proceeding utilizing these scores. (Impaired driving prosecutions
proceeded while the instruments were unavailable using alternative methods of proof.) A
new comprehensive impaired driving statute took effect on August 1, 2012 and has
enhanced OAG's ability to combat impaired driving.
The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) manages the District's breath alcohol
testing program. The program uses Intoximeter EC/IR II breath test instruments. OCME
has validated and customized the instrument's software. In addition, OCME
implemented quality assurance and quality control measures, which will ensure the
efficacy of the District's breath alcohol testing program.
In September 2012, OCME began training Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)
officers as breath test operators on the lntoximeters. On September 28, 2012, MPD
officers started testing impaired drivers on the instruments. As of January 28,2013, MPD
February 7, 2013
Page 23 of32
has administered 232 1 evidential breath tests and has trained and certified 31 operators.
OCME will train a new class of breath test operators the week of February 4,2013.
OAG continues successfully to prosecute impaired driving offenses in the District.
Convictions and pleas have been obtained using the new breath testing instruments. The
collaborative efforts of OCME, MPD, and OAG have resulted in the creation of a model
breath alcohol-testing program, which will ultimately enhance the safety of the District's
roadways.
28. Please provide a list of incomplete rulemaking, along with the code citation, and a brief
explanation of why it is incomplete.
ANSWER: Below, please find a chart listing the incomplete rulemakings, including the
code citation and a brief explanation of why it is incomplete. We note that while OAG,
through the Legal Counsel Division, tracks the status of rulemakings, responsibility to
assure that rules are issued lies with the agencies delegated the rulemaking authority or
which have subject matter jurisdiction over the statute that authorizes rulemaking.
ACT
EXPLANATION
Unemployed Anti-Discrimination Act of 20 12
D.C. Law 19-329
Effective May 21, 2012
D.C. Official Code § 32-1367
The law is not operative, because its fiscal
effect has not been incorporated into an
approved budget and financial plan.
Sec. 8: The Mayor shall issue rules to implement the
provision of this Act
Raising the Expectations for Education Outcomes
Omnibus Act of 20 12
D.C. Law 19-142
Effective June 19,2012
D.C. Official Code § 38-756.01(a)
No information concerning any pending
rulemaking. OAG has sent inquiry to OSSE
regarding Mayor's Order status.
Sec. 601(a): The Mayor shall issue rules to
implement the provisions of this Act
1
The 232 figure includes 35 tests from MPD's lD -the most recent lD data OAG has is as of January 3, 2013.
February 7, 2013
Page 24 of32
DISB Fingerprint-Based Background Check
Authorization Act of2012
D.C. Law 19-143
Effective June 20, 2012
D.C. Official Code § 31-632(b)
Draft rulemaking in progress
Sec. 102(b): The Commissioner [of the Department
of Insurance, Securities, and Banking] shall
establish, by rule, fees to cover the costs associated
with fingerprinting and criminal background history
checks
Foster Care Youth Employment Amendment Act of
2012
D.C. Law 19-162
Effective July 13,2012
DCHR is preparing a proposed rulemaking.
D.C. Official Code § 1-608.01(e-l)(5)
Sec. 3: The Mayor shall issue rules to implement
new subsection (e-l) of the Comprehensive Merit
Personnel Act of 1978
Gasoline and Fuel Pump Octane Measurement
Amendment Act of 20 12
D.C. Law 19-168
Effective September 20, 2012
D.C. Official Code § 37-201.18a(a)(5)
Awaiting money for testing equipment to
begin the program. Rulemaking to follow
thereafter as needed.
Sec. 2062: The Director shall issue rules for the
enforcement and administration ofthis Act
I
February 7, 2013
Page 25 of32
T ANF Time Limit Amendment Act of 20 12
D.C. Law 19-168
Effective September 20,2012
D.C. Official Code § 4-202.05(d)
Under section 5163 of this act, the act is not
operative because the CFO has not certified
that sufficient revenue is available
Sec. 5162: Within 30 days of the effective date of
the TANF Time Limit Amendment Act of2012, the
Mayor shall issue rules to implement the provisions
of this act
Housing for Homeless Families Amendment Act of
2012
D.C. Law 19-168
D.C. Official Code § 4-753.04(a)(3)
Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking
pending.
Sec. 5102: The Department of Human Services shall
develop rules for selecting homeless families that
will be converted onto the Rent Supplement
Program's tenant-based vouchers
State Safety Oversight Agency Establishment
Amendment Act of2012
D.C. Law 19-168
D.C. Official Code § 5.401.01(b)
Sec. 6012: The Fire Chiefshall issue rules to
implement subsection (a) ofthis section, as well as
section 1(c)
Implementation of the section is contingent
upon final implementation and operation of
light rail service. Rulemaking to follow that
event as needed.
I
The Honorable Tommy WeBs
February 7, 2013
Page 26 of32
Pesticide Education and Control Amendment Act of
2012
D.C. Law 19-191
Effective October 23, 2012
Draft rulemaking in progress.
Not currently codified
Sec. Il(a): Within 570 days of the effective date of
this act, the Mayor shall issue rules to implement the
provisions of sections 1-10 of the act
Regulation of Body Artists and Body Art
Establishments Act of2012
D.C. Law 19-193
Effective October 23,2012
D.C. Official Code § 47-2809.01(b)(2)
Draft rulemaking in progress.
Sec. 3: Within 180 days of the effective date ofthis
section, the Department of Health shall issue rules to
implement the provisions of paragraph (1) of new
subsection (b) of this new section
Accountant Mobility Act of2011
D.C. Law 19-43
Effective December 2, 20 II
D.C. Official Code § 47-2853.06(b)(2)
Sec. 2(b)(2): "The standards of attestation specified
in section 47-2853.41 (1 ) shall be adopted by
reference by the Board pursuant to rulemaking and
I . ""·;h~ll be developed for general application by
L::::ized national accountancy organizations"
Funding for provision certified in October of
2012. Board of Accountancy now reviewing
to determine whether existing auditing rules
meet this requirement or whether new rules
are needed.
February 7, 2013
Page 27 of32
Athletic Concussion Protection Act of 20 11
D.C. Law 19-22
Effective October 20, 2011
D.C. Official Code § 7-2871.03
Sec. 4: The Mayor shall, through rulemaking
establish a training program and determine which
individuals shall be required to complete it
DOH advised it is working to develop the
rules, and the training required by the
legislation.
D.C. Official Code § 7-2871.05
Sec. 6: Within 120 days ofthe effective date ofthis
act, the Mayor shall issue rules to implement the act
Data-Sharing and Information Coordination
Amendment Act of 20 10
D.C. Law 18-273
Effective December 4, 2010
D.C. Official Code § 7-248(a)
Department of Human Services reports that
the multiple agencies affected have not yet
reached consensus over the policies and
procedures these rules cover, and their effect
on existing District and Federal privacy laws.
Sec. 108(a): The Mayor shall issue rules to
implement the provisions of this title
Lis Pendens Amendment Act of 20 10
D.C. Law 18-180
Effective May 27, 2010
D.C. Official Code § 42-1207(e-3)(2)
Sec. 2(e): To implement new section 556a(e-3)(l) of
An Act To establish a code of laws for the District
of Columbia, the Mayor shall establish a schedl,.de of
fines
29.
The Mayor has received no requests for
enforcement actions under this provision.
OAG is reviewing necessity for Mayor's
order to delegate authority to it and to
establish limited fine schedule.
Please provide an update on the transition to an elected attorney generaL Include details
about space, personnel, budget, and general resource changes and needs.
February 7,2013
Page 28 of 32
ANSWER: We are just over a year away from the 2014 primary for election of our first
elected Attorney General. We see significant issues in connection with that development
that need to be addressed promptly -- and hopefully during this calendar year -- for a
smooth transition to an elected Attorney General. This transition will require thoughtful
action by the Administration and legislation by the Council in determining, among other
things, what the reporting lines should be for agency counsel once there is an elected
Attorney General, as well as what functions and responsibilities should continue under
the control of an elected Attorney General and which should be transferred to agencies or
persons under the control of the Mayor. It is our expectation that, as requested by this
Committee, a legislative proposal will be transmitted to the Council in the near future to
address these matters.
30. Please describe the progress OAG has made regarding major class actions against the
District involving judicial oversight.
ANSWER: Please see the below summaries of the remaining five consent decree cases
where there is active judicial oversight. Included also is a summary of the recent Petties
dismissal. Please keep in mind that vacatur of the present court orders and termination of
court supervision are dependent on compliance with the existing consent decrees and
orders in each case, which in turn, is dependent on agency compliance. The role ofOAG,
other than advising our agency clients, helping them interpret the provisions and
requirements of the decrees and orders, and representing them at status conferences and
other hearings, is somewhat limited in effecting the necessary outcomes in these matters.
Outcomes here depend on substantial, sustained compliance by the impacted agencies.
Salazar v. District ofColumbia, Civil Action No. 93-452 GK (D.D.C.)
This is a class action lawsuit filed in 1993 that is focused primarily on the federally
mandated provision of the EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and
Treatment) services benefit to Medicaid-eligible children and notification to the EPSDT
beneficiaries and their families of the availability of such services. In 1999, the District
entered into a Consent Decree requiring satisfactory demonstration of compliance with
EPSDT requirements. Other portions of the Consent Decree and subsequent related
modification orders also specifically address: (1) the provision of dental services and lead
screening services to Medicaid-eligible children as part of the EPSDT services benefit;
(2) notice/outreach requirements to EPSDT beneficiaries; and (3) re-certification of
eligibility for Medicaid coverage.
The District, most notably the Department of Health Care Finance, has made dramatic
improvements in the provision of the EPSDT services benefit in the past 20 years. The
Consent Decree, however, contains a number of provisions that are unattainable by the
District (or most other jurisdictions). The District has been involved in significant
settlement discussions with Plaintiffs' counsel for the past year in an effort to agree upon
an alternate path to exit from judicial supervision.
February 7, 2013
Page 29 of32
LaShawn v. Gray, Civil Action No. 98-1754 TFH (D.D.C.)
This is a class action lawsuit that primarily involves the District's operation of its child
welfare agency, the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA). The currently
controlling order, the Implementation and Exit Plan ("IEP"), consists of 92 separately
measured exit standards that are categorized as outcomes to be achieved and outcomes to
be maintained. As CFSA achieves an exit standard, it is re-categorized into the
maintenance group. A longstanding Court Monitor (Judy Meltzer) oversees CFSA's
progress toward meeting the exit standards and she issues progress reports every six
months. Since the IEP was entered in December 2010, there have been four monitoring
reports issued, the last having been issued on November 21, 2012. In December 2010,
there were 28 exit standards that had been achieved and were in the maintenance category
and 64 exit standards that were not yet achieved. As of the November 2012 progress
report, 29 additional exit standards have been deemed achieved; thirty-five remain to be
achieved.
The Court Monitor's November 2012 report, which covered the first six months ofCFSA
Director Brenda Donald's tenure (January through June 2012), took note of the "high
energy and rapid change" that has resulted in a "renewed focus ... on positive outcomes
for children, youth and families." On December 17, 2012, at the most recent status
conference, Judge Hogan congratulated Ms. Donald and her staff on a very good and
encouraging report.
Evans et ai., v. Gray, et aI., Civil Action No. 76-293 ESH (D.D.C.)
In this class action lawsuit plaintiffs (currently comprised of about 525 former residents
of Forest Haven), joined by the United States as a plaintiff-intervenor, make
constitutional as well as federal and state statutory claims for failure to care properly for
persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The litigation is moving forward
in compliance mode in accordance with the 2010 Revision of the 2001 Plan for
Compliance and Conclusion of Evans v. Gray ("2010 Exit Plan"), which was approved
by the Court in August 2010. In the past two years, using the agreed-upon certification
procedure overseen by the court-appointed Special Master, the defendants achieved
compliance with three of nine goals under the 2010 Exit Plan as recognized by the
Court's two-page order on October 26,2012.
In August 2012, the Court entered an Order which, in pertinent part, required defendants
to develop and implement, four "systems" supplemental plans of compliance for quality
improvement, data information systems, acquisition and repair of adaptive equipment,
and retaining qualified mid-level managers. The Order also authorized the defendants to
file certifications of compliance for the remaining goals of the 2010 Revised Plan where
joint monitoring, conducted by the Court Monitor, demonstrates compliance in
accordance with the agreed-upon certification procedures. Further, the Order required
defendants to develop and implement detailed supplemental plans of compliance
describing how compliance will be achieved for outcome criteria where the joint
monitoring finds non-compliance. The defendants developed and continued
February 7, 2013
Page 30 of32
implementation of the four court-ordered "systems" supplemental plans of compliance.
On January 7 and 9, 2013, the Court Monitor submitted five separate reports of the joint
monitoring findings with respect to five of six remaining goals. Beginning on January
25, 2013, the defendants began the process of submitting partial certifications of
compliance where the joint monitoring findings demonstrate at least 90% compliance
with the outcome criteria, and will do so for each of the five goals measured. In addition
to the ongoing compliance and certification work on the remaining six 20 I 0 Exit Plan
goals, the defendants must develop and implement the detailed supplemental plan of
compliance describing action plans for achieving compliance with the remaining outcome
determined non-compliant.
Blackman, et al. v. District o/Columbia, et al., 97-cv-01629 PLF (D.D.C.)
This case involved two separate class action lawsuits under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") that were filed in 1997 and consolidated later that
same year, Blackman and Jones. Blackman concerned failures to provide timely due
process hearings when requested and/or failures to provide timely Hearing Officer
Determinations ("HODs") following due process hearings. Jones concerns the District's
failures to implement timely HODs and Settlement Agreements ("SAs") for special
education children who have participated in due process procedures under the IDEA. In
2010, the District achieved compliance with the Consent Decree's requirements under the
Blackman portion of the case, and it was subsequently dismissed that same year.
Pursuant to the Consent Decree, Jones will be eligible for dismissal once the District has
achieved 90% timely implementation of HODs and SAs within a twelve-month period
and no case is more than 90 days overdue. While DCPS has not yet met the 90%
timeliness requirement rate required to seek termination of the case, it is close to doing so
and anticipates that it will consistently achieve 90% timeliness this year. Indeed, the
overall number of special education due process cases brought against the DCPS has
declined dramatically over the last few years as a result of substantial improvement in the
provision of services to students with special needs.
As to the other prerequisite for termination, DCPS currently has seven cases where the
HOD or SA is more than 90 days overdue; however, it anticipates achieving compliance
with this second metric this year. A potential complication in terminating Jones is that
the measure for exiting the case necessarily includes the timeliness of Public Charter
Schools, whose rate is substantially lower than DCPS. OSSE remains engaged in
rigorous oversight of all public schools to ensure that any lag by the Public Charters does
not hinder the District's ability to seek dismissal once it has achieved compliance.
Jerry M., et al. v. District o/Columbia, et al.. Civil Action No. 1519-85 (D.C. Superior
Court)
This on-going class action case, which originated in 1985, involves the care and services
provided to the District's detained and committed youth held in the care and custody of
the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services ("DYRS"). Plaintiffs and Defendants,
February 7, 2013
Page 31 of32
with the assistance of the Special Arbiter, and pursuant to Court Order, agreed to a
comprehensive Work Plan with exit criteria from court supervision, effective December
2007. While the Work Plan is in effect, almost all other court orders are stayed and are
unenforceable. As Defendants meet the criteria laid out in the Work Plan, those
indicators are vacated, allowing Defendants to move towards termination of the lawsuit.
At this time, the Court has vacated the following indicators, in whole or part: Goal
ILA.I.b (requiring the District to generally house committed youth at Oak Hill or New
Beginnings); Goal IlLB.1.a. (requiring the District to maintain the capacity to serve 180
detained youth in the community, as an alternative to secure detention); Goal 1I.A.l.a
(requiring the District to generally house detained youth at the Youth Services Center);
Goal I v.A.1. (related to staffing at the educational program at New Beginnings); Goals I
v.A.2.-4. (related to the educational program at New Beginnings as it relates to children
in the Model Unit); Goals VLA.l.a.-b. (requiring that youth receive one hour of large
muscle exercises per day); and Goals I v.A.2.a.-b. (related to the educational program at
New Beginnings as it pertained to children in Awaiting Placement). Defendants will
soon move to vacate Goals IV.A.3 and IV.A.4 (related to certain aspects of the education
programs required for students on awaiting placement status who are housed at New
Beginnings). Work continues on meeting the criteria in the remaining indicators.
Petties, et al. v. District of Columbia, 95-cv-00 148 PLF (D.D.C.)
This was a class action lawsuit filed in 1995 under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act ("IDEA") regarding educational services provided by the D.C. Public
Schools to special education students. Until late 2012, there were, in fact, two "halves"
to the case. The first half focused on timely payments to providers of special education
systems. On October 4, 2012, however, the Court, pursuant to a joint motion from the
parties, vacated the relevant orders governing this half of the case given the District's
demonstrated ability to timely pay special education vendors and given new regulations
put in place allowing payment disputes to be resolved by the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH). Those regulations became effective on November 1,2012.
The second half of the case concerned student transportation. On November 8, 2012,
following successful completion of a "demonstration period" in the Spring (during which
the District transported children to school with a 94% timeliness rate) and a successful
2012-2013 school year opening, the Court permitted the transition order to expire,
returning complete responsibility for student transportation to the control of the District.
On December 19, 2012, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety, finding that the
public could have confidence in the safe, reliable transportation system that OSSE has put
into place. The District's leadership, particularly the City Administrator, deserves great
credit for this major policy and legal step forward.
February 7, 2013
Page 32 of32
Thank you for your attention to our responses and your interest in the work of the OAG.
Sincerely,
Irvin . Nathan
Attorney General for the District of Columbia
Attachments
Victor Bonett
Legislative Director
FOlAOfficer
Irvin B. Nathan
ATTORNEY GENERAL
~
I---
Ariel B. Levinson-Waldman
Senior Counsel
to the Attorney General
1
1
E. Sarah
Gore
Assistant Deputy
Vacant:S Filled:90 Frozen: I
Kimoerly M. Johnson
Chief
Generol Lit. Section 1
Dmell Chambers
Chief
General Lit. Section 2
Jonathan PIttman
Chief
Patricia Oxendine
Chief
.~
~
~
CFSA-OGC
Li onel Sims, GC
Lucy Putman, DGC
D1SB-OGC
Thomas Glassic, GC
DenaReed, ActiogDGC
DCle-OGC
Jacques Lerner, GC
DCRA-OGC
Melinda Bolling, GC
Ellen Efros
Deputy
Vacant: 4 Filled: 83
Frozen: 3
Grace Graham
Chief
Equity Section
PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION
A. Rice
Andrew
Deputy
Joseph Allen
Assistant Deputy
Vacant:12 Filled:199 Frozen:8
~
Belinda Tilley
Chief
Legal Services Section
Deputy
Assistant Deputy
Vacant:? FilIed:S3 Frozen: I
M.Kimberly Brown
Chief
Criminal Section
~
Stephane Latour
Chief
Civil Enforcement
Section
~
~
Curtis Staley
Assistant Section Chief
Litigation Unit
Herb Jeter
Chief
Fiscal Operations
Section
Arthur Parker
Chief
Rulemaking
Section
I+-
[
DHCF-OGC
Sheryl Johnson, Ge
Whitney Stoebner
Assistant Chief
Criminal Section
Jennifer White
Chief
Juvenile Section
DCPS-OGC
Robert Utiger, GC
lOmar Mahmud, DGC
DMH-OGC
Matthew Caspari, GC
Deon Merene, DGC
Susan Longstreet
Deputy
DOC-OGe
Maria Amato, GC
r-
OSSE-OGC
Virginia Crisman, GC
~
Jennifer Castor
Chief
Real Estate Transactions
Section
HSEMA-OGC
Robert Hildum, GC
~
DYRS-OGC
Dionne Hayes, GC
~
.
Barbara Chesser
Asst. Chief for
Papering
Jeanette Manning
Chief, Neighborhood
& Victim Services
Liaison wlMayor's
NIS
r
Nancy Hapeman
Chief
Procurement Section
~
Emily Morris
Asst. Chief
Real Estate Transactions
Section
Linda Monroe
Asst. Chief far Trials
~
~
I+-
•
~
FEMS-OGe
Marceline Alexander, GC
Dwayne Jefferson, DGC
MPD-OGC
Terrence Ryan, GC
Ron Harris, DGC
OCME-OGC
Sharlene Williams, GC
\
oUC-OGe
Gregory Evans, GC
Todd Kim
Solicitor General
Vacant: 0 Filled: I S
Frozen: 0
Assistant Deputy
Vacant:3 Filled:60 Frozen:3
Alan H. Bergstein
Chief
Land Use, Public Works
DCOA-OGC
Deborah Royster,
GC
OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL
David Fisher
Frozen: 1
Brittany Keil
Assistant Chief
Criminal Section
Nicole Reece
Policy and Training
Unit
~
Janet Robins
••
Christine Hart-Wright
Intake Unit I and 11
Joseph Allen
Chief
Systems and
Automation Section
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
Deputy
Arthur Parker
Assistant Deputy
Vacant:O Filled:21
Alicia Washington
+
Bennett Rushkoff
Chief
Public Advocacy
Section
Fois
LEGAL COUNSEL
DIVISION
Richard Wilson
Chief
Tax & Finance Section
William Burk
Chief
Land Acquisition &
Bankruptcy Section
Donna Murasky
Deputy Solicitor
General
DOH-OGC
Kenneth Campbell, GC
Phillip Husband, DOC
Rosalyn Groce
Deputy Solicitor
General
Criminal & Juvenile
Section
1+
DDOT-OGC
Frank Seales, GC
Angela Freeman, DGC
DMV-OGC
David Glasser, GC
~
DPR-OGC
Will Potterveld, GC
~
DSLBD-OOC
Tabit ha McQueen, GC
y
+
Leslie S. Gross
Chief
Child Protection 2
r-
Erin Cullen
Chief
Child Protection 3
14-
Yewande Aderoju
Chief
Child Protection 4
r
Rosamund Holder
Chief
Mental Health
Section
OCP-OGC
Nancy Hapeman, GC
~
Nadine
Pamela Soncini
Chief
Child Protection 1
Janese Bechtol
Chief, Domestic
Violence Section
DPW-OGC
Christine Davis, GC
•
PERSONNEL, LABOR &
EMPLOYMENT
DIVISION
SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION
Tariffth Coaxum
Chief Admin. Officer
Angela Jiggetts-Bazzi
Assistant CAO
Vacant: 2 Filled: 42
Frozen:O
C. Wilburn
Chief Counsel
Vacant:S Filled:2S
Frozen: 2
Vacant:! Filled:S r
Frozen: 1
-
~
FAMlL Y SERVICES
DIVISION
Cory Chandler
Deputy
~
~
Kim McDaniel
Director
EED, Recruitment
and Hiring
Andrea Comentale
Chief
Personnel & Labor
Relations
Lawrence Nelson,
Chief Information
Officer
~
Victoria Syphax
Agency Fiscal
I+-
Officer
J.
r-
~
DCHR-OGC
vacant, GC
Vacant,DGC
OHR-OGC
Alexis Taylor, GC
Sonja Green-Porter
Budget Director
I+-
Mohammed Idris
Accounting
Director
ORM-OGC
Amy Mauro, GC
Danielle Coleman
Payroll Manager
~
OCTO-OGC
Christina Fleps, GC
DGS-OGC
Camille Sabbakhan,GC
Dwayne Toliver. DGC
Charles Brown, DGC
Vaughn Adams, DGC
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
for the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
January 31, 2013
DHCD-OGC
Vonda Orders, GC
Julia Wiley, DGC
-
DOES-OGC
Tanya Sapp, GC
1
1
CHILD SUPPORT SERVlCES
DIVISION
Benidia
DDS-OGC
Mark Back,
Acting GC
~
1
PUBLIC INTEREST
DIVISION
DOOE-OGC
Kimberly
Katzenberger, Ge
Amy McDonnell, DGC
ABRA-OGe
Marth. Jenkins, GC
DHS-OGC
Monica Brown, GC
Vacant: 0 Filled: 32 Frozen: 1
Ted Gest
Public Information Officer
CIVIL LITIGATION DlVlSJON
Geerge C. valentine
Deputy
I-
Eugene A. Adams
Chief Deputy
Attorney General
-
Janice eager
Chief
Human Resources
Section
~
Sherry Roberts
Chief
Operations Section
~
Vacant
Chief
Investigations
Section
~
-y
-
Andrew Kelly
Assistant Chief
Investigations
Section
Title
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SPEC
SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY
Deputy Attorney General
Paralegal Specialist
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
SUPERVISOR TRIAL ATTORNEY
SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Management Liaison Specialist
Program Manager
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
VICTIM WITNESS PGM SPEC
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
SUPERVISOR ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Support Services Specialist
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
PARALEGAL SPEC
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Investigator
Mgmt and Program Analysis Offi
Trial Attorney
PARALEGAL SPEC
STAFF ASSISTANT
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
Staff Assistant
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
STAFF ASSISTANT
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Training Administrator
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Supv Attorney Advisor
Operations Support Specialist
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIAL
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
INVESTIGATOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Clerical Assistant (OA)
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Staff Assistant
Name
Abdul-Haqq,Saadiq Benjamin
Abraham,Juan
Adams,Corliss V
Adams,Eugene A
Adams,Nyoka Camrisa
Adams,Walter E ii
Addo,Michael K.
Adebiyi,Karen N
Aderoju,Yewande
Akinleye,Paula Marie
Alexander,Marceline Denise
Alexander,Tiffany L
Allen,Doris W
Allen,Joseph A
Allen,Niquelle M
Allen,Patrick H
Allen,Seth Edward
Allsopp,Runako
Alper,Nancy
Alula,Makondi Claudine
Amato,Maria Claudia t
Anderson,Camille D.
Anderson,Michael
Anderson,Stacy
Anderson,Steven J
Andrews,Rodney J
Aniton,Michael W.
Appiah,Lindsey O.
Argust,Corey P.
Ash,Brandes S.G.
Back,Mark D
Bailey,Brenda A
Bailey,Marlene A
Bailey-Thomas,Nana B.
Baker,Denise J
Baker,Melissa L.
Barak,Alan J.
Barber,Wannetta Iris
Barnes,Bonita P
Barrington,Kenneth J
Baton,Lisa
Bazzi,Angela Hazel Jiggetts
Beastrom,Clinton T
Bechtol,Janese M
Becker Jr.,George B.
Beckwith,La Taunja R.
Bell,Lisa M.
Bell,Margaret A
Bell,Tannisha Diane
Benfield,Magda E
Bergstein,Alan H
Berkley,Brenda D
Berman,Jonathan A.
Berrios,Mary T
Beyer,Wayne C.
Black,Angli J
Black,Paulette V
Blacksheare,Tracie
Blackstone,Liliah R
Blank,Stefanie D.
Blecher,Matthew R.
Blivess,Steven N.
Bocock,Monique
Boelter,Gordon
Bohlen,Rachel E.
Bolling,Melinda M
BONETT,VICTOR A
Boone,Christopher J.
Boykin,Bryant Douglas
Boykin,Paul F
Bradley,David Andrew
Braithwaite,Aisha
Braithwaite,Joel A
Branch,Sarah E.
Branch-Devore,Yvonne
Brathwaite,Van M
Brown Jr.,Charles J.
Brown,Cheryl A
Brown,Jacquelynne
Brown,Linnette
Brown,M. Kimberly
Brown,Marie Claire
Brown,Mia C
Salary
Fringe
Total
49,692.00 10,579.43
60,271.43
66,925.00 14,248.33
81,173.33
115,000.00 24,483.50
139,483.50
158,999.00 33,850.89
192,849.89
46,794.00
9,962.44
56,756.44
109,236.00 23,256.34
132,492.34
84,282.00 17,943.64
102,225.64
65,169.00 13,874.48
79,043.48
102,492.00 21,820.55
124,312.55
49,692.00 10,579.43
60,271.43
155,653.00 33,138.52
188,791.52
58,145.00 12,379.07
70,524.07
55,738.50 11,866.73
67,605.23
146,763.00 31,245.84
178,008.84
95,158.00 20,259.14
115,417.14
109,236.00 23,256.34
132,492.34
73,894.00 15,732.03
89,626.03
95,158.00 20,259.14
115,417.14
125,301.00 26,676.58
151,977.58
54,633.00 11,631.37
66,264.37
137,894.00 29,357.63
167,251.63
61,657.00 13,126.78
74,783.78
49,275.00 10,490.65
59,765.65
128,490.00 27,355.52
155,845.52
143,606.00 30,573.72
174,179.72
51,141.00 10,887.92
62,028.92
75,447.00 16,062.67
91,509.67
70,871.00 15,088.44
85,959.44
60,530.00 12,886.84
73,416.84
62,951.00 13,402.27
76,353.27
147,387.00 31,378.69
178,765.69
40,736.00
8,672.69
49,408.69
102,349.35
84,384.00 17,965.35
106,023.00 22,572.30
128,595.30
113,374.00 24,137.32
137,511.32
96,384.00 20,520.15
116,904.15
124,711.00 26,550.97
151,261.97
102,810.00 21,888.25
124,698.25
61,657.00 13,126.78
74,783.78
78,090.00 16,625.36
94,715.36
61,657.00 13,126.78
74,783.78
110,305.00 23,483.93
133,788.93
97,877.00 20,838.01
118,715.01
104,293.00 22,203.98
126,496.98
63,413.00 13,500.63
76,913.63
75,992.00 16,178.70
92,170.70
45,943.00
9,781.26
55,724.26
63,413.00 13,500.63
76,913.63
99,597.00 21,204.20
120,801.20
98,927.76
81,563.00 17,364.76
127,198.00 27,080.45
154,278.45
56,389.00 12,005.22
68,394.22
84,282.00 17,943.64
102,225.64
63,413.00 13,500.63
76,913.63
113,374.00 24,137.32
137,511.32
67,600.00 14,392.04
81,992.04
78,090.00 16,625.36
94,715.36
65,169.00 13,874.48
79,043.48
112,449.00 23,940.39
136,389.39
89,720.00 19,101.39
108,821.39
40,204.15
8,559.46
48,763.61
87,001.00 18,522.51
105,523.51
109,236.00 23,256.34
132,492.34
108,125.00 23,019.81
131,144.81
68,583.00 14,601.32
83,184.32
108,315.00 23,060.26
131,375.26
100,000.00 21,290.00
121,290.00
67,600.00 14,392.04
81,992.04
44,603.00
9,495.98
54,098.98
80,188.00 17,072.03
97,260.03
112,449.00 23,940.39
136,389.39
92,439.00 19,680.26
112,119.26
81,563.00 17,364.76
98,927.76
92,439.00 19,680.26
112,119.26
63,413.00 13,500.63
76,913.63
115,662.00 24,624.44
140,286.44
130,000.00 27,677.00
157,677.00
52,590.00 11,196.41
63,786.41
61,657.00 13,126.78
74,783.78
36,961.00
7,869.00
44,830.00
109,000.00 23,206.10
132,206.10
136,048.00 28,964.62
165,012.62
61,657.00 13,126.78
74,783.78
Program
Child Support Services Division/File Room Section
Child Support Services Division/Enforcement Section
Commercial Division/Dept of Real Estate Srvcs Sect
Immediate Office
Child Support Services Division/Legal Services Section
Public Interest Division/Civil Enforcement Section
Civil Litigation Division/General Litigation Section 1
Child Support Services Division/Audit & Financial Mgt Section
Family Services Division/Child Protection Section 4
Public Safety Division/Fire & Emergency Services Sect
Public Safety Division/Juvenile Section
Support Services Division/Human Resource Section
Child Support Services Division
Commercial Division
Commercial Division/Bankruptcy & Finance Section
Public Services Division/Neighborhood & Victim Services
Public Safety Division/Neighborhood & Victim Services
Commercial Division/Land Acquisition & Bankruptcy
Civil Litigation Division/Dept of Insurance, Securities
Public Safety Division/Dept of Corrections Section
Support Services Division/Operation Section
Office of the Solicitor General
Public Safety Division/Criminal Section
Public Interest Division/Dept of Youth Rehabilitative S
Personnel Labor Employment Division/Personnel & Labor Relations Section
Public Interest Division/Dept. of Disability Services S
Immediate OfficeDept of Human Services Section
Commercial Division/District Dept of Transportatio
Public Interest Division/Equity Section 1
Public Interest Division/District Dept. of Environment
Public Interest Division/Dist. of Columbia Public Schoo
Child Support Services Division/Intake Section
Public Interest Division/Consumer & Trade Protection Se
Support Services Division
Family Services Division/Domestic Violence Section
Personnel Labor Employment Division/Mental Health Section
Family Services Division/Mental Health Section
Child Support Services Division/Policy Section
Commercial Division/Land Use Public Works Section
Public Interest Division/Public Advocacy Section
Civil Litigation Division/Alcoholic Beverage Regulation
Civil Litigation Division/Dept of Consumer and Regulator
Immediate OfficeDept of Health Section
Personnel Labor Employment Division
Personnel & Labor Relations Se
Commercial Division
Immediate Office
Child Support Services Division/Locate Section
Support Services Division/Support Services Division
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Staff Assistant
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Supv Mgmt Liaison Officer
Trial Attorney
OFFICE AUTOMATION ASSISTANT
PARALEGAL SPEC
Trial Attorney
PARALEGAL SPEC
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
PROGRAM ANALYST
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Program Support Assistant
Program Specialist
EXECUTIVE ASST
Support Enforcement Specialist
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Law Clerk
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
CONTRACT SPECIALIST
INVESTIGATOR
STAFF ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
INVESTIGATOR
Payroll Manager
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
STAFF ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
PAYMENT CENTER MANAGEMENT
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Program Support Assistant (OA)
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
Attorney Advisor
PROGRAM ANALYST
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
INVESTIGATOR
PARALEGAL SPEC
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
INVEST
Legal Administrative Specialis
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Brown,Monica J
Brown,Pamela A
Brown,Regina M
Brown,Sabrina I
Brown,Tiffany L.
Brown,Vernescher E
Browning,Kristina L
Bryant,Dionne M
BURK,WILLIAM D.
Burnett,Caroline Y
Bush,Lyndell O'Landon
Bush,Nicholas A.
Cager,Janice H
Caldwell,Brian R
Callender,Susanne C
Campbell,Kenneth B
Campbell,Tonia N
Cargill,Jeffrey D.
Carter,Dorlisa
Caspari,Amy M
Caspari,Matthew W
Castor,Jennifer M.
Catoe,Darren M
Causey,William F.
Celistan,Lloyetta D.
Cephas,Elizabeth I
Cephas,Mae Lena
Chambers,Darrell
Chambers,Mary E
Chandler,Cory M
Chapman-Kassa,Aretha I.
Charles,Eugenia
Charles-Christian,Kathy K
Cheek,Kelli A
Chesser,Barbara Katenbrink
Chester,Ronald J.
Chhe,Soriya R.
Chisolm,Jay P
Chor,Tanya J.
Clark,Emma
Clarke,Julien E
Cleckley,Catrina Gillespie
Clegg,Olga
Coaxum,Tarifah
Colbert,Darryl M
Coleman,Danielle E
Collins,Lynette
Collister,Judith A.
Comentale,Andrea G
Condell,Tonya Otasha
Connell,Sarah Cynthia
Cooks,Fannie
Cooley,Cherie M.
Cooper,Donnette A
Cooper,Richard
Copeland,Chad
Costinett,Andrew H.
Courtney,Joseph Lavelle
Cox,Tiffany L.
Crane,Margaret
Crisman,Virginia F
Crispino,Anthony D
Crowe Jr.,Lorenzo W
Crudup-Thompson,Unita T.
Cuervo Jr.,Nilo A.
Cullen,Erin M
Curry,Michael L
Curtis,Tina L
Dantzler,Tracey Ballard
Davie III,John L.
Davis,Christine
Davis,Euline A
Davis,Thea D.
Day,Adrianne E
Day,Marvin
Daye-Coleman,Dawne
Deal,Valerie
Deberardinis,Robert A
Dejesus,Marinel M
DeLeon,Katherine M.
DeMarco,Juliane Theresa
Demby,Dorshae DuJuan
Deuberry,Jamai A.
Devaney,John P.
140,000.00
96,384.00
55,488.00
70,437.00
70,871.00
65,169.00
92,439.00
97,877.00
118,000.00
109,236.00
44,059.00
70,871.00
107,942.00
97,877.00
39,089.00
141,284.00
78,090.00
40,204.15
73,894.00
99,597.00
119,600.00
112,000.00
82,286.00
143,606.00
32,705.00
59,901.00
62,499.00
125,000.00
66,925.00
130,000.00
59,901.00
48,243.00
106,023.00
59,901.00
98,800.00
68,583.00
81,563.00
55,488.00
83,654.00
68,681.00
84,384.00
49,692.00
115,662.00
147,580.00
75,992.00
73,069.00
102,810.00
37,539.00
135,548.00
52,590.00
92,439.00
45,345.00
87,001.00
128,490.00
114,984.00
102,810.00
40,204.15
59,901.00
106,023.00
113,374.00
132,000.00
99,597.00
109,236.00
41,451.00
81,563.00
102,182.00
66,925.00
120,485.00
106,810.00
75,447.00
128,851.00
82,286.00
109,236.00
102,810.00
70,437.00
84,384.00
54,531.00
139,827.00
95,158.00
40,204.15
95,158.00
44,059.00
73,894.00
73,159.00
29,806.00
20,520.15
11,813.40
14,996.04
15,088.44
13,874.48
19,680.26
20,838.01
25,122.20
23,256.34
9,380.16
15,088.44
22,980.85
20,838.01
8,322.05
30,079.36
16,625.36
8,559.46
15,732.03
21,204.20
25,462.84
23,844.80
17,518.69
30,573.72
6,962.89
12,752.92
13,306.04
26,612.50
14,248.33
27,677.00
12,752.92
10,270.93
22,572.30
12,752.92
21,034.52
14,601.32
17,364.76
11,813.40
17,809.94
14,622.18
17,965.35
10,579.43
24,624.44
31,419.78
16,178.70
15,556.39
21,888.25
7,992.05
28,858.17
11,196.41
19,680.26
9,653.95
18,522.51
27,355.52
24,480.09
21,888.25
8,559.46
12,752.92
22,572.30
24,137.32
28,102.80
21,204.20
23,256.34
8,824.92
17,364.76
21,754.55
14,248.33
25,651.26
22,739.85
16,062.67
27,432.38
17,518.69
23,256.34
21,888.25
14,996.04
17,965.35
11,609.65
29,769.17
20,259.14
8,559.46
20,259.14
9,380.16
15,732.03
15,575.55
169,806.00
116,904.15
67,301.40
85,433.04
85,959.44
79,043.48
112,119.26
118,715.01
143,122.20
132,492.34
53,439.16
85,959.44
130,922.85
118,715.01
47,411.05
171,363.36
94,715.36
48,763.61
89,626.03
120,801.20
145,062.84
135,844.80
99,804.69
174,179.72
39,667.89
72,653.92
75,805.04
151,612.50
81,173.33
157,677.00
72,653.92
58,513.93
128,595.30
72,653.92
119,834.52
83,184.32
98,927.76
67,301.40
101,463.94
83,303.18
102,349.35
60,271.43
140,286.44
178,999.78
92,170.70
88,625.39
124,698.25
45,531.05
164,406.17
63,786.41
112,119.26
54,998.95
105,523.51
155,845.52
139,464.09
124,698.25
48,763.61
72,653.92
128,595.30
137,511.32
160,102.80
120,801.20
132,492.34
50,275.92
98,927.76
123,936.55
81,173.33
146,136.26
129,549.85
91,509.67
156,283.38
99,804.69
132,492.34
124,698.25
85,433.04
102,349.35
66,140.65
169,596.17
115,417.14
48,763.61
115,417.14
53,439.16
89,626.03
88,734.55
Personnel Labor Employment Division/Dist Dept of Human Resources S
Civil Litigation Division/Child & Family Serv. Agency Se
Public Interest Division/Ofc. of State Sup. for Educati
Public Interest Division/Dept. of Mental Health Section
Commercial Division/Real Estate Section
Child Support Services Division/Service Quality Management Sec
Child Support Services Division/Operation Section
Commercial Division/DC Department of Transportatio
Family Services Division
Commercial Division/Dept of Housing & Comm. Dvlpmn
Support Services Division/Investigations Section
Support Services Division/Finance
Child Support Services Division/Child Support Services Divisio
Public Services Division/Juvenile Section
Support Services Division/Juvenile Section
Legal Counsel Division
Commercial Division/Dept of Public Works Section
Program Analyst
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
STAFF ASST
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
INVESTIGATOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
PARALEGAL SPEC
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
CASE COOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Staff Assistant
STAFF ASSISTANT
Administrative Aide
SECRETARY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
SUPERVISORY INFORMATION TECHNO
LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SPEC
INVESTIGATOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Program Specialist (Bilingual)
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
TRIAL ATTORNEY
PGM ANALYST
Program Analyst
Program Analyst
Program Specialist
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
LIBRARIAN
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
PGM SUPPORT ASST
PARALEGAL SPEC
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Public Affairs Specialist
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
INVESTIGATOR
Attorney Advisor
DEW,COLIN A.
Dewitt,Tyrona T
Dildy,Regina C.
Dodds,Ciji S.
Donatien,Doris
Donawa,Shamieka Caroline Joy
Donkor,Patricia B.
Dorvil,Clivens
Douds,Justin W.
Doughty,Jacqueline Y
Drummey,Jane
Dubin,Glenn
Dupree,William H
Duren-Jones,Dionne M
Edmunds,Carmela N.
Edmunds,Vannice C
EFROS,ELLEN A.
Ellis,Alice Y
Ensworth,Laurie A
Epstein,Carol P
Etwaroo,Larissa V.
Evans,Deborah
Evans,Gregory Michael
Faison,Greta A
Farewell,Jermale N
Featherstone,Kerslyn D
Feldon,Gary D.
Ferrando,Catherine E c
Fields,Darlene
Fields,Delores R
Findley,Flora
Fisher,David
Fitzhugh,Lavana F
Flemmings,Renae N.
Fleps,Christina W
Flores,Sergio Fabrizzio
Floyd,Mary B
Fois,Andrew
Ford,Betty L
Ford,Lorraine A
Foster,Chad B
Franco,Karin
Frazier Tyler,Sekeithia D
Freeman,Angela A
Frost,Shana L
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
GARDINER,Kevin C.
Gaskins,Robert L
Gboyor,Bobby
George,Laura A.
George,Rachel
Gephardt,Christine L.
Gere,Elizabeth Sarah
Gest,Theodore O
Gilbert,Laura G
Glasser,David M
Glassic,Thomas Michael
Glazer,Sherry A
Glover,Andrew A
Goff,Pollie H
Gohil,Ajay
Goldhagen,Mia Faye
Gonzalez,Joseph A.
Gordon,Patrick H
Govan,Eboni J
45,363.00
95,158.00
32,705.00
70,871.00
45,549.60
56,389.00
81,563.00
70,871.00
68,583.00
66,925.00
122,088.00
106,023.00
78,090.00
65,169.00
132,269.00
75,992.00
153,900.00
66,925.00
107,704.50
88,431.00
69,698.00
39,089.00
120,000.00
65,169.00
67,600.00
113,374.00
83,654.00
54,618.00
61,657.00
61,657.00
45,399.00
143,556.08
53,048.00
59,133.00
155,653.00
109,744.00
70,437.00
130,000.00
83,550.00
63,413.00
102,810.00
44,059.00
44,059.00
129,325.00
120,932.00
117,196.50
37,539.00
45,345.00
45,345.00
37,539.00
45,345.00
45,345.00
54,633.00
47,299.00
92,439.00
117,196.50
109,236.00
89,720.00
117,196.50
47,299.00
75,992.00
123,548.00
117,196.50
117,153.00
89,720.00
87,001.00
31,641.00
73,894.00
95,158.00
66,925.00
73,159.00
140,000.00
39,467.00
69,397.20
130,000.00
155,653.00
125,301.00
80,023.00
147,385.00
96,384.00
68,583.00
70,871.00
82,286.00
97,877.00
9,657.78
20,259.14
6,962.89
15,088.44
9,697.51
12,005.22
17,364.76
15,088.44
14,601.32
14,248.33
25,992.54
22,572.30
16,625.36
13,874.48
28,160.07
16,178.70
32,765.31
14,248.33
22,930.29
18,826.96
14,838.70
8,322.05
25,548.00
13,874.48
14,392.04
24,137.32
17,809.94
11,628.17
13,126.78
13,126.78
9,665.45
30,563.09
11,293.92
12,589.42
33,138.52
23,364.50
14,996.04
27,677.00
17,787.80
13,500.63
21,888.25
9,380.16
9,380.16
27,533.29
25,746.42
24,951.13
7,992.05
9,653.95
9,653.95
7,992.05
9,653.95
9,653.95
11,631.37
10,069.96
19,680.26
24,951.13
23,256.34
19,101.39
24,951.13
10,069.96
16,178.70
26,303.37
24,951.13
24,941.87
19,101.39
18,522.51
6,736.37
15,732.03
20,259.14
14,248.33
15,575.55
29,806.00
8,402.52
14,774.66
27,677.00
33,138.52
26,676.58
17,036.90
31,378.27
20,520.15
14,601.32
15,088.44
17,518.69
20,838.01
55,020.78
115,417.14
39,667.89
85,959.44
55,247.11
68,394.22
98,927.76
85,959.44
83,184.32
81,173.33
148,080.54
128,595.30
94,715.36
79,043.48
160,429.07
92,170.70
186,665.31
81,173.33
130,634.79
107,257.96
84,536.70
47,411.05
145,548.00
79,043.48
81,992.04
137,511.32
101,463.94
66,246.17
74,783.78
74,783.78
55,064.45
174,119.17
64,341.92
71,722.42
188,791.52
133,108.50
85,433.04
157,677.00
101,337.80
76,913.63
124,698.25
53,439.16
53,439.16
156,858.29
146,678.42
142,147.63
45,531.05
54,998.95
54,998.95
45,531.05
54,998.95
54,998.95
66,264.37
57,368.96
112,119.26
142,147.63
132,492.34
108,821.39
142,147.63
57,368.96
92,170.70
149,851.37
142,147.63
142,094.87
108,821.39
105,523.51
38,377.37
89,626.03
115,417.14
81,173.33
88,734.55
169,806.00
47,869.52
84,171.86
157,677.00
188,791.52
151,977.58
97,059.90
178,763.27
116,904.15
83,184.32
85,959.44
99,804.69
118,715.01
Commercial Division
Public Interest Division
Public Safety Division/Ofc. Of Unified Communications
Civil Litigation Division/Civil Litigation Division
Family Services Division/Dept. of Mental Health Section
Immediate OfficeDept. of Employment Services S
Commercial Division
Commercial Division/Ofc. of the Chief Technology O
Child Support Services Division/Establishment Section
Public Safety Division
Commercial Division
Immediate Office
Immediate Office
Commercial Division/Dept of Motor Vehicles Section
PGM SUPPORT ASST
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Staff Assistant
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
BUDGET OFFICER
PARALEGAL SPEC
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
SUPERVISOR TRAIL ATTORNEY
LEGAL ASST
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
OPERATIONS MGR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Legal Assistant
Support Enforcement Manager
Wage Withholding Specialist
FINANCIAL MGR
Program Analyst
Operations Support Manager
Program Specialist
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Legal Assistant
TRIAL ATTORNEY
PARALEGAL SPEC
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
PGM SUPPORT ASST OA
Program Analyst
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
LEGAL ASST
MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Attorney Advisor
STAFF ASST
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
BUDGET & FISCAL SPEC
ACCOUNTANT
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
SUPV INVEST
STAFF ASSISTANT
Clerical Assistant (Office Aut
SUPV SUPP ENFORCEMENT SPEC
Attorney Advisor
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Graham,Grace
Graham,Tamikia Denise
Granby-Collins,Starr J
Grant,Keisha Nicole
Gray,Jessica A
Green,Matthew J
Green-Porter,Sonja N
Grey,Jeremy E
Griffith,Chanel T.
Grimaldi,John J
Groce,Rosalyn C
Gross,Leslie S
Grossman,Andrea L.
Gudger,Monique L.
Guest,Roseline Tonia
Hall,Jacqueline S
Hall,Lauren Ashley
Hall,Twana V.
Hammond,Annie Mae
Hammond,Marcus E.
Hampton,Melanie D.
Hancock,Jennifer V
Hapeman,Nancy Kay
Hardy,Tasha M
Harley,Angela L.
Harrington,Jody M
Harris,Lashann D
Harris,Nekira Nichole
Harris,Ronald B
Harris-Lindsey,Quinne
Harrison,Renee D
Hart-Wright,Mari-Christine Fran
Harvey,Kathy Maire
Hassan,Ahmed S
Hayes Jr.,Floyd Collins
Hayes,Dionne
Haynes,Deborah
Haynes,Thurston
Healy,Victoria L.
Henderson,Jacqueline D
Henneberry,Edward P
Henry,Stefhon
Hersh,Michelle G
Heslep,Katherine W
Heyward,Christopher Louis
HILDUM,ROBERT M
Hill Dodson,Loretta
Hill,Barbara Sue
Hill,Eddie G
Hill,Michelle
Hines,Gwendolyn Denise
Hoffman,Leora K
Hoffman-Peak,Hillary E
Hogan,Marjorie E
Holder,Rosamund Ic
Hollander,Anne R
Holloway,Angela
Holloway,Beverly A
Hooper,Joseph L
Hopkins,Diane
Horton,Richard T.
Houser,Robin P
Howard,Dennis
Huang,Eric Adam
Hui,Irene
Hungerford,Joan E
HUNTER,PATRICIA E
Husband,Phillip L
Hyden,David A
Hyden,Teresa Quon
Idris,Mohammed Ali
Jack,Anthony W
Jackson,Catherine A.
Jackson,David
Jackson,Gene A
Jackson,Jeffery L
Jackson,Quinzel
Jackson,Rosemary M
Jacobs,Artish De'shana
Jaffe,William B.
Jain,Rashmi
Jefferson,Dwayne C.
Jenkins,Martha L
Jenkins,Sammie
120,000.00
35,897.00
73,159.00
45,345.00
40,204.15
106,034.00
113,911.00
75,992.00
40,204.15
139,827.00
131,551.00
111,107.00
24,870.60
87,001.00
87,001.00
65,169.00
59,133.00
56,389.00
66,925.00
45,345.00
32,705.00
95,158.00
144,544.00
76,126.40
83,679.00
118,875.00
52,590.00
56,389.00
136,693.00
120,000.00
44,059.00
100,000.00
41,451.00
105,526.00
54,633.00
130,000.00
76,996.00
49,692.00
75,447.00
58,386.00
113,374.00
73,894.00
81,563.00
56,224.50
37,539.00
120,000.00
72,010.00
41,451.00
66,925.00
63,413.00
39,780.00
97,877.00
102,810.00
37,418.00
95,765.00
125,301.00
92,439.00
65,169.00
70,437.00
59,901.00
15,015.60
63,413.00
46,633.60
92,675.00
70,871.00
70,437.00
70,259.00
147,386.00
109,236.00
136,048.00
111,197.00
77,289.00
109,236.00
136,048.00
106,798.00
80,500.00
59,901.00
45,363.00
90,500.00
92,439.00
92,439.00
132,269.00
114,439.00
49,692.00
25,548.00
7,642.47
15,575.55
9,653.95
8,559.46
22,574.64
24,251.65
16,178.70
8,559.46
29,769.17
28,007.21
23,654.68
5,294.95
18,522.51
18,522.51
13,874.48
12,589.42
12,005.22
14,248.33
9,653.95
6,962.89
20,259.14
30,773.42
16,207.31
17,815.26
25,308.49
11,196.41
12,005.22
29,101.94
25,548.00
9,380.16
21,290.00
8,824.92
22,466.49
11,631.37
27,677.00
16,392.45
10,579.43
16,062.67
12,430.38
24,137.32
15,732.03
17,364.76
11,970.20
7,992.05
25,548.00
15,330.93
8,824.92
14,248.33
13,500.63
8,469.16
20,838.01
21,888.25
7,966.29
20,388.37
26,676.58
19,680.26
13,874.48
14,996.04
12,752.92
3,196.82
13,500.63
9,928.29
19,730.51
15,088.44
14,996.04
14,958.14
31,378.48
23,256.34
28,964.62
23,673.84
16,454.83
23,256.34
28,964.62
22,737.29
17,138.45
12,752.92
9,657.78
19,267.45
19,680.26
19,680.26
28,160.07
24,364.06
10,579.43
145,548.00
43,539.47
88,734.55
54,998.95
48,763.61
128,608.64
138,162.65
92,170.70
48,763.61
169,596.17
159,558.21
134,761.68
30,165.55
105,523.51
105,523.51
79,043.48
71,722.42
68,394.22
81,173.33
54,998.95
39,667.89
115,417.14
175,317.42
92,333.71
101,494.26
144,183.49
63,786.41
68,394.22
165,794.94
145,548.00
53,439.16
121,290.00
50,275.92
127,992.49
66,264.37
157,677.00
93,388.45
60,271.43
91,509.67
70,816.38
137,511.32
89,626.03
98,927.76
68,194.70
45,531.05
145,548.00
87,340.93
50,275.92
81,173.33
76,913.63
48,249.16
118,715.01
124,698.25
45,384.29
116,153.37
151,977.58
112,119.26
79,043.48
85,433.04
72,653.92
18,212.42
76,913.63
56,561.89
112,405.51
85,959.44
85,433.04
85,217.14
178,764.48
132,492.34
165,012.62
134,870.84
93,743.83
132,492.34
165,012.62
129,535.29
97,638.45
72,653.92
55,020.78
109,767.45
112,119.26
112,119.26
160,429.07
138,803.06
60,271.43
Civil Litigation Division/Equity Section 1
Public Litigation Division/Equity Section 1
Commercial Division/Office of Contracts and Procur
Public Safety Division/Metropolitan Police Dept Secti
Child Support Services Division/Data Reliability Unit
Public Interest Division/General Litigation Section 2
Public Safety Division/Homeland Security & Emergency
Child Support Services Division/Customer Service Section
Legal Counsel Division/Dept of Health Care Finance Se
Support Services/Information Technology Section
Public Safety Division/Fire & Emergency Services Sect
Trial Attorney
PGM MGR
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
SUPVY INFO TECH SPEC
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Program Specialist
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
PROGRAM SUPPORT ASSISTANT OA
Supv. Program Analyst
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
PROGRAM ANALYST
STAFF ASSISTANT
Trial Attorney
LITIGATION CLAIMS SPEC
Program Specialist
INVESTIGATOR
PGM ANALYST
Case Management Coordinator
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
SUPV INVEST
Program Analyst
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Legal Assistant
Policy Analyst
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Attorney Advisor
STAFF ASSISTANT
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
Investigator
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
INVESTIGATOR
Attorney Advisor
Duplicating Equipment Operator
Attorney Advisor
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Jenkins-Kearney,Debra L.
Jeter,Herbert
Jewell,Audrey M
Johnson Jr.,Harold W.
Johnson,Albert J.
Johnson,Andrea E
Johnson,Bobby E
Johnson,Carmen R
JOHNSON,DEBORAH L
Johnson,Erin
Johnson,Holly M
Johnson,Julia A
Johnson,Kimberly Matthews
Johnson,Rocelia Harvey
Johnson,Sheryl C
Johnson,Valerie H
Jones Bosier,Tanya M
Jones,Catrina M
Jones,Essence M.
Jones,Jacqueline L
Jones,Olivia V
Jones,Patricia L
Jones,Shermineh C
Jordan,Diana G
Jordan,Lameshea D
Jordan,Sheila Denise
Jordan,Tionne D.
Jordan-smith,Yvette
Justice,Rena M
Kaplan,Karen L
Karim,Hussain S
KARISA,ERIC G.
Karpinski,Alex
Katzenbarger,Kimberly S
Kayinamura,Robert
Kebede,Yemarshet
Keil,Brittany A
Kelley,Katherine V
Kelly,Andrew
KEYS,CAROL
Khodabakhsh,Shohreh
Kim,Brian
Kim,Brian G.
Kim,Cindy
Kim,Todd S
Kirkwood,Michael D
Klug,Alessandra
Knapp,Sarah L.
Ko,Kelly S
Koger,Thomas
Korba,John F.
Kratchman,Paul
KULISH,JON N.
LaFratta,Matthew D
Latney,Gloria M
Latour,Stephane J
Latus,Justin
Lederstein,Jason
Ledezma,Isabel P
Lee,Amanda
Leighton,Bayly Kirlin
Leighton,Scott M
Lerner,Jacques P.
Levi,Adam
Levinson Waldman,Ariel B.
Levy,Yefat
LEWIS,AISHA A.
Lewis,Brandon W
Lewis,Turna R
Lindsay,Tina Elaine
Linton,Kenneth E
Lisas,Phillippa
Litos,Stephanie Evangelos
Little,Jewell
Littlejohn,Andrea R
LITTLEJOHN,TANYA M.
Logan,Gavin H.
Logan,Tommy Gbato
Longstreet,Susan C.
Lopez,Gloria S
Lord-Sorensen,Adrianne
Louis-Fernand,Jalla-Anne S.
Love,Richard Stuart
Lu,Lan
97,877.00
115,819.00
38,599.00
117,917.00
74,405.00
77,735.00
35,897.00
125,301.00
40,147.00
73,159.00
117,153.00
42,142.00
141,718.00
88,000.00
140,000.00
45,363.00
102,810.00
115,000.00
45,345.00
63,413.00
65,169.00
58,386.00
87,001.00
83,550.00
44,059.00
52,590.00
37,539.00
70,259.00
87,001.00
112,449.00
86,887.00
62,499.00
97,877.00
142,000.00
58,145.00
59,901.00
94,720.00
132,269.00
89,999.28
45,363.00
118,598.00
70,871.00
128,490.00
81,563.00
150,416.00
84,282.00
68,583.00
128,490.00
66,925.00
143,606.00
68,583.00
125,301.00
115,662.00
73,159.00
55,488.00
121,480.00
93,285.80
112,449.00
103,315.00
49,692.00
87,001.00
132,269.00
150,000.00
112,449.00
150,000.00
81,563.00
92,439.00
56,389.00
132,242.00
39,780.00
41,451.00
109,236.00
84,282.00
97,877.00
118,875.00
65,169.00
64,860.00
34,833.00
146,000.00
65,169.00
78,424.00
92,439.00
147,385.00
58,145.00
20,838.01
24,657.87
8,217.73
25,104.53
15,840.82
16,549.78
7,642.47
26,676.58
8,547.30
15,575.55
24,941.87
8,972.03
30,171.76
18,735.20
29,806.00
9,657.78
21,888.25
24,483.50
9,653.95
13,500.63
13,874.48
12,430.38
18,522.51
17,787.80
9,380.16
11,196.41
7,992.05
14,958.14
18,522.51
23,940.39
18,498.24
13,306.04
20,838.01
30,231.80
12,379.07
12,752.92
20,165.89
28,160.07
19,160.85
9,657.78
25,249.51
15,088.44
27,355.52
17,364.76
32,023.57
17,943.64
14,601.32
27,355.52
14,248.33
30,573.72
14,601.32
26,676.58
24,624.44
15,575.55
11,813.40
25,863.09
19,860.55
23,940.39
21,995.76
10,579.43
18,522.51
28,160.07
31,935.00
23,940.39
31,935.00
17,364.76
19,680.26
12,005.22
28,154.32
8,469.16
8,824.92
23,256.34
17,943.64
20,838.01
25,308.49
13,874.48
13,808.69
7,415.95
31,083.40
13,874.48
16,696.47
19,680.26
31,378.27
12,379.07
118,715.01
140,476.87
46,816.73
143,021.53
90,245.82
94,284.78
43,539.47
151,977.58
48,694.30
88,734.55
142,094.87
51,114.03
171,889.76
106,735.20
169,806.00
55,020.78
124,698.25
139,483.50
54,998.95
76,913.63
79,043.48
70,816.38
105,523.51
101,337.80
53,439.16
63,786.41
45,531.05
85,217.14
105,523.51
136,389.39
105,385.24
75,805.04
118,715.01
172,231.80
70,524.07
72,653.92
114,885.89
160,429.07
109,160.13
55,020.78
143,847.51
85,959.44
155,845.52
98,927.76
182,439.57
102,225.64
83,184.32
155,845.52
81,173.33
174,179.72
83,184.32
151,977.58
140,286.44
88,734.55
67,301.40
147,343.09
113,146.35
136,389.39
125,310.76
60,271.43
105,523.51
160,429.07
181,935.00
136,389.39
181,935.00
98,927.76
112,119.26
68,394.22
160,396.32
48,249.16
50,275.92
132,492.34
102,225.64
118,715.01
144,183.49
79,043.48
78,668.69
42,248.95
177,083.40
79,043.48
95,120.47
112,119.26
178,763.27
70,524.07
Commercial Division/Dept of Parks & Recreation Sec
Civil Litigation Division/DC Taxicab Commission Section
Child Support Services Division/First Response Unit
Commercial Division/Procurement Section
Civil Litigation Division/DC Taxicab Commission Section
Immediate Office
Personnel Labor Relations Employment Division/Office of Human Rights
Commercial Division
Program Analyst
INVESTIGATOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
Program Analyst
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
PARALEGAL SPECIALIST
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Customer Service Asst (OA)
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Community Outreach Specialist
PARALEGAL SPEC
Operations Manager
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Staff Assistant
CASE COOR
Victim/Witness Program Special
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Legal Assistant
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Investigator
Program Analyst
LEGAL ASSISTANT
Trial Attorney
PGM SUPPORT ASST OA
IT Specialist (Security)
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
CLERK
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY GEN FOR DC
Trial Attorney
SUPV INFO TECH SPEC
INVESTIGATOR
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
Lucas,Eugenie A
Lyles,James F
Lynch,La Shawna D.
Lynch,Nicole L
Madison,Julie Fidaleo
Magyar,Keely
Mahmud,Jihad O
Malry,Frances
MANFREDA,MARY ELIZABETH
MANNING,JEANETTE L.
Mansur,Surobhi N.
Mante Pearson,Dede A.
Mapp,Lorraine P
Marbury,Yvette D
Marrero,Jose M.
Martin,Brant W.
Martinez,David Oliver
Martino,Beverly A.
Martorana,John D.
Massaquoi II,Nathaniel V
Massengale,Robin L.
Mathis,Michelle D.
Matthews,Annette B
Mattocks-Gahin,Yvette S
Mauro,Amy Constance
MAXWELL,LAUREN W
May,Darlene E
Mc Collough,Mark A
McArthur,Booker T.
McBride,Keenan R.
McCall,Daniel L.
Mccauley Jackson,Kiesha L
Mccauley,Monica R
Mcclain,Jeinine R
McClellan,Natasha Sardalla
MCDANIEL,KIM T.
McDONNELL,AMY E.
Mcdougald Jr.,Frank J
Mcgauley Bradley,Lillian R
McGiffin,Katherine L.
McIntyre,James K.
Mckay,James C
Mckenzie,Joan E
Mcmiller,Michael E
Mcqueen,Tabitha D
Medley,Philip
Melcher,Megan L.
Merecicky,Lilia R
Merene,Deon C
Miller,Ryan Pohlman
Mills,Yolanda C.
Milwee,Michael A
Mimms,Karen Denise
Mitchell,Rebecca Freeman
Mitchell,Twila M
Monroe,Linda E.
Monteiro,Anita R
Montgomery,Kim L.
Moore,Antoinette P
Morgan,Judith A
Morris,Thomas J
Moskowitz,Sara E
Moy Jr.,Grant
MULKEY,SHELLY A
Mullen,Martha J
Murasky,Donna M
Murat,Maureen L.
Murchison,LaToshia
Murphy,Meghan L
Myers,Tameka R.
MYRIE,Fernando
Nagelhout,Mary
Naran-Ferrini,Rick Vino
Naso,Chad A
Natale,Vanessa
Nathan,Irvin B.
Neinast,Lindsay M.
Nelson,Lawrence
Newby,Eugenia F.
Nichols,Marsha F
Nigmatzyanov,Mars M
Nix,Lynsey R
Nunez,Amparo
O'Connor,Mary Connaught
73,894.00
75,992.00
63,413.00
62,355.50
46,219.50
97,877.00
107,810.00
87,872.00
92,439.00
97,675.00
77,735.00
54,633.00
86,482.00
49,692.00
57,224.00
68,583.00
58,145.00
37,418.00
75,447.00
70,437.00
73,894.00
77,884.00
65,169.00
54,039.00
115,000.00
84,282.00
66,925.00
47,971.00
37,539.00
16,052.93
112,449.00
59,901.00
86,482.00
95,363.00
51,141.00
137,582.00
115,000.00
138,084.00
35,897.00
89,720.00
73,159.00
147,385.00
147,385.00
118,875.00
120,000.00
61,042.00
68,583.00
95,158.00
114,919.00
68,583.00
48,243.00
141,718.00
58,386.00
87,872.00
53,048.00
95,680.00
92,439.00
41,451.00
33,160.80
118,598.00
92,439.00
77,486.25
147,385.00
92,439.00
139,827.00
145,000.00
58,145.00
35,897.00
81,563.00
35,897.00
59,901.00
136,048.00
68,583.00
83,654.00
102,810.00
179,096.00
68,145.00
121,758.00
54,633.00
54,039.00
90,369.00
89,720.00
63,413.00
89,720.00
15,732.03
16,178.70
13,500.63
13,275.49
9,840.13
20,838.01
22,952.75
18,707.95
19,680.26
20,795.01
16,549.78
11,631.37
18,412.02
10,579.43
12,182.99
14,601.32
12,379.07
7,966.29
16,062.67
14,996.04
15,732.03
16,581.50
13,874.48
11,504.90
24,483.50
17,943.64
14,248.33
10,213.03
7,992.05
3,417.67
23,940.39
12,752.92
18,412.02
20,302.78
10,887.92
29,291.21
24,483.50
29,398.08
7,642.47
19,101.39
15,575.55
31,378.27
31,378.27
25,308.49
25,548.00
12,995.84
14,601.32
20,259.14
24,466.26
14,601.32
10,270.93
30,171.76
12,430.38
18,707.95
11,293.92
20,370.27
19,680.26
8,824.92
7,059.93
25,249.51
19,680.26
16,496.82
31,378.27
19,680.26
29,769.17
30,870.50
12,379.07
7,642.47
17,364.76
7,642.47
12,752.92
28,964.62
14,601.32
17,809.94
21,888.25
38,129.54
14,508.07
25,922.28
11,631.37
11,504.90
19,239.56
19,101.39
13,500.63
19,101.39
89,626.03
92,170.70
76,913.63
75,630.99
56,059.63
118,715.01
130,762.75
106,579.95
112,119.26
118,470.01
94,284.78
66,264.37
104,894.02
60,271.43
69,406.99
83,184.32
70,524.07
45,384.29
91,509.67
85,433.04
89,626.03
94,465.50
79,043.48
65,543.90
139,483.50
102,225.64
81,173.33
58,184.03
45,531.05
19,470.60
136,389.39
72,653.92
104,894.02
115,665.78
62,028.92
166,873.21
139,483.50
167,482.08
43,539.47
108,821.39
88,734.55
178,763.27
178,763.27
144,183.49
145,548.00
74,037.84
83,184.32
115,417.14
139,385.26
83,184.32
58,513.93
171,889.76
70,816.38
106,579.95
64,341.92
116,050.27
112,119.26
50,275.92
40,220.73
143,847.51
112,119.26
93,983.07
178,763.27
112,119.26
169,596.17
175,870.50
70,524.07
43,539.47
98,927.76
43,539.47
72,653.92
165,012.62
83,184.32
101,463.94
124,698.25
217,225.54
82,653.07
147,680.28
66,264.37
65,543.90
109,608.56
108,821.39
76,913.63
108,821.39
Personnel & Labor Relations Se
Commercial Division/Dept of Small & Local Bus Dvlp
Civil Litigation Division/Criminal Section
Support Services Division/Support Services Division
Immediate Office
PARALEGAL SPEC
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Attorney Advisor
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRAINING COOR
Trial Attorney
STAFF ASST
Program Specialist
SUPERVISOR SUPPORT ENFORCEMNT
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Supervisory Management Analyst
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
RECORDS MGMT SUPV
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
STAFF ASSISTANT
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Attorney Advisor
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
CASE COOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
INVESTIGATOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT ANALYST
Attorney Advisor
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
STAFF ASSISTANT
SUPVY ADMIN SERVICE SPEC
Investigator
TRIAL ATTORNEY
STAFF ASSISTANT
Trial Attorney
MGMT LIAISON SPEC
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Intern Coordinator
Attorney Advisor
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
O'Hannon,Gail P
Okoroma,Rhondalyn Primes
Orders,Vonda J.
Orton,Michael W
Oxendine,Patricia A
Paisant,Nada Abdelaal
Parker Woolridge,Doris A
Parker,Arthur J
Parker,Charlotte W
PARKER,CHARMETRA L
Parsons,Angela C.
Parsons,Keith David
Patel Anderson,Neha Navin
Patrick,Bradford C
Payne,Shirley Yates
Peary,Scott J
Penn,Theresa A
Perry,Lashon Y
Perry,Stephanie A.
Phillips,Asia Ogreeta
Phillips,E Louise r
Piaggione,Jared J
Pierce,Tanya T
Pinkett Jr.,William N
Pittman,Jonathan H.
Pittman,Lucy
Pleasant,Shakira Denise
Polli,Maura
Porter,Veronica A
Potterveld,Will B.
Pregel,Viktor V
Price,Anay N
Price,Margaret A
Prioleau,Rashida Wilson
Quinones,Edel
Radabaugh,Margaret Pollard
Ragland,Delores
Ramey,Janelle Tiajuana
Ramirez,Elisa
Ramirez-Fuentes,Teresa Elizabet
Rancier,Kaitlin T
Randall,April Renee
Ratchford Jr.,Robert L
Rawls,Cynthia D
Reece,Nicole M.
Reed,Dena C
Reed,Franklin E.L.
Reid,Rachele G
Rembert,Anthony
Rezneck,Daniel A
Rhodes,Aggie
Rice,Benidia
Rich,Edward J
Rich,Polly A
Ridley,Andrew E
Ritting,Jacob
Rivera,Javier F.
Rivero,Fernando
Rivers,Gale Victoria
Roberts,Sherry A
Roberts-Henry,Gloria B
Robins,Janet Marie
Robinson,Ebony Michelle
Robinson,Karen Y
ROBINSON,REGINALD E.
Robinson,Tonia
Rock,Jimmy R.
Roseborough,Doris
Rosenbloom,Douglas Stuart
Rosenthal,David
Ross,Keya N
Royster,Deborah Michele
Rubenstein,Steven Nathan
Rushkoff,Bennett C
Russell,Donna W
Ryan,Terrence D
Saba III,George Peter
Sabbakhan,Camille D.
Sadel,Steven A.
Sager,James P.
Saindon,Andrew J
Sanchez,Paola L.
Sandoval,Carlos M.
Sapp,Tonya A
73,894.00
97,877.00
129,600.00
122,088.00
134,260.00
82,311.00
103,315.00
137,182.00
147,385.00
92,439.00
92,439.00
77,735.00
89,720.00
87,001.00
90,474.00
81,563.00
44,059.00
44,059.00
70,000.00
37,539.00
143,606.00
84,282.00
96,384.00
84,484.00
130,000.00
102,810.00
87,001.00
75,447.00
132,269.00
120,000.00
109,236.00
41,451.00
85,000.00
92,439.00
106,798.00
40,204.15
61,657.00
51,141.00
61,657.00
31,641.00
109,236.00
81,563.00
43,323.00
80,188.00
104,377.00
147,385.00
75,447.00
112,449.00
78,090.00
73,692.50
77,465.00
149,913.00
109,236.00
86,163.60
147,385.00
97,877.00
32,705.00
97,877.00
70,437.00
61,702.20
56,389.00
145,000.00
80,023.00
32,705.00
59,901.00
61,657.00
95,158.00
58,630.00
84,282.00
147,385.00
63,413.00
110,000.00
57,224.00
138,556.00
108,125.00
150,325.00
84,282.00
142,000.00
112,449.00
59,901.00
128,490.00
48,243.00
128,490.00
143,876.00
15,732.03
20,838.01
27,591.84
25,992.54
28,583.95
17,524.01
21,995.76
29,206.05
31,378.27
19,680.26
19,680.26
16,549.78
19,101.39
18,522.51
19,261.91
17,364.76
9,380.16
9,380.16
14,903.00
7,992.05
30,573.72
17,943.64
20,520.15
17,986.64
27,677.00
21,888.25
18,522.51
16,062.67
28,160.07
25,548.00
23,256.34
8,824.92
18,096.50
19,680.26
22,737.29
8,559.46
13,126.78
10,887.92
13,126.78
6,736.37
23,256.34
17,364.76
9,223.47
17,072.03
22,221.86
31,378.27
16,062.67
23,940.39
16,625.36
15,689.13
16,492.30
31,916.48
23,256.34
18,344.23
31,378.27
20,838.01
6,962.89
20,838.01
14,996.04
13,136.40
12,005.22
30,870.50
17,036.90
6,962.89
12,752.92
13,126.78
20,259.14
12,482.33
17,943.64
31,378.27
13,500.63
23,419.00
12,182.99
29,498.57
23,019.81
32,004.19
17,943.64
30,231.80
23,940.39
12,752.92
27,355.52
10,270.93
27,355.52
30,631.20
89,626.03
118,715.01
157,191.84
148,080.54
162,843.95
99,835.01
125,310.76
166,388.05
178,763.27
112,119.26
112,119.26
94,284.78
108,821.39
105,523.51
109,735.91
98,927.76
53,439.16
53,439.16
84,903.00
45,531.05
174,179.72
102,225.64
116,904.15
102,470.64
157,677.00
124,698.25
105,523.51
91,509.67
160,429.07
145,548.00
132,492.34
50,275.92
103,096.50
112,119.26
129,535.29
48,763.61
74,783.78
62,028.92
74,783.78
38,377.37
132,492.34
98,927.76
52,546.47
97,260.03
126,598.86
178,763.27
91,509.67
136,389.39
94,715.36
89,381.63
93,957.30
181,829.48
132,492.34
104,507.83
178,763.27
118,715.01
39,667.89
118,715.01
85,433.04
74,838.60
68,394.22
175,870.50
97,059.90
39,667.89
72,653.92
74,783.78
115,417.14
71,112.33
102,225.64
178,763.27
76,913.63
133,419.00
69,406.99
168,054.57
131,144.81
182,329.19
102,225.64
172,231.80
136,389.39
72,653.92
155,845.52
58,513.93
155,845.52
174,507.20
Commercial Division/Dept of Parks & Recreation Sec
Commercial Division/Real Estate Section
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Executive Assistant
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Investigator
Investigator
ACCOUNTANT
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
INVESTIGATOR
Trial Attorney
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
Trial Attorney
Supervisory Investigator
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Program Specialist
Trial Attorney
STAFF ASST
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
PROGRAM ANALYST
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
AGENCY FISCAL OFFICER
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Program Specialist
LEGAL ASST OA
INVESTIGATOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
LAW CLERK
Attorney Advisor
STAFF ASSISTANT
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
INVESTIGATOR
PGM SUPPORT ASST OA
STAFF ASSISTANT
TRIAL ATTORNEY
INVESTIGATOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
Program Analyst
PGM SUPPORT ASST
IT Spec (APPSW/SYSANALYSIS)
SUPERVISOR SUPPORT ENFORCEMNT
Policy Analyst
Sarnell,Bradley Alexander
Sassoon Cohen,Talia R
Schifferle,Carl J
Schildkraut,Robert S
Schmidt,Amy Ruth
Schreiber,Rudolf L
Schwartz,Howard Shelton
Scott,Valerie Lynn
Seales Jr.,Frank
Seshadri,Sheila
Shannon,Ivy N
Shear,Melissa Gail
Sheppard,Janice Y
Sheppard,Terrence
Shirey,Timothy B.
Sims Jr.,Lionel C.
Singh,Renuka C
Singleton,Wendy B
Skipper,Janice N
Smalls,Linda Maria
Smith,Lawrence E
Smith,Michael Allen
Smith,Penelope
Smith,Todd Christhom
Smith,Walter L
Smothers-Hardy,Tracy D.
Soncini,Pamela
Spears,Marian L
Staley,Curtis L
Stanford,James J
Stanley,Donna E.
Steiner Smith,Maria C
Stern,Gail
Stern,Michael A
Stevens,Alice
Stoebner,Whitney L
Stokes,Shameka W
Street Jr.,James J
Surabian,Jay A
Syphax,Victoria S
Tan,Gary M.
Taylor,Alexis P
Taylor,Chardonnay M
Taylor,Latrice J
Teixeira,Charles
Thomas,Charles E
Thomas,Charles L.
Thomas,Marjorie
Thomas,Timothy
Thomas,Zoe Cooper
Thompson,Jacqueline D
Thornton,Tiesha C.
Tilahun,Hilbret
Tildon,Rhonda
Tilley,Belinda Marie
Tillman,Bryan Anthony
Toliver,Dwayne M
Tolliver,Keith A
Tolson,Linda A
Towns,James A
Treadwell,Claudia D
Trouth,Oritsejemine E
Tucker,Camille J
Tucker,Earther
Tucker-Jackson,Lorna
Turner,Joshua Allen
Turner,Kevin J
Turpin,Carl K.
Turpin,Roger
Tyler,Merita
Underwood,Kellye Michelle
Utiger,Robert C
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
40,204.15
89,156.25
112,449.00
118,875.00
62,650.50
115,662.00
147,385.00
79,959.00
155,653.00
92,439.00
61,042.00
89,720.00
139,827.00
63,413.00
73,894.00
112,000.00
84,492.00
72,199.00
118,875.00
112,449.00
70,437.00
87,001.00
34,833.00
40,204.15
70,437.00
44,603.00
106,000.00
76,996.00
110,158.00
88,431.00
45,345.00
103,315.00
68,319.00
143,606.00
89,720.00
94,720.00
45,345.00
44,504.00
87,001.00
146,226.00
109,236.00
119,711.00
41,451.00
51,734.00
82,286.00
100,596.00
52,590.00
47,792.00
76,079.00
70,871.00
58,386.00
48,243.00
89,720.00
112,449.00
101,920.00
68,681.00
120,000.00
33,769.00
56,937.00
125,301.00
68,681.00
70,871.00
89,720.00
44,059.00
69,698.00
68,583.00
130,816.00
92,439.00
72,199.00
43,323.00
49,692.00
148,000.00
47,496.00
45,345.00
45,345.00
30,577.00
72,010.00
54,633.00
45,345.00
87,985.00
37,539.00
45,345.00
58,145.00
67,600.00
8,559.46
18,981.37
23,940.39
25,308.49
13,338.29
24,624.44
31,378.27
17,023.27
33,138.52
19,680.26
12,995.84
19,101.39
29,769.17
13,500.63
15,732.03
23,844.80
17,988.35
15,371.17
25,308.49
23,940.39
14,996.04
18,522.51
7,415.95
8,559.46
14,996.04
9,495.98
22,567.40
16,392.45
23,452.64
18,826.96
9,653.95
21,995.76
14,545.12
30,573.72
19,101.39
20,165.89
9,653.95
9,474.90
18,522.51
31,131.52
23,256.34
25,486.47
8,824.92
11,014.17
17,518.69
21,416.89
11,196.41
10,174.92
16,197.22
15,088.44
12,430.38
10,270.93
19,101.39
23,940.39
21,698.77
14,622.18
25,548.00
7,189.42
12,121.89
26,676.58
14,622.18
15,088.44
19,101.39
9,380.16
14,838.70
14,601.32
27,850.73
19,680.26
15,371.17
9,223.47
10,579.43
31,509.20
10,111.90
9,653.95
9,653.95
6,509.84
15,330.93
11,631.37
9,653.95
18,732.01
7,992.05
9,653.95
12,379.07
14,392.04
48,763.61
108,137.62
136,389.39
144,183.49
75,988.79
140,286.44
178,763.27
96,982.27
188,791.52
112,119.26
74,037.84
108,821.39
169,596.17
76,913.63
89,626.03
135,844.80
102,480.35
87,570.17
144,183.49
136,389.39
85,433.04
105,523.51
42,248.95
48,763.61
85,433.04
54,098.98
128,567.40
93,388.45
133,610.64
107,257.96
54,998.95
125,310.76
82,864.12
174,179.72
108,821.39
114,885.89
54,998.95
53,978.90
105,523.51
177,357.52
132,492.34
145,197.47
50,275.92
62,748.17
99,804.69
122,012.89
63,786.41
57,966.92
92,276.22
85,959.44
70,816.38
58,513.93
108,821.39
136,389.39
123,618.77
83,303.18
145,548.00
40,958.42
69,058.89
151,977.58
83,303.18
85,959.44
108,821.39
53,439.16
84,536.70
83,184.32
158,666.73
112,119.26
87,570.17
52,546.47
60,271.43
179,509.20
57,607.90
54,998.95
54,998.95
37,086.84
87,340.93
66,264.37
54,998.95
106,717.01
45,531.05
54,998.95
70,524.07
81,992.04
Commercial Division/Procurement Section
Immediate Office
Commercial Division/Dept of Motor Vehicles Section
Child Support Services Division/Administrative Services Sectio
Personnel Labor Relations Employment Division/Office of Human Rights
Child Support Services Division/Interstate Section
STAFF ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
STAFF ASSISTANT
LEGAL ASST
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
LEGAL ASST
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
INVESTIGATOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
LEGAL ASSISTANT
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
FINANCIAL SPECIALIST
Supervisory Investigator
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Supv Support Enforcement Spec
STAFF ASSISTANT
PROGRAM ANALYST
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
Program Specialist
PARALEGAL SPEC
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Operations Manager
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
Program Analyst
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Program Analyst
Attorney Advisor
PGM SUPPORT ASST OA
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
PGM SUPPORT ASST
Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Valentine,George C
Vent,Hans Myron henning
Viehmeyer,Mark T
Villalta,Darlene B.
Villar,Traci J
Vongjaroenrat,Panravee
Walker,Carolyn E
Walker,Shawni L
Walters,Kathleen
Ward,Montega Y.
Warren Jr.,Robert
Washington,Alicia D
Washington,Maya L
Weithers,Camille
White Jennings,Mae J
White,Arlene H
White,Jennifer L.
White,Vivian L
Whitted,Titra L.
Wickramasinghe,Sushani Anita
Wilburn,Nadine C
Wiley,Julia H
Williams,Angela D
Williams,Ann J
Williams,Anndreeze H
Williams,Carla M
Williams,Daisy R
Williams,Mary C
Williams,Melissa D
Williams,Richard A
Williams,Sharlene E
Williams,Sylvia D
Williams,Tawanna
Williams,Tia L
Williams,Vivian Marie
Wilmore,Brenda S
Wilson Jr.,Jerusa Carl
Wilson,Mary Larkin
Wilson,Richard M
Wilson,Ruth M.
Winford,Donielle A
Winston,Kia Lorren
Wiseman,Stephanie
Wood,Eli David
Wood,Kirsten Kelly
Woods,Alton E
Wooten,Holloway
Woykovsky,John J
Wren,Stephanie Yvonne
Wright,Juana C
Wright,Keisha L
Wright,Lashonn S
Wright,Terri L.
Wyke-Ransome,April K.
Yong,Esther C
Youmans,Lolita H.
129,324.50
55,488.00
120,932.00
81,563.00
81,563.00
51,141.00
32,635.00
113,374.00
81,563.00
129,324.50
117,196.50
73,159.00
120,485.00
41,923.00
96,384.00
41,451.00
87,001.00
81,563.00
67,600.00
70,871.00
81,563.00
84,282.00
41,222.00
54,633.00
81,563.00
81,563.00
52,530.00
92,395.00
130,000.00
139,827.00
132,269.00
46,794.00
100,596.00
96,384.00
73,128.97
61,657.00
58,386.00
45,345.00
115,662.00
125,000.00
70,871.00
96,729.00
58,386.00
40,153.00
101,000.00
44,504.00
45,345.00
61,657.00
155,653.00
125,000.00
66,925.00
78,090.00
109,236.00
106,023.00
79,996.00
43,323.00
117,153.00
100,596.00
109,767.00
63,413.00
42,142.00
59,901.00
56,389.00
139,827.00
106,023.00
143,606.00
141,718.00
48,243.00
49,692.00
92,439.00
40,147.00
73,159.00
57,224.00
136,048.00
147,385.00
115,662.00
42,755.00
63,413.00
32,705.00
61,657.00
37,539.00
59,901.00
81,563.00
83,654.00
27,533.19
11,813.40
25,746.42
17,364.76
17,364.76
10,887.92
6,947.99
24,137.32
17,364.76
27,533.19
24,951.13
15,575.55
25,651.26
8,925.41
20,520.15
8,824.92
18,522.51
17,364.76
14,392.04
15,088.44
17,364.76
17,943.64
8,776.16
11,631.37
17,364.76
17,364.76
11,183.64
19,670.90
27,677.00
29,769.17
28,160.07
9,962.44
21,416.89
20,520.15
15,569.16
13,126.78
12,430.38
9,653.95
24,624.44
26,612.50
15,088.44
20,593.60
12,430.38
8,548.57
21,502.90
9,474.90
9,653.95
13,126.78
33,138.52
26,612.50
14,248.33
16,625.36
23,256.34
22,572.30
17,031.15
9,223.47
24,941.87
21,416.89
23,369.39
13,500.63
8,972.03
12,752.92
12,005.22
29,769.17
22,572.30
30,573.72
30,171.76
10,270.93
10,579.43
19,680.26
8,547.30
15,575.55
12,182.99
28,964.62
31,378.27
24,624.44
9,102.54
13,500.63
6,962.89
13,126.78
7,992.05
12,752.92
17,364.76
17,809.94
156,857.69
67,301.40
146,678.42
98,927.76
98,927.76
62,028.92
39,582.99
137,511.32
98,927.76
156,857.69
142,147.63
88,734.55
146,136.26
50,848.41
116,904.15
50,275.92
105,523.51
98,927.76
81,992.04
85,959.44
98,927.76
102,225.64
49,998.16
66,264.37
98,927.76
98,927.76
63,713.64
112,065.90
157,677.00
169,596.17
160,429.07
56,756.44
122,012.89
116,904.15
88,698.13
74,783.78
70,816.38
54,998.95
140,286.44
151,612.50
85,959.44
117,322.60
70,816.38
48,701.57
122,502.90
53,978.90
54,998.95
74,783.78
188,791.52
151,612.50
81,173.33
94,715.36
132,492.34
128,595.30
97,027.15
52,546.47
142,094.87
122,012.89
133,136.39
76,913.63
51,114.03
72,653.92
68,394.22
169,596.17
128,595.30
174,179.72
171,889.76
58,513.93
60,271.43
112,119.26
48,694.30
88,734.55
69,406.99
165,012.62
178,763.27
140,286.44
51,857.54
76,913.63
39,667.89
74,783.78
45,531.05
72,653.92
98,927.76
101,463.94
Family Services Division/Dept. of Mental Health Section
Commercial Division/Economical Development Section
Public Safety Division/Ofc. of the Chief Med. Examine
Supv Program Specialist
Program Analyst
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Trial Attorney
Attorney Advisor
Program Specialist
Young,Angelisa
Young,Joseph F.
Young,LaToya LaJuan
Young,Mary Hutchinson
Young,Ramona Q
Zaniel,Maureen Wolf
Zimmerman,Justin I
Zirpoli,D Andrew
Zoberbier,Veronica A
Zuchelli,Alanna Brittany
Zuniga,Xiomara L.
70,259.00
61,657.00
49,692.00
89,720.00
40,961.00
147,385.00
101,945.00
118,875.00
95,158.00
59,133.00
45,345.00
14,958.14
13,126.78
10,579.43
19,101.39
8,720.60
31,378.27
21,704.09
25,308.49
20,259.14
12,589.42
9,653.95
85,217.14
74,783.78
60,271.43
108,821.39
49,681.60
178,763.27
123,649.09
144,183.49
115,417.14
71,722.42
54,998.95
Child Support Services Division/First Response Unit
Salaries $110,000 and above for FY 12
Title
Name
Adams,Corliss V
Adams,Eugene A
Program Manager
Allen,Joseph A
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Alper,Nancy
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Anderson,Stacy
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Anderson,Steven J
Back,Mark D
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Baker,Denise J
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Barak,Alan J.
Bergstein,Alan H
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Beyer,Wayne C.
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Blackstone,Liliah R
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Brathwaite,Van M
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Brown,Marie Claire
Brown,Monica J
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Buchholz,Ross M
BURK,WILLIAM D.
Campbell,Kenneth B
Caspari,Matthew W
Castor,Jennifer M.
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Causey,William F.
Chambers,Darrell
Chandler,Cory M
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Clegg,Olga
Coaxum,Tarifah
Comentale,Andrea G
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Cooper,Donnette A
Cooper,Richard
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Crane,Margaret
Crisman,Virginia F
Attorney Advisor
Curtis,Tina L
Davis,Christine
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Drummey,Jane
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Edmunds,Carmela N.
EFROS,ELLEN A.
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Fenzel,Suzanne
Fisher,David
Fleps,Christina W
Salary
115,000.00
158,999.00
155,653.00
146,763.00
125,301.00
137,894.00
128,490.00
139,827.00
147,387.00
113,374.00
124,711.00
110,305.00
127,198.00
113,374.00
112,449.00
112,449.00
115,662.00
130,000.00
132,269.00
140,000.00
120,485.00
118,000.00
141,284.00
119,600.00
112,000.00
139,827.00
125,000.00
130,000.00
112,449.00
147,580.00
135,548.00
128,490.00
114,984.00
113,374.00
132,000.00
117,395.00
128,851.00
136,048.00
122,088.00
132,269.00
153,900.00
113,374.00
115,662.00
143,556.08
155,653.00
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
BUDGET OFFICER
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
PGM MGR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Fois,Andrew
Freeman,Angela A
Frost,Shana L
Giles,Susan Lorraine
Glasser,David M
Glazer,Sherry A
Goff,Pollie H
Graham,Grace
Grimaldi,John J
Groce,Rosalyn C
Gross,Leslie S
Hapeman,Nancy Kay
Harrington,Jody M
Harris,Ronald B
Hayes,Dionne
Henneberry,Edward P
HILDUM,ROBERT M
Hollander,Anne R
Husband,Phillip L
Hyden,Teresa Quon
Jackson,David
Jefferson,Dwayne C.
Jenkins,Martha L
Jeter,Herbert
Johnson,Carmen R
Johnson,Holly M
Johnson,Sheryl C
Jones,Catrina M
Kaplan,Karen L
Kelley,Katherine V
Khodabakhsh,Shohreh
Kim,Todd S
Knapp,Sarah L.
Koger,Thomas
Kratchman,Paul
KULISH,JON N.
Latour,Stephane J
Lederstein,Jason
Leighton,Scott M
Lerner,Jacques P.
130,000.00
129,325.00
120,932.00
140,000.00
124,711.00
130,000.00
155,653.00
125,301.00
147,385.00
120,000.00
110,587.00
139,827.00
131,551.00
111,107.00
144,544.00
118,875.00
136,693.00
120,000.00
130,000.00
113,374.00
120,000.00
125,301.00
147,386.00
132,269.00
132,269.00
132,269.00
114,439.00
115,819.00
117,917.00
125,301.00
113,374.00
141,718.00
140,000.00
115,000.00
112,449.00
142,000.00
128,490.00
118,598.00
150,416.00
128,490.00
143,606.00
122,088.00
115,662.00
121,480.00
112,449.00
132,269.00
132,269.00
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY GEN FOR DC
SUPV INFO TECH SPEC
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Levi,Adam
Lewis,Turna R
Littlejohn,Andrea R
Longstreet,Susan C.
Love,Richard Stuart
Mauro,Amy Constance
McCall,Daniel L.
MCDANIEL,KIM T.
McDONNELL,AMY E.
Mckay,James C
Mckenzie,Joan E
Mcmiller,Michael E
Mcqueen,Tabitha D
Merene,Deon C
Milwee,Michael A
Morgan,Judith A
Moy Jr.,Grant
Mullen,Martha J
Murasky,Donna M
Nagelhout,Mary
Nathan,Irvin B.
Nelson,Lawrence
Orders,Vonda J.
Orton,Michael W
Oxendine,Patricia A
Parker,Arthur J
Parker,Charlotte W
Phillips,E Louise r
Pittman,Jonathan H.
Porter,Veronica A
Potterveld,Will B.
Reed,Dena C
Reese,Andrew P
Reid,Rachele G
Rice,Benidia
Ridley,Andrew E
Robins,Janet Marie
Rosenthal,David
Rushkoff,Bennett C
Ryan,Terrence D
Saindon,Andrew J
Sandoval,Carlos M.
Sapp,Tonya A
112,449.00
150,000.00
132,242.00
118,875.00
146,000.00
147,385.00
115,000.00
112,449.00
137,582.00
115,000.00
138,084.00
147,385.00
143,606.00
118,875.00
120,000.00
114,919.00
141,718.00
118,598.00
147,385.00
139,827.00
145,000.00
132,269.00
179,096.00
121,758.00
129,600.00
118,875.00
134,260.00
137,182.00
147,385.00
139,827.00
130,000.00
132,269.00
120,000.00
147,385.00
115,000.00
112,449.00
149,913.00
147,385.00
145,000.00
147,385.00
110,000.00
138,556.00
150,325.00
127,088.00
128,490.00
128,490.00
143,876.00
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Schifferle,Carl J
Schreiber,Rudolf L
Seales Jr.,Frank
Sheppard,Janice Y
Sims Jr.,Lionel C.
Skipper,Janice N
Smalls,Linda Maria
Sobin,Darrin P
Staley,Curtis L
Stern,Michael A
Syphax,Victoria S
Taylor,Alexis P
Tildon,Rhonda
Toliver,Dwayne M
Towns,James A
Tucker,Charles T.
Turner,Kevin J
Utiger,Robert C
Valentine,George C
Viehmeyer,Mark T
Warren Jr.,Robert
Washington,Alicia D
Wilburn,Nadine C
Wiley,Julia H
Williams,Melissa D
Wilmore,Brenda S
Wilson,Mary Larkin
Wilson,Richard M
Woods,Alton E
Wooten,Holloway
Woykovsky,John J
Zaniel,Maureen Wolf
Zirpoli,D Andrew
112,449.00
118,875.00
115,662.00
147,385.00
155,653.00
139,827.00
112,000.00
118,875.00
112,449.00
147,385.00
110,158.00
139,827.00
143,635.00
119,711.00
112,449.00
120,000.00
125,301.00
136,308.00
127,182.00
148,000.00
130,000.00
139,827.00
132,269.00
115,662.00
125,000.00
155,653.00
125,000.00
117,153.00
136,048.00
143,606.00
141,718.00
132,269.00
147,385.00
112,449.00
147,385.00
118,875.00
Name
Adams,Corliss V
Adams,Eugene A
Allen,Joseph A
Alper,Nancy
Anderson,Stacy
Anderson,Steven J
Back,Mark D
Baker,Denise J
Barak,Alan J.
Bergstein,Alan H
Beyer,Wayne C.
Blackstone,Liliah R
Brathwaite,Van M
Brown,Marie Claire
Brown,Monica J
BURK,WILLIAM D.
Campbell,Kenneth B
Caspari,Matthew W
Castor,Jennifer M.
Causey,William F.
Chambers,Darrell
Chandler,Cory M
Clegg,Olga
Coaxum,Tarifah
Comentale,Andrea G
Cooper,Donnette A
Cooper,Richard
Crane,Margaret
Crisman,Virginia F
Curtis,Tina L
Davis,Christine
Drummey,Jane
Edmunds,Carmela N.
EFROS,ELLEN A.
Evans,Gregory Michael
Fisher,David
Fleps,Christina W
Fois,Andrew
Salaries $110,000 and above for FY 13
Title
Program Manager
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Attorney Advisor
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Salary
115,000.00
158,999.00
155,653.00
146,763.00
125,301.00
137,894.00
128,490.00
143,606.00
147,387.00
113,374.00
124,711.00
110,305.00
127,198.00
113,374.00
112,449.00
112,449.00
115,662.00
130,000.00
136,048.00
140,000.00
118,000.00
141,284.00
119,600.00
112,000.00
143,606.00
125,000.00
130,000.00
115,662.00
147,580.00
135,548.00
128,490.00
114,984.00
113,374.00
132,000.00
120,485.00
128,851.00
139,827.00
122,088.00
132,269.00
153,900.00
120,000.00
113,374.00
143,556.08
155,653.00
130,000.00
Freeman,Angela A
Frost,Shana L
Glasser,David M
Glazer,Sherry A
Goff,Pollie H
Graham,Grace
Grimaldi,John J
Groce,Rosalyn C
Gross,Leslie S
Hapeman,Nancy Kay
Harrington,Jody M
Harris,Ronald B
Hayes,Dionne
Henneberry,Edward P
HILDUM,ROBERT M
Hollander,Anne R
Husband,Phillip L
Hyden,Teresa Quon
Idris,Mohammed Ali
Jackson,David
Jefferson,Dwayne C.
Jenkins,Martha L
Jeter,Herbert
Johnson,Carmen R
Johnson,Holly M
Johnson,Sheryl C
Jones,Catrina M
Kaplan,Karen L
Kelley,Katherine V
Khodabakhsh,Shohreh
Kim,Brian G.
Kim,Brian G.
Kim,Todd S
Knapp,Sarah L.
Koger,Thomas
Kratchman,Paul
KULISH,JON N.
Latour,Stephane J
Lederstein,Jason
Leighton,Scott M
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
BUDGET OFFICER
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
BUDGET & FISCAL SPEC
TRIAL ATTORNEY
PGM MGR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
129,325.00
120,932.00
140,000.00
130,000.00
155,653.00
125,301.00
147,385.00
120,000.00
113,911.00
139,827.00
131,551.00
111,107.00
144,544.00
118,875.00
136,693.00
120,000.00
130,000.00
113,374.00
120,000.00
125,301.00
147,386.00
136,048.00
111,197.00
136,048.00
132,269.00
114,439.00
115,819.00
117,917.00
125,301.00
117,153.00
141,718.00
140,000.00
115,000.00
112,449.00
142,000.00
132,269.00
118,598.00
128,490.00
128,490.00
150,416.00
128,490.00
143,606.00
125,301.00
115,662.00
121,480.00
112,449.00
132,269.00
Lerner,Jacques P.
Levi,Adam
Lewis,Turna R
Littlejohn,Andrea R
Longstreet,Susan C.
Love,Richard Stuart
Mauro,Amy Constance
McCall,Daniel L.
MCDANIEL,KIM T.
McDONNELL,AMY E.
Mckay,James C
Mckenzie,Joan E
Mcmiller,Michael E
Mcqueen,Tabitha D
Merene,Deon C
Milwee,Michael A
Morgan,Judith A
Moy Jr.,Grant
Mullen,Martha J
Murasky,Donna M
Nagelhout,Mary
Nathan,Irvin B.
Nelson,Lawrence
Orders,Vonda J.
Orton,Michael W
Oxendine,Patricia A
Parker,Arthur J
Parker,Charlotte W
Phillips,E Louise r
Pittman,Jonathan H.
Porter,Veronica A
Potterveld,Will B.
Reed,Dena C
Reid,Rachele G
Rice,Benidia
Ridley,Andrew E
Robins,Janet Marie
Rosenthal,David
Rushkoff,Bennett C
Ryan,Terrence D
Sadel,Steven A.
Saindon,Andrew J
Sandoval,Carlos M.
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY GEN FOR DC
SUPV INFO TECH SPEC
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
150,000.00
112,449.00
150,000.00
132,242.00
118,875.00
146,000.00
147,385.00
115,000.00
112,449.00
137,582.00
115,000.00
138,084.00
147,385.00
147,385.00
118,875.00
120,000.00
114,919.00
141,718.00
118,598.00
147,385.00
139,827.00
145,000.00
136,048.00
179,096.00
121,758.00
129,600.00
122,088.00
134,260.00
137,182.00
147,385.00
143,606.00
130,000.00
132,269.00
120,000.00
147,385.00
112,449.00
149,913.00
147,385.00
145,000.00
147,385.00
110,000.00
138,556.00
150,325.00
142,000.00
112,449.00
128,490.00
128,490.00
Sapp,Tonya A
Schifferle,Carl J
Schreiber,Rudolf L
Seales Jr.,Frank
Sheppard,Janice Y
Sims Jr.,Lionel C.
Skipper,Janice N
Smalls,Linda Maria
Staley,Curtis L
Stern,Michael A
Syphax,Victoria S
Taylor,Alexis P
Tildon,Rhonda
Toliver,Dwayne M
Towns,James A
Turner,Kevin J
Utiger,Robert C
Valentine,George C
Viehmeyer,Mark T
Warren Jr.,Robert
Washington,Alicia D
Wilburn,Nadine C
Wiley,Julia H
Williams,Melissa D
Wilmore,Brenda S
Wilson,Mary Larkin
Wilson,Richard M
Woods,Alton E
Wooten,Holloway
Woykovsky,John J
Zaniel,Maureen Wolf
Zirpoli,D Andrew
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
TRIAL ATTORNEY
143,876.00
112,449.00
118,875.00
115,662.00
147,385.00
155,653.00
139,827.00
112,000.00
118,875.00
112,449.00
110,158.00
143,606.00
146,226.00
119,711.00
112,449.00
120,000.00
125,301.00
130,816.00
148,000.00
130,000.00
139,827.00
132,269.00
115,662.00
125,000.00
155,653.00
125,000.00
117,153.00
139,827.00
143,606.00
141,718.00
136,048.00
147,385.00
115,662.00
147,385.00
118,875.00
FY 12 Intra-District Transfers From other Agencies
Office of Victim Services
Department of Insurance, Security and
Banking
Department of Health
Dept. of Housing & Community Develop
Department of Employment Service
Department of Zoning
Department of Mental Health
Metropolitan Police Department
Department of Public Works
Dept of Consumer Regulatory Afairs
Office of Tax and Revenue
Office of Cable Television
Department of Human Services
Department of Transportation
Alchoholic Beverage Regualtory Affairs
Child and Family Services
District of Columbia Human Resources
Department of Corrections
District Department of the Environment
Department of General Services
Office of the State Superintendent for
Education
Dept. of Disability Services
Fire and Medical Emergency Services
DC Taxicab Commission
Department of Human Rights
Dept. of Small & Local Business
Dept of Youth & Rehab. Serv.
DC Public Schools
Dept of Health Care Finance
Office on Aging
Office of Risk Management
DHS Welfare Fraud
HSMEA
Total
234,671.22
1,133,563.40
969,287.92
1,422,285.29
63,396.89
144,064.00
287,247.00
435,121.62
262,201.97
295,845.47
94,586.11
340,873.00
1,057,594.00
1,520,257.99
334,660.59
1,002,671.00
207,646.14
422,967.75
1,278,202.19
354,964.58
360,373.65
906,542.37
217,593.37
24,341.93
14,973.00
142,432.19
17,918.00
123,098.00
402,236.64
41,210.12
152,205.44
162,421.91
117,324.92
14,544,779.67
FY 13 Intra-District Transfers From other Agencies as at 1/23/13
JGA
Department of Employment Service
Child and Family Services
Dept. of Disability Services
40,475.25
645,494.00
515,125.00
1,084,520.00
88,462.00
1,432,707.00
260,416.00
494,854.00
485,202.00
966,132.14
Department of Human Rights
DC Public Schools
Dept of Health Care Finance
UCO
Total
15,000.00
201,277.00
560,618.00
122,620.00
6,912,902.39
FY 12 Intra-District Transfers to Other Agencies
Office of Financial Operations and Systems
Office of the Mayor
Office of Contracting and Procurement
Office of Finance and Resource Management
Office of the Chief Tech Officer
7,534.00
5,000.00
5,132.00
50,155.10
359,210.84
408,107.66
305,045.58
2,192,993.16
FY 13 Intra-District Transfers to Other Agencies as at 1-23-13
Office of the Mayor
Office of Finance and Resource Management
Office of the Chief Tech Officer
Office of Contracting and Procurement
5,000.00
2,455,969.00
397,268.41
265,028.00
260,311.46
296,695.00
Name
Job Title
NTE Date
Abdul-Haqq,Saadiq Benjamin
Adams,Nyoka Camrisa
8/29/2013
Akinleye,Paula Marie
9/30/2013
7/1/2013
Start Date
LENGTH IN NTE
3/31/2008 4 yrs/10 months
7/30/2012 5 months
10/14/2008 4 years/3 months
Allen,Doris W
8/3/2013
Allen,Seth Edward
9/13/2013
Alula,Makondi Claudine
10/8/2013
3/31/2008 4 months
Bailey-Thomas,Nana B.
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
9/30/2013
9/29/2008 1 year/2 months
Barak,Alan J.
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
2/5/2013
12/6/2010 2 years/1 month
Bell,Lisa M.
STAFF ASSISTANT
9/30/2013
Berman,Jonathan A.
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
9/30/2013
12/3/2013
11/4/2002 2 months
3/8/2013
3/12/2012 11 months
2/12/2014
1/3/2012 1 month
5/21/2012 4 months
Black,Angli J
Blecher,Matthew R.
Trial Attorney
Blivess,Steven N.
Attorney Advisor
Boone,Christopher J.
6/20/2013
Brown,Cheryl A
10/21/2013
Brown,Tiffany L.
TRIAL ATTORNEY
9/30/2013
Cargill,Jeffrey D.
Trial Attorney
3/8/2013
3/12/2012 10 months
Cephas,Mae Lena
EXECUTIVE ASST
8/1/2013
7/2/2012 5 months
Charles-Christian,Kathy K
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
1/31/2013
Cheek,Kelli A
Law Clerk
10/8/2013
Cleckley,Catrina Gillespie
STAFF ASSISTANT
8/16/2013
Collister,Judith A.
9/12/2013
8/13/2012 5 months
Condell,Tonya Otasha
1/31/2013
Cooks,Fannie
STAFF ASSISTANT
12/4/2013
5/29/1990 2 months
Cooper,Donnette A
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
1/31/2013
Costinett,Andrew H.
Trial Attorney
Crane,Margaret
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
3/12/2013
Crudup-Thompson,Unita T.
4/21/2013
3/8/2013
Davie III,John L.
Attorney Advisor
1/31/2013
Davis,Thea D.
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
10/8/2013
DeLeon,Katherine M.
Trial Attorney
Demby,Dorshae DuJuan
INVEST
3/8/2013
7/31/2013
3/12/2012 10 months
9/15/2008 11 months
12/22/2008 4 years/1 month
12/22/2008 4 months
3/12/2012 11 months
Dildy,Regina C.
PGM SUPPORT ASST
Dodds,Ciji S.
Attorney Advisor
Douds,Justin W.
TRIAL ATTORNEY
Edmunds,Carmela N.
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Farewell,Jermale N
Gaskins,Robert L
Gest,Theodore O
9/30/2013
11/21/2013
10/22/2012 3 months
9/25/2013
11/15/2010 5 months
5/4/2013
1/5/2009 3 years
CASE COOR
11/6/2013
5/27/2008 3 months
PGM SUPPORT ASST
10/5/2013
Public Affairs Specialist
9/11/2013
Glazer,Sherry A
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
9/30/2013
Glover,Andrew A
TRIAL ATTORNEY
9/30/2013
Gohil,Ajay
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
3/25/2013
Graham,Tamikia Denise
PGM SUPPORT ASST
8/16/2013
2/2/2009 11 months
Grant,Keisha Nicole
Staff Assistant
9/26/2013
8/27/2012 5 months
Gray,Jessica A
Trial Attorney
5/17/2013
Gray,Wendy Singleton
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
5/23/2013
1/21/2008 8 months
12/24/2007 5 years/1 month
Griffith,Chanel T.
Trial Attorney
3/8/2013
3/12/2012 10 months
Grossman,Andrea L.
LEGAL ASST
5/31/2013
5/21/2012 8 months
Gudger,Monique L.
Trial Attorney
6/5/2013
4/30/2007 8 months
Guest,Roseline Tonia
Trial Attorney
9/30/2013
Hall,Lauren Ashley
Attorney Advisor
1/31/2013
Harris,Nekira Nichole
Hill Dodson,Loretta
9/30/2013
Hill,Barbara Sue
8/14/2013
Hines,Gwendolyn Denise
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
10/11/2013
Horton,Richard T.
LEGAL ASST
Hui,Irene
Attorney Advisor
8/9/2013
3/9/2013
9/30/2013
10/11/2011 1 year/3 months
7/16/2012 6 months
3/3/2008 4 months
9/10/2012 4 months
Jenkins,Sammie
10/8/2013
Johnson,Bobby E
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
9/30/2013
Johnson,Erin
Attorney Advisor
8/15/2013
7/16/2012 6 months
Jones Bosier,Tanya M
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
3/11/2013
9/21/2000 11 months
Jordan,Sheila Denise
INVESTIGATOR
10/31/2013
Jordan,Tionne D.
PGM ANALYST
2/27/2013
Justice,Rena M
Trial Attorney
2/1/2013
9/29/2008 4 months
10/27/2002 4 years/10 months
7/16/2012 6 months
6/25/2007 2 years
Karim,Hussain S
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
9/30/2013
KARISA,ERIC G.
3/11/2013
10/3/2005 11 months
Kim,Brian G.
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Klug,Alessandra
Attorney Advisor
11/6/2013
12/19/2011 3 months
8/1/2013
7/2/2012 6 months
Lee,Amanda
STAFF ASSISTANT
2/26/2013
Lewis,Brandon W
2/28/2013
10/25/2010 1 year
Lindsay,Tina Elaine
9/27/2013
Logan,Gavin H.
Attorney Advisor
Logan,Tommy Gbato
Duplicating Equipment Operator
2/2/2013
8/16/2013
Lord-Sorensen,Adrianne
Attorney Advisor
4/11/2013
Lu,Lan
10/4/2013
9/12/2011 1 year
12/24/2007 10 months
Lucas,Eugenie A
Program Analyst
8/28/2013
10/28/1998 6 months
Lynch,La Shawna D.
6/10/2013
12/11/2006 6 years/1 month
Mansur,Surobhi N.
Attorney Advisor
3/12/2013
2/13/2012 11 months
Mante Pearson,Dede A.
11/8/2013
10/9/2012 3 months
Massaquoi II,Nathaniel V
3/2/2013
MAXWELL,LAUREN W
Trial Attorney
9/30/2013
McArthur,Booker T.
11/8/2013
10/9/2012 3 months
McBride,Keenan R.
9/10/2013
9/10/2012 4 months
Mcgauley Bradley,Lillian R
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
3/2/2013
Mcmiller,Michael E
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
9/30/2013
Medley,Philip
TRIAL ATTORNEY
9/12/2013
Montgomery,Kim L.
PGM SUPPORT ASST OA
2/13/2013
Murchison,LaToshia
CLERK
8/16/2013
Murphy,Meghan
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
9/30/2013
Myers,Tameka R.
8/16/2013
3/17/2008 2 years
Natale,Vanessa
Trial Attorney
1/31/2013
Newby,Eugenia F.
Patel Anderson,Neha Navin
Attorney Advisor
9/30/2013
Peary,Scott J
Trial Attorney
9/11/2013
11/22/2010 5 months
Phillips,Asia Ogreeta
9/26/2013
8/27/2012 5 months
Piaggione,Jared J
Attorney Advisor
9/30/2013
Pierce,Tanya T
TRIAL ATTORNEY
12/3/2013
1/21/2009 2 months
Price,Margaret A
RECORDS MGMT SUPV
2/20/2013
Radabaugh,Margaret Pollard
Trial Attorney
Ramey,Janelle Tiajuana
STAFF ASSISTANT
7/3/2013
8/13/2012 5 months
3/8/2013
1/31/2013
6/4/2012 7 months
3/12/2012 10 months
Ramirez-Gonzalez,Teresa E.
3/31/2013
Randall,April Renee
Attorney Advisor
11/6/2013
11/10/2008 3 months
Reed,Dena C
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
8/9/2013
10/1/1998 6 months
Reed,Franklin E.L.
TRIAL ATTORNEY
9/12/2013
8/13/2012 5 months
Rich,Edward J
Attorney Advisor
Rich,Polly A
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
9/30/2013
Robinson,Karen Y
PGM SUPPORT ASST
2/1/2014
10/22/2013
1/3/2011 4 months
1/21/1979 1 year/1 month
Rock,Jimmy R.
Trial Attorney
9/30/2013
6/7/2010 7 months
Rubenstein,Steven Nathan
Attorney Advisor
1/26/2013
7/16/2012 6 months
Sadel,Steven A.
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
9/30/2013
Sarnell,Bradley Alexander
Trial Attorney
Shannon,Ivy N
Attorney Advisor
9/30/2013
Smith,Penelope
CLERICAL ASSISTANT
8/15/2013
Smith,Todd Christhom
Trial Attorney
Stanley,Donna E.
Program Specialist
Thomas,Zoe Cooper
Attorney Advisor
Thornton,Tiesha C.
Tillman,Bryan Anthony
Toliver,Dwayne M
3/8/2013
11/23/2009 1 year/3 months
3/12/2012 10 months
3/8/2013
3/12/2012 10 months
3/12/2013
2/13/2012 11 months
7/3/2013
6/4/2012 7 months
10/11/2013
INVESTIGATOR
8/31/2013
4/10/2013
6/20/2011 10 months
Tolliver,Keith A
PGM SUPPORT ASST OA
2/13/2013
Vongjaroenrat,Panravee
ATTORNEY ADVISOR
3/12/2013
2/13/2012 11 months
Ward,Montega Y.
PROGRAM ANALYST
3/12/2013
2/13/2012 11 months
Whitted,Titra L.
Program Specialist
3/12/2013
2/13/2012 11 months
Wickramasinghe,Sushani Anita
8/15/2013
Winston,Kia Lorren
Attorney Advisor
9/30/2013
Wiseman,Stephanie
PGM SUPPORT ASST OA
9/25/2013
Wren,Stephanie Yvonne
8/31/2013
Wright,Keisha L
PGM SUPPORT ASST
Wyke-Ransome,April K.
Young,LaToya LaJuan
Program Analyst
Zuchelli,Alanna Brittany
Attorney Advisor
Zuniga,Xiomara L.
Program Specialist
2/1/2014
9/30/2013
10/10/2013
5/12/2008 4 years/8months
6/6/2013
5/7/2012 8 months
3/12/2013
2/13/2012 11 months
FY12 PERFORMANCE PLAN
Attorney General, Office of the
MISSION
The mission of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is to enforce the laws of the District of
Columbia and to provide legal services to the District of Columbia government.
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
OAG is charged with conducting the District’s legal business. To discharge these duties, OAG is
divided into ten Divisions: the Office of the Solicitor General; Child Support Services; Civil
Litigation; Commercial; Family Services; Health and Human Services; Legal Counsel; Public
Safety; Personnel, Labor and Employment; and Agency Management. OAG represents the District
in virtually all civil litigation, prosecutes certain criminal offenses on the District’s behalf and
represents the District in a variety of administrative hearings and other proceedings. In addition,
OAG is responsible for advising the Executive Office of the Mayor, the D.C. Council, the D.C.
Courts, various Boards and Commissions, for reviewing legislation and regulations, and for
supervising lawyers working in the general counsel offices of 28 agencies. All told, the Attorney
General supervises the legal work of about 350 attorneys and an additional 350
administrative/professional staff.
Performance Plan Divisions
• Child Support Services Division
• Civil Litigation Division
• Commercial Division
• Family Services Division
• Public Interest Division
• Legal Counsel Division
• Office of the Solicitor General
• Personnel, Labor and Employment Division
• Public Safety Division
• Agency Management
Office of The Attorney General
Government of the District of Columbia
FY 2012 Performance Plan
Published February 2012
1
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
CSSD is charged with establishing, modifying and enforcing child support obligations, including
medical support. Part of this work includes the establishment of paternity so the father of the child is
known. CSSD is comprised of the Office of the Director and four sections: Legal Services; Fiscal
Operations; Systems and Automation and Policy, Outreach and Training.
To provide Child Support Services to citizens of the District to enhance the lives of all District
children.
OBJECTIVE 1: Child Support
The objective of the Child Support Services Division is to Increase the percentage of out-of-wedlock
births with paternity established for children in foster care cases; Increase the amount of children and
parents receiving child support by increasing the number of child support orders established;
Improve customer service and increase customer access to child support case information by
expanding on-line and automated child support services; and Reduce the poverty level of noncustodial parents by establishing an employment services initiative.
INITIATIVE 1.1: Foster Care Paternity Establishment
To increase the percentage of out-of-wedlock births with paternity established in the District
of Columbia, During FY 2012, the CSSD will initiate a partnership with the OAG Child
Protection Section to address child support issues in child abuse and neglect cases. CSSD
will begin attending abuse and neglect court proceedings to establish paternity in foster care
cases. The initiative will be successful if the CSSD is able to establish paternity for 200
children in foster care in FY 2012.
INITIATIVE 1.2: NCP Employment Services Program
In an effort to decrease unemployment in the District of Columbia, the CSSD is
implementing a Non-custodial Parent Employment Program. In FY 2012, the Office of the
Attorney General Child Support Services Division (CSSD) would like to launch a job
readiness program to help non-custodial parents (NCPs) who are unable to pay child support
due to unemployment or underemployment. The program would provide job readiness
training, job placement and retention services to NCPs. CSSD will partner with a contractor
that has significant employment and training experience assisting “hard-to-serve” individuals
who are unemployed or underemployed. The FY 2012 goal is to enroll 250 NCPs in the first
year of operation. The program will feature a specific plan of action for each NCP
participant to make sure obligors have the best opportunity to obtain permanent and
sustainable employment. The plan of action for each NCP is to receive the following
services: (1) Recruitment; (2) Assessment; (3) Workforce Training; (4) Case Management;
(5) Job Placement; (6) Job Training (7) Child Support Guidance and (8) Data Management.
INITIATIVE 1.3: AVR Call Back Assist
In an effort to improve customer service and reduce wait times in FY 2012 CSSD will launch
the call back assist feature on the interactive voice response (IVR) application. The Callback
Assist (CBA) feature allows for CSSD customers to effectively keep their place in the call
2
queue without having to stay on the phone. The CBA feature is offered to customers when
specific, configurable criteria are met. If a customer chooses to accept the CBA offer, they
are prompted for some information that is either spoken into their telephone, or entered
through the phone’s keypad. This feature is especially helpful during situations where there is
either high call volume, low agent availability, or both. The CBA feature will reduce
customer wait times, improve customer service and increase parental involvement in child
support cases. The FY 2012 goal is to assist 1,000 customers using the CBA feature.
PROPOSED KEY PEROFRMANCE INDICATORS - Child Support Services Division
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2011
FY 2012
Measure
Actual
Target
Actual Projection
Paternity Establishment Percentage
88.13%
90%
80.05%
# of non-custodial parents enrolled
in employment services program
263
200
251
# of parents newly registered to
access their on-line payment
histories.
# of Child Support Orders
Established
85%
255
1240
1000
1708
2,347
2679
2254
1500
2350
3
Civil Litigation Division
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Division defends the District of Columbia in civil actions brought in the Superior Court and the
United States District Court. The Division also prosecutes enforcement actions and consumer
protection cases on behalf of the citizens of the District.
OBJECTIVE 1: The Civil Litigation Division objective is to provide the District of Columbia,
its agencies and its employees a defense in civil litigation that is filed in the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia and in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
INITIATIVE 1.1: Convert the opening of new Civil Litigation Division case files (with
the exception of class action cases and emergency matters such as motions for a
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction) to a paperless process to
increase efficiency of case assignment and tracking of status of all filed cases.
During FY 2012, the Civil Litigation Division will convert to a paperless system of
opening new case files and assigning them to supervisory attorneys for further handling by
Assistant Attorneys General. This initiative will shorten the time within which case
assignments are made in order to assure that the District's legal rights are fully and timely
protected. An on-line file opening system also will facilitate tracking the status of matters
to ensure a full defense, and when a case is closed, appropriate closure. The initiative
further will decrease the use of paper and other supplies. The purpose of the initiative is to
increase efficiency of the assignment process to ensure an appropriate and timely defense,
save the costs of attorney time, and the expense of paper and other related supplies, all of
which will result in a cost savings for the citizens of the District. This initiative will be
successful if 80% of all cases are paperless in the 4th Quarter of the fiscal year.
INITIATIVE 1.2: Initiate a quarterly review of all closed special education cases in the
Civil Litigation Division to explore ways to increase the closure rate of pending Public School
System special education cases.
During FY 2012, the Civil Litigation Division will initiate a quarterly review of all closed
special education cases in the Division. This review will consist of the assigned attorney
and a manager meeting and reviewing a list of all special education cases closed in the
Prolaw matter management system. The purpose of this initiative is to improve the
number of Public School System special education cases closed by the Division and to
determine if similar methods of resolution may be used to increase the closure number of
pending and future special education cases. This will result in consistent administration
of justice and increased resolution of cases involving special needs children of the
District of Columbia. Successful completion of the initiative also will result in an
increase in the number of cases closed by the Division. This initiative will be successful
if during the 4th Quarter of the fiscal year there is a review in 80% of each closed Public
School special education case.
INITIATIVE 1.3: Initiate a quarterly review of all settled cases to assure that
settlement payments are timely processed and payments made.
4
During FY 2012, the Civil Division will review on a quarterly basis all cases that are settled
to assure that the appropriate paper work to obtain payment is submitted within ten (10)
business days of the execution of all necessary settlement documents. The Division also will
review settled cases to confirm the timely transmission of payment to the settling party. The
purpose of this initiative is to ensure that the District meets its obligations timely, assures
proper budgeting for settlements, and avoids potential future litigation for failure to comply
with a settlement agreement. This initiative will result in savings to the District in the budget
process and in avoiding the costs of further litigation against the District. This initiative will
be successful if during the 4th Quarter of the fiscal year at least 75% of all payments are
submitted within 10 business days of settlement.
Affirmative and Defensive Litigation
PROPOSED KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Civil Litigation Division 1
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012
Measure
Actual
Target
Actual Projection
# of Civil Litigation Closed Cases
289.00
300.00
304.00
310
75% 2
% of completed settled cases submitted within 10
business days of receipt of all required forms for
payment
n/a
n/a
n/a
# of closed Public School System Special
Education cases closed per attorney FTE
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
15
Due to an office reorganization effective August, 2011, the Civil Litigation no longer encompasses the function
measured in prior KPI for Civil Enforcement Section, Public Advocacy Section of the Equity Section.
2
During a reorganization of the Office of the Attorney General the structure and responsibilities of the CLD were
changed such that only one of the prior measures for CLD was applicable for 2012. Therefore, new measures had to be
constructed. They are included herein.
5
Commercial Division
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Division provides legal advice and litigation support to the District of Columbia government in
the areas of tax collection, real property, and other commercial transactions, economic development
and municipal finance.
OBJECTIVE 1: The Commercial Division objectives are to:
Provide legal advice and transactional and litigation support to the District Government in the
core areas of community and economic development, real estate, procurement, tax and
finance, land use and public works, and bankruptcy.
•
Provide legal assistance to District agencies with respect to land use planning, zoning,
historic preservation, transportation, and the use of public space.
•
Provide legal advice and representation to various D.C. agencies and offices on matters
relating to public infrastructure development, government operations, including office
leasing and development of government facilities, and economic development, primarily
supporting the District’s economic development priorities and government operations,
and eliminating slum and blight.
•
Provide legal advice and representation in all matters relating to taxation, including real
property tax assessment and collection, and District finances, including the issuance of
general obligation, revenue and tax increment financing bonds, and other aspects of
financing development projects.
•
Provide representation of the District in affirmative litigation relating to property
acquisition, such as condemnation by eminent domain and enforcement of delinquent real
property taxes by foreclosure, and seek to collect revenues due the District from
individuals and entities in bankruptcy.
•
Provide legal sufficiency reviews of all proposed contract actions that require Council
approval under the Home Rule Charter, legal advice to the District’s Chief Procurement
Officer and contracting officers regarding procurement law and regulations as they apply
to the award District contracts and other related procurement issues, and represent the
District before the District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board in bid protests.
INITIATIVE 1.1: In conjunction with the Office of Tax & Revenue and the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer, revise the tax sale regulations to provide for clarification on
the tax sale process including procedures for redeeming properties sold at tax sale.
During FY 2012, the Tax & Finance Section of the Commercial Division will institute, in
conjunction with OTR/OCFO, a revision of the current tax sale regulations which have been
in existence for 10 years and frequently criticized by the courts reviewing them. The purpose
of this initiative is to revise the tax sale regulations to make them clear, unambiguous and
readily understandable by the public-at-large. This initiative will be considered successful if
6
the Tax & Finance Section is able to have OTR publish amendments and clarifications to the
tax sale regulations.
INITIATIVE 1.2: In conjunction with the Department of Housing & Community
Development and the Office of Tax & Revenue, seek to acquire more bid-off properties
for disposition by DHCD to place back on the tax rolls.
During FY 2012, the Land Acquisition & Bankruptcy Section of the Commercial Division
will initiate, in conjunction with DHCD and OTR, a concerted effort to acquire a larger
portion of tax sale “bid-off” properties for disposition to the private sector for ultimate
development and return to the tax rolls. This will entail a commitment by DHCD to fund the
acquisition of these properties via the tax sale foreclosure process which requires funding for
title reviews, service of process, and other incidental costs associated with tax sale litigation.
The ultimate goal is to acquire insurable title to these properties and then convey them to the
private sector for development and return to the tax rolls. It will also help alleviate slum and
blight. This initiative will be considered successful if the number of bid-off properties
acquired by the District in FY 2012 exceeds by 25% the average number of properties
acquired in each of the preceding five fiscal years.
INITIATIVE 1.3: In conjunction with the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer,
provide additional training opportunities to contracting and procurement staff.
During FY 2012, the Procurement Section will facilitate at least two training sessions in
government contracting and procurement law to enhance the performance of contracting and
procurement personnel in the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. The initiative will be
considered successful if the two training sessions are conducted and the attendees deem the
training sessions worthwhile and informative.
PROPOSED KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Measure
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012
Actual
Target Actual Projection
% of Legal sufficiency reviews
performed by Land Use and Public
Works Section timely completed.
73%
85%
90%
87.5%
% of Real Estate Transactions Section
transactional documents prepared and/or
reviewed for legal sufficiency within 60
days.
96%
95%
94%
95%
# of litigation successes by the Tax and
Finance Section per FTE
14.4
15
27
20
7
Measure
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012
Actual
% of litigation success by the Land
Acquisition and Bankruptcy Section 3.
94.82%
90.00%
95%
92.5%
94%
90.00%
95%
92.5%
% of Procurement Section nonemergency procurement reviews
completed within 60 days 4
3
Due to a reorganization of responsibilities by OEM, the Economic Development Section is no longer associated with
the Commercial Division. This necessitated replacement of a KPI for this Division. This is a new reported measure, even
though the Division has previously kept this measure internally.
4
See ftnt. 3.
8
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Division provides litigation services to the District of Columbia Child and Family Services
Agency and Adult Protective Services.
OBJECTIVE 1: To ensure safety, permanency and well-being of allegedly neglected children,
and to seek guardianships or conservatorships for allegedly neglected, abused or exploited
vulnerable adults.
In addition, the domestic violence section represents individuals to seek a Civil Protection Order or
to prosecute the violation of Temporary Protection Orders or Civil Protection Orders issued by the
Domestic Violence Court of the District of Columbia; and the mental health section represents the
Department of Mental Health prosecuting mental health involuntary detention, civil commitment and
guardianship matters.
INITIATIVE 1.1: Collaborate with CFSA to ensure compliance with Fostering
Connections to Success requirement to engage all extended family resources when
children are placed in foster care
During FY 2012, Child Protection AAGs will ensure that a copy of any Family Team
Meeting Plan developed after a child is removed from their parents home is filed with the
court. The AAG will then follow up in preparation for the Disposition Hearing in the case to
ensure that the social worker has attempted to contact all identified extended family
members, and to ensure that, when necessary a referral is made to diligent search to identify
and locate additional extended family members. This initiative will be considered successful
if the number of children placed in approved kinship placements
increases by 15% over the course of the fiscal year.
INITIATIVE 1.2: Identify fathers and establish paternity when neglect matters are
initiated
During FY 2012, the FSD will coordinate with CSSD to implement a system for referring all
new cases to CSSD for establishment of paternity and consideration of the appropriateness of
seeking child support. Efforts to identify and engage fathers in neglect matters will be ongoing throughout the life of the case. The initiative will be considered successful if the
agency establishes paternity in at least 200 cases during the course of FY 2012.
INITIATIVE 1.3: Provide representation to victims of stalking and sexual assault
The office has received a grant in FY 2012 to provide assistance to victims of stalking and
sexual assault, in order to ensure that this particularly vulnerable population receives the
support they need to successfully obtain the protection of the court through a CPO. This new
initiative will be successful if our office is able to offer representation to at least 50% of all
cases screened for OAG representation involving stalking victims and 50% of all cases
screened for OAG representation involving sexual assault victims.
9
PROPOSED KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Family Services Division
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012
Measure
Actual
Target
Actual Projection
% of favorable resolution in all cases which reach
adjudication in the division.
% of children whose first permanency hearing is
held within 12 months of the child’s entry into
foster care.
99.00%
97.5%
98 %
98%
91%
88.5%
% of cases filed for termination of parental right by
the Child Protection Sections within 45 days of the
child’s goal becoming adoption.
Successfully resolved criminal contempt motions
handled by the Domestic Violence Section per FTE
per quarter.
90%
90.8%
90%
92.5%
92.5%
88.5%
4.5
4.38
4.5
4.24
10
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Division provides litigation support to collect debts owed the District of Columbia, defend
equitable law suits, uphold agency regulations and protect consumers.
OBJECTIVES 1: The Public Interest Division seeks through civil and administrative
litigation to protect both the general public and the District from violations of the District’s
laws and regulations, to collect funds owed to the District, and to defend the District, its
agencies, and officials in a variety of civil litigation, including individual and systemic
constitutional and statutory challenges to its laws, regulations, policies and procedures.
INITIATIVE 1.1: Close more Civil Enforcement cases prior to litigation to reemphasize
collection of money owed the District of Columbia.
During FY 2012, the Civil Enforcement Section of the Public Interest Division will institute
a pre-drafting review of all referred cases to determine if cases can be settled prior to the
commencement of litigation or an enforcement action. CES attorneys will be tasked with
obtaining full recovery or to seek terms that are as favorable to the client agency as is
possible. This review will include a minimum of one contact, where possible, with the
opposing party in the potential action. The purpose of this initiative is to redistribute limited
resources to allow a greater emphasis on collection of money owed the District of Columbia
by reducing the non-monetary litigation of the Civil Enforcement Section. The intended
benefit is to save taxpayer dollars by avoiding litigation or prosecutions and the costly
expenses associated therewith. This initiative will be considered successful if the Civil
Enforcement Section settles at least 65 cases without the need of filing an action.
INITIATIVE 1.2: Redesign and augment OAG’s website content to support the Public
Advocacy Section’s consumer education, complaint intake, and law enforcement work.
During FY 2012, the Public Advocacy Section of the Public Interest Division will develop
new material for OAG’s website pertaining to each of the Section’s five enforcement areas:
consumer protection, antitrust, civil false claims, charities, and tobacco. For each
enforcement area, the website will describe relevant laws and regulations (with appropriate
links to related materials on other websites), provide examples of common violations, list
recent OAG enforcement actions (with links to press releases), and make available an
electronic form for reporting suspected violations. In addition, the new material will include
general consumer education. Successful completion of this initiative will result in an
increase in the number of consumer complaints and other reports of suspected law violations
submitted electronically to the Section.
INITIATIVE 1.3: Document Management
During FY 2012, the Equity Section of the Public Interest Division will increase the number
of cases where it uses the document management database (“Concordance”) to increase
organization, track discovery received from relevant agencies, and promote in-depth
discovery consistent with the rules of civil procedure. Successful completion of this
11
initiative will result in 75% of all attorneys and staff receiving training in Concordance and
discovery for Concordance.
PROPOSED KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Public Interest Division
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2011
FY 2012
Measure
Actual
Target
Actual
Projection
$ Collected by the Civil
Enforcement Section per
Attorney FTE
$101,413.00
$ Collected by the Public
Advocacy Section excluding
Tobacco Settlement
$2,418,052.00 $2,700,000.00
2,611,640.60 $2,700,000
# of Closed Cases in the
Equity Section 5
82.00
76
$103,000.00
85.00
5
$144,267.11 $130,000
40
Due to a reorganization of responsibilities effective August 2011, one-half of the Equity Section’s responsibilities were
transferred to the Civil Litigation Division. This affected the number of closed case during the current fiscal year, and
will substantially decrease the number of closed Equity Section cases during the entire next fiscal year.
12
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Legal Counsel Division provides legal research and advice as well as drafting of statutes and
regulations for the EOM and the agencies.
OBJECTIVES 1: The Legal Counsel Division’s (“LCD’s”) objectives are to assist the
Executive Office of the Mayor (“EOM”) and all agencies of the District government by
providing legal research and advice, reviewing for legal sufficiency all enrolled bills presented
for action by the Mayor, reviewing for legal sufficiency all draft Executive bills, rulemakings,
Mayor’s Orders, and inter-agency MOUs, preparing Executive legislation and rulemakings,
preparing formal opinions, legal memoranda, letters, and Office Orders for the Attorney
General, and serving as attorney-advisor to the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions
(“ANCs”).
INITIATIVE 1.1: Work with the Mayor’s Office of Police and Legislative Affairs
(“OPLA”) to streamline the current procedures for legal and policy review of agency
rulemakings.
During FY 2012, LCD will work with OPLA in an attempt to obtain the adoption of new and
streamlined rulemaking review procedures. This initiative will be considered successful if
new and streamlined written procedures for review of agency rulemakings are adopted by the
end of the fiscal year.
INITIATIVE 1.2: Develop recommendations for a protocol to be approval by the
Attorney General that would allow otherwise confidential legal memoranda by LCD
that have significant interest and value to the public as legal precedent to be published
on OAG’s webpage, after approval by affected agency clients.
Currently, LCD maintains an electronic database of all its legal memoranda and opinions
dating back to the 1960’s – which consists of >22,000 documents and is updated monthly.
This database is confidential and available as a research tool only to OAG staff. In order to
assist the public in understanding the District government, to make the government’s
operations more transparent, and to provide guidance on important legal issues, it is desirable
to create a second database – a subset of the first – for public dissemination. During FY
2012, LCD will propose recommendations for the protocol necessary to establish the new
database. The protocol would contain guidelines for: identifying memoranda that address
legal issues of public interest and deciding whether to seek client agency waiver of the
confidences and secrets in the memoranda. This initiative will be considered successful if
the recommendations are adopted by the end of the fiscal year, at least in part, for
implementation starting in Fiscal Year 2013.
INITIATIVE 1.3: Vet all Mayoral Nominees to the Council for Satisfaction of
Statutory Qualifications Requirements.
During FY 2012, LCD, in association with EOM will vet every nominee’s qualifications with
for satisfaction of statutory requirements and obtain LCD’s certification of legal sufficiency
before the nominee is forwarded for confirmation. The EOM will provide LCD with a “fact
13
sheet” on each prospective nominee, which LCD will use to ensure that the prospective
nominee complies with all qualification, licensing, residency, and other statutory
requirements. This will benefit the District government and its citizens with timely and
qualified appointments to District agencies, boards, and commissions. This initiative will be
ongoing for the hundreds of nominations sent to the Council during the fiscal year and
considered successful if no nominee is rejected as failing to meet statutory requirements.
PROPOSED KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Legal Counsel Division
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011
Measure
Actual
Target
Actual
# of rulemaking projects completed for client
agencies.
FY 2012
Projection
40
50.00
50.00
36.00
% written assignments completed by deadline
given by client agency, or 30 days if no deadline
given.
99.00%
99.00%
99.04%
# completed written assignment per FTE.
212.00
215.00
180
215
# of high-profile lawsuits directly assisted
20.00
20.00
15.00
20
# of written opinions issued to ANCs
25.00
25.00
17.00
20
99%
14
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The OSG provides affirmative and defensive appellate litigation services to the District of Columbia
government.
OBJECTIVE 1: The Office of the Solicitor General strives to provide the best possible
representation to the District of Columbia government in matters before appellate courts,
including the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court, and to provide
guidance and expertise to other parts of the District of Columbia government that require
advice in other matters that may reach appellate courts.
INITIATIVE 1.1: Review of transcripts of past performance at oral argument
During FY 2011, every Assistant Attorney General will obtain and review recordings of their
oral arguments for training purposes. This critique should better preparation for the moot
courts, and thus better preparation for the actual in court arguments. This should also
improve over-all performance at oral argument. This initiative will be considered a success if
the Office of the Solicitor General increases the percentage of successful
resolutions in defensive appeals.
INITIATIVE 1.2: Meetings with other Divisions and General Counsel in preparation
for Oral Argument
During FY 2011, every Assistant Attorney General attend at least one meeting with each
division that litigates in the trial courts, and selected general counsels’ offices, to discuss best
practices for preparing for and handling appeals. This is designed to improve the
performance of the Assistant Attorneys General by improving their familiarity with ancillary
and usual procedures in the remainder of the OAG. This initiative will be considered a
success if the Office of the Solicitor General increases the percentage of
successful resolutions in defensive appeals.
INITIATIVE 1.3: Seminars on critical appellate practices or issues
During FY 2011, the Office of the Solicitor General will assign and publicize points of
contact within the Office of the Solicitor General for select agencies who need guidance or
on select topics of law. This initiative is designed to insure the proper appellate arguments
are made before tribunals prior to any appeal taken, so as they are not waived during briefing
of an appeal. By allowing the Office of the Solicitor General to make all available arguments
in the appellate brief, this initiative is designed to improve the performance of the Office of
the Solicitor General on Appeal. This initiative will be considered a success if the Office of
the Solicitor General increases the percentage of
successful resolutions in defensive appeals.
15
PROPOSED KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Office of the Solicitor General
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012
Measure
Actual
% of favorable resolution in defensive appeals cases.
% of regular calendar arguments in which a moot
court was held.
Motions for summary disposition filed per FTE
90%
100.00%
1.09
91%
94%
95.00% 100.00%
2.00
2
16
92%
100%
2.1
Personnel, Labor and Employment Division
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Division develops policy to attract, retain and develop highly qualified and productive
workforce. The Division provides human resource services to the employees of OAG. The Division
handled administrative agency contested personnel actions for the District.
OBJECTIVE 1: The Personnel Labor and Employment Division’s objective is to: defend
agencies against administrative challenges to adverse actions, public sector workers’
compensation and discrimination claims; hire and retain excellent diverse attorneys and
interns while maintaining a diverse environment; ensure no person is a victim of workplace
discrimination; and provide meaningful training and professional development for all OAG
employees.
INITIATIVE 1.1: Improve risk management and reduce the cost of administrative
personnel litigation by increasing the processing time for those cases needing earlier
resolution, thereby saving the client dollars in terms of monetary payouts and staff
time.
During fiscal year 2012, the Personnel Labor Relations Section (PLRS) will research the
area’s most litigated and provide one training session per quarter targeted on how to
appropriately document the business justification for employment actions. PLRS will also
provide early settlement recommendations, at least four per lawyer annually, to curtail
expensive litigation. To gauge customer satisfaction, OAG will conduct surveys and other
outreach to clients. This initiative will be considered a success if four training sessions are
held regarding appropriate documentation for the business justification for employment
actions.
INITIATIVE 1.2: Improve morale by creating a work atmosphere similar to the
environment of organizations recognized as one of the country’s top 100 best places to
work.
During fiscal year 2012, PLED will create a subcommittee of both labor and management
which will study what makes a company/entity one of the top 100 places to work and jointly
suggest at least four improvements on how OAG can reach those milestones. The initiative
will be considered a success if there are four recommendations which are adopted in the
Office of the Attorney General.
PROPOSED KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Personnel, Labor and Employment
Division
FY
FY
FY 2012
FY 2010
2011
2011
Measure
Actual
Projection
Target Actual
# of attorneys who left the agency.
36
50
29
# of interns assisting attorneys and staff on an annual
basis
224
225
256
16.35
17.00
33.5
# of in-house training hours taken per legal FTE
17
35
250
25
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Public Safety Division prosecutes juveniles charged with law violations. The Division is also
responsible for the prosecution of misdemeanor criminal charges within the jurisdiction of the Office
of the Attorney General. The Division also protects neighborhoods by prosecution of nuisance
property offenses, and assists victims of crimes through the Neighborhood and Victims Services
Section.
OBJECTIVES 1:The objective of the Public Safety Division’s three Sections (Juvenile,
Criminal and Neighborhood and Victim Services) is to take appropriate legal action on behalf
of the District of Columbia and to enforce District laws and regulations. Whether through
civil or criminal prosecution to enforce the District’s laws, the Division initiates legal claims to
protect the public and to seek restitution, where applicable, for those who have been harmed—
including the Government of the District of Columbia.
INITIATIVE 1.1:Re-establish the District’s Alcohol Breath Testing Program and assist
in writing the Breath Testing Manual.
The Criminal Division is working closely with MPD and the Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner to ensure that the Alcohol Breath Testing Program is fully operational in FY 2012.
This initiative will be considered successful if by the end of FY 2012 the results obtained
from the District Breath Alcohol Instruments are admissible in court against suspected drunk
drivers.
INITIATIVE 1.2: Identify individuals improperly claiming the District’s Homestead
deduction and referring those individuals to the Office of Tax and Revenue.
During this fiscal year the Neighborhood and Victim Services Section will initiate referrals to
the Office of Tax and Revenue when it is discovered that individuals are improperly claiming
the homestead exemption on properties that do not qualify for the exemption. The purpose of
this initiative is to ensure that the proper fees and taxes are paid to the District of Columbia.
Successful completion of the initiative will be at least 36 cases referred during FY 2012.
INITIATIVE 1.3: Refer at least 10% of eligible juvenile cases to the Family Court
Mental health Calendar
The Family Court has initiated a Mental Health Calendar to help ensure that juvenile
respondents with mental health issue receive services. During fiscal year 2012 the Juvenile
Section will identify and refer at least 10% of eligible juvenile cases to Mental Health
Calendar. The purpose of this initiative is to further the goal of treatment and rehabilitation
in the District while also protecting public safety. Successful completion of this initiative
will be an overall referral rate of 10% of the eligible cases.
18
PROPOSED KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Public Safety Division
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012
Measure
Actual Target Actual Projection
# of Nuisance Property Prosecutions
24
25
11
15
Juveniles referred for rehabilitation
91.00%
91.00%
89%
90
Successful Criminal Cases per FTE
58.00
60.00
72
65
19
FY 2013 PERFORMANCE PLAN
Office of the Attorney General (OAG)
MISSION
The mission of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is to enforce the laws of the District of
Columbia and to provide legal services to the District of Columbia government.
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
OAG is charged with conducting the District’s legal business. OAG represents the District in
virtually all civil litigation, prosecutes certain criminal offenses on the District’s behalf and
represents the District in a variety of administrative hearings and other proceedings. In addition,
OAG is responsible for advising the Executive Office of the Mayor, the D.C. Council, the D.C.
Courts, various Boards and Commissions, for reviewing legislation and regulations, and for
supervising lawyers working in the general counsel offices of 28 agencies. All told, the Attorney
General supervises the legal work of about 350 attorneys and an additional 350
administrative/professional staff.
Performance Plan Divisions
The Office of the Attorney General operates through the following divisions:
• Child Support Services Division
• Civil Litigation Division
• Commercial Division
• Family Services Division
• Public Interest Division
• Legal Counsel Division
• Office of the Solicitor General
• Personnel, Labor and Employment Division
• Public Safety Division
• Agency Management
Office of the Attorney General
1
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Child Support Services Division (CSSD) is charged with establishing, modifying and
enforcing child support obligations, including medical support. Part of this work includes the
establishment of paternity so the father of the child is known. CSSD is comprised of the Office
of the Director and four sections: Legal Services; Fiscal Operations; Systems and Automation
and Policy; Outreach; and Training.
OBJECTIVE 1: Provide child support services to enhance the lives of all District children.
Initiative 1.1: Implement a pilot program to provide free paternity tests.
To increase the percentage of out-of-wedlock births with paternity established in the
District of Columbia, the CSSD will offer Acknowledgements of Paternity and Free
DNA testing at designated locations throughout the city. Child support staff will come
out to communities to provide these services to individuals who cannot come to the
downtown office. The New Pilot entitled “Roll your Way into a Free DNA” will launch
at the start of the new fiscal year. During the “Roll your Way into a Free DNA” kick-off
CSSD will be giving customers gift cards from various merchants to assist parents with
back to school shopping. The initiative will be successful if the CSSD is able to
establish paternity in 90% of unwed births in the District of Columbia. Completion date:
September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.2: Implement a pilot program to provide walk-in child support
assistance.
To improve the case management of non -public assistance Interstate cases, the Agency
will implement a pilot project that allows the customer to walk-in without an appointment
and start their case. The Customer Care Waiting Room staff will be trained to open the
case, interview the customer, prepare the petitions and forward the case to the appropriate
jurisdiction. Customer Care staff will follow-up with the other jurisdiction to monitor for
establishment and enforcement. This initiative will be successful if the Agency is able to
reduce timelines for completing petitions and forwarding to the other jurisdiction in 45
days or less. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.3: Improve the timeliness of responding to interstate cases.
In FY 2013, the CSSD Director will implement a pilot project to improve the timelines of
responding to interstate cases. All cases from other jurisdictions will be reviewed by the
Director’s office. If additional information from the other jurisdiction is needed the
Director’s Office will contact the jurisdiction and get the information. The case will be
opened in the automated system by the Director’s Office and will be ready for filing
before referring to caseworker. After many years of training CSSD Support Staff on
these functions, it has been determined that they are unable to retain the information and
successfully fulfill all of the steps for effective case management. This Pilot Project is
designed to eliminate many of the tasks normally completed by the caseworker and
increase establishment and collection of responding cases. Completion date: September
30, 2013.
2
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – Child Support Services Division
Measure
Paternity establishment
percentage
Number of non-custodial
parents enrolled in
employment services
program 1
Number of parents newly
registered to access their
online payment histories
Number of child support
orders established.
1
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
FY12
YTD
FY13
Projection
FY14
Projection
FY15
Projection
80.5%
85%
90%
87.5%
88%
89%
251
255
18
18
19
20
1,708
1,500
1477
1,550
1600
1625
2,254
2,350
1744
2350
2400
2425
IN FY 2012, the method of counting enrolled parents was changed to include only those in the EDSI program.
3
Civil Litigation Division
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Civil Litigation Division defends the District of Columbia in civil actions brought in the
Superior Court and the United States District Court.
OBJECTIVE 1: Defend the District of Columbia, its agencies, and employees in civil
actions.
Initiative 1.1: Implement a system to close all civil cases within 30 days of the date of
last activity or date of transfer to the Solicitor General for appeal.
During FY 2013, the Civil Litigation Division (CLD) will implement a tracking system to
assure that the closed status of a case is accurately reported. This tracking system will be
based on case activity (or absence of same). Accurate reporting of the status of closed cases
will improve CLD’s number of closed cases (KPI No. 1 – number of Civil Litigation Closed
Cases) and assure that appropriate litigation steps are taken to close all cases. The tracking
will focus on the absence of activity within 30 days of the last litigation action and/or the
date a CLD case is sent to the Solicitor General’s Office for appellate handling. The purpose
of this Initiative is to improve efficiency in reporting and to conserve litigation resources
spent determining the status of cases. This Initiative will be successful if, during the 4th
quarter, 80% of all cases are closed timely after 30 days of inactivity or date of transfer to the
Solicitor General. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.2: Implement training for support staff to complete settlement paperwork
to free line attorneys for substantive litigation matters.
During FY 2013, the Civil Litigation Division will implement a training and development
program to enable support staff to complete the necessary paperwork to obtain payments of
civil actions that settle. This Initiative will improve CLD’s number of completed settled cases
submitted within 10 days of receipt of all required forms for payment (KPI No. 2 -- complete
settlement paperwork within 10 business days of submission of full documentation). The
purpose of this Initiative is to train support staff to perform administrative functions in
connection with settlement paperwork so that attorneys, who currently perform these
responsibilities, are freed to attend to substantive litigation. This will increase the efficiency
of attorneys in performing their primary litigation duties. This Initiative will be a more cost
effective division of time devoted by administrative support staff and attorneys. This
Initiative will be successful if, during the 4th Quarter, 75% of the settlement paperwork is
prepared by support staff. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.3: Implement a system to download hearing transcripts in Special
Education cases on litigation software (Concordance) to facilitate more efficient
preparation of hearing records that must be filed with the federal court.
During FY 2013, the Civil Litigation Division will implement a system to download
voluminous administrative transcripts on available computer software, Concordance, to
facilitate more timely preparation of hearing records that must be filed in Special Education
litigation matters in federal court. This Initiative will improve the efficiency of filing
voluminous records more promptly and thus result in greater disposition of Special Education
4
cases. Use of such computer software also will facilitate the ability to word search in the
lengthy transcripts and aid in the preparation of the District’s court filings. This will allow
the District to advance the strongest legal arguments available. This Initiative will improve
the number and timing of closed Special Education cases (KPI No. 3 –closing Special
Education cases). This Initiative will be successful if, during the 4th Quarter, 75% of the
voluminous Special Education transcripts are loaded on Concordance. Completion date:
September 30, 2013.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Civil Litigation Division
Measure
Number of civil litigation
closed cases
Number of closed Public
School System Special
Education cases closed
per attorney FTE
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
FY12
YTD
FY13
Projection
FY14
Projection
FY15
Projection
304
310
419
330
335
340
NA
15
13.6
20
22
24
5
Commercial Division
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Commercial Division provides legal services and advice for numerous core governmental
functions, from the procurement of essential goods and services and acquisition of real estate
through support of economic development efforts and government property management, to the
financing of government operations through bonds and collection of taxes.
OBJECTIVE 1: Provide legal advice and litigation support to the District of Columbia
government in the areas of tax collection, real property and other commercial transactions,
economic development, and municipal finance.
Initiative 1.1: Review and analyze the Zoning Commission’s and Board of Zoning
Adjustment’s rules of procedure.
During FY 2013, in conjunction with the Office of Zoning and the Office of Planning the
Commercial Division will formulate and review changes to the Zoning Commission’s
and Board of Zoning Adjustment’s rules of procedure. This will help achieve greater
efficiency and transparency in the how those bodies conduct their hearing and meetings.
Ultimately, this will inure to the benefit of the Land Use & Public Works Section by
aiding it in timely completing its legal sufficiency reviews. Completion date: September
30, 2013.
Initiative 1.2: Investigate and implement a “cloud” service to share information
between OAG and the Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR).
During FY 2013, the Commercial Division will investigate and implement SpiderOak or
other available “cloud” service to share documents with the Office of Tax and Revenue
(OTR). The use of cloud technology will provide an easy, secure and consolidated free
online backup, sync, sharing, access and storage solution for litigation and other
materials. . Allowing both OTR and OAG to efficiently share and process information,
particularly with respect to District’s annual Real Property Tax Sale, and ensuing
litigation, as well with respect to tax assessment data, will improve inter-agency
coordination and efficiency. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.3: Acquire more properties through tax sales for the Department of
Housing and Community Development to develop and return to the tax rolls.
During FY 2013 the Commercial Division will, in conjunction with DHCD and OTR,
acquire a larger portion of tax sale “bid-off” properties for disposition to the private
sector for ultimate development and return to the tax rolls. DHCD must commit to fund
the acquisition of these properties via the tax sale foreclosure process which requires
funding for title reviews, service of process, and other incidental costs associated with tax
sale litigation., This initiative will be considered successful if the number of bid-off
properties acquired by the District in FY 2013 exceeds by 25% the average number of
properties acquired in each of the preceding five fiscal years. Completion date:
September 30, 2013.
6
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – Commercial Division
Measure
Percent of Legal
sufficiency reviews
performed by Land Use
and Public Works
Section completed
within 60 days.
Percent of Real Estate
Transactions Section
transactional documents
prepared and/or reviewed
for legal sufficiency
within 60 days.
Number of litigation
successes by the Tax and
Finance Section per FTE
Percent of litigation
success by the Land
Acquisition and
Bankruptcy Section.
Percent of Procurement
Section non-emergency
procurement reviews
completed within 60
days.
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
FY12
YTD
FY13
Projection
FY14
Projection
FY15
Projection
90%
87.5%
84.8%
87.5%
88%
89%
94%
95%
96.86%
95%
95.2%
95.5%
27
20
19.17
20
21
22
95%
92.5%
98.65%
95%
95.2%
95.5%
95%
92.5%
97.14%
95%
95.2%
95.5%
7
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Family Services Division works on behalf of the District’s most vulnerable citizens,
including abused and neglected children, domestic violence victims, and incapacitated adults
who are being abused or who are self-neglecting. The Division also provides representation to
the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Disability Services in Family Court,
admission hearings, commission hearings, annual reviews, and guardianship hearings.
OBJECTIVE 1: Reduce the risk of harm and protect the rights of: children at risk for
abuse and neglect; domestic violence victims; and incapacitated adults who are being
abused or who are self-neglecting.
Initiative 1.1: Educate the public on the civil commitment process for individuals
with mental illness.
The purpose of this initiative is to expand community awareness of the civil commitment
process for individuals with mental illness. Community forums will be held to educate
the public on how to obtain mental health treatment for individuals who are refusing such
treatment and may be at risk of injury to self or others because of the mental illness; the
civil commitment process; and alternatives to civil commitment. This initiative will be
considered successful upon completion of education forums in the top two wards in the
District with the highest percentage of mental health referrals. Completion date:
September 2013.
Initiative 1.2: Establish paternity in child support cases.
During FY 2013, the Child Protection Section will coordinate with the DC Superior
Court and the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) to employ new procedures for
establishing paternity and implement a child support pilot project in two neglect
courtrooms. The project will allow newly petitioned neglect cases to be referred to
CSSD for establishment of paternity and support orders when appropriate. The initiative
will be considered successful if the agency establishes paternity and/ or support in at least
100 cases during the course of FY 2013. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.3: Implement new criminal contempt prosecution procedures in
domestic violence cases.
During FY 2013, the Family Services Division will work in cooperation with D.C.
Superior Court and the United States Attorney’s Office to ensure the most efficient and
vigorous prosecution of violations of civil protection orders in domestic violence cases in
light of the court’s recent changes to how it handles these prosecutions. In order for this
new initiative to be successful the Domestic Violence Section will review and make a
prosecution determination on 100% of referrals within two weeks of receiving a referral
from the court. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Family Services Division
8
Measure
Percent of favorable
resolution in all cases
which reach adjudication
in the division.
Percent of children
whose first permanency
hearing is held within 12
months of the child’s
entry into foster care.
Percent of cases filed for
termination of parental
right by the Child
Protection Sections
within 45 days of the
child’s goal becoming
adoption.
Successfully resolved
criminal contempt
motions handled by the
Domestic Violence
Section per FTE per
quarter.
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
FY12
YTD
FY13
Projection
FY14
Projection
FY15
Projection
98.00%
98%
94.96 %
95%
95.2%
95.5%
90.8%
91%
95.56%
92%
93%
93%
88.5%
90%
92.39%
91%
91.5%
92%
4.24
4.5
5.4
4.75
4.8
4.85
9
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Public Interest Division is a new division created to provide litigation support to collect debts owed
the District of Columbia, defend equitable law suits, uphold agency regulations and protect consumers.
OBJECTIVE 1: Provide legal services and advice for complex and public interest litigation.
Initiative 1.1: Increase collection efforts and civil and administrative prosecutions
by educating district agencies about the Division’s mission.
To support its mission to protect the public and collect funds owed to the District, the
Civil Enforcement Section (CES) of the Public Interest Division will reach out to
agencies to increase awareness of the Section's mission. The number of cases referred to
the Section has a direct impact on its collection totals, and an increased awareness of
what the Section does will generate more referrals for civil and/or administrative
enforcement. CES intends to accomplish this by directly contacting agencies, meeting
with agency leadership, and consulting with its IT department about the placement of its
services on the OAG website. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.2: Enhance the process for reviewing citizen complaints to identify
potential investigations and enforcement actions.
The Public Advocacy Section of the Public Interest Division will develop a formalized
process for reviewing citizen complaints and reports to identify potential legal actions
pertaining to each of the Section’s five enforcement areas: consumer protection; antitrust;
civil false claims; charities; and tobacco. The process will include bi-weekly meetings of
the Section’s complaint response staff, to be attended by the Section Chief or a senior
level Assistant Attorney General. This initiative will be responsive to the expected
increase in citizen complaints and reports as a result of the FY 2012 initiative to enhance
the portion of the OAG’s website that pertains to the Public Advocacy Section.
Successful completion of this initiative will contribute to an increase in the number of
enforcement matters brought by the Section and in the Section’s annual monetary
recoveries from settlements and judgments. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.3: Increase the use of the document management database.
The Equity Section of the Public Interest Division will increase the number of cases
where it uses the document management database (“Concordance”) to increase
organization, track discovery received from relevant agencies, and promote in-depth
discovery consistent with the rules of civil procedure. Successful completion of this
initiative will result in the use of Concordance for 90% of new cases where 5000 or more
pages of discovery are expected. This will allow for more efficient case management,
leading to faster resolution of cases. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – Public Interest Division
Measure
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
FY12
YTD
FY13
FY14
Projection Projection
FY15
Projection
10
Dollar amount
collected by the
Civil
Enforcement
Section per
Attorney FTE
Dollar amount
collected by the
Public
Advocacy
Section
excluding
Tobacco
Settlement
Number of
Closed Cases in
the Equity
Section
$114,267.11
$130,000.00
$123,843.70
$130,000
$131,000
$132,000
$2,611,640.00
$2,700,000.00
2,673,005.88
$2,700,000
$2,725,000
$2,725,000
76.00
40.00
84
60
62
65
11
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Legal Counsel Division provides legal research and advice to the Executive Office of the
Mayor (EOM), the Attorney General, department and agency heads, and occasionally, the
Council of the District of Columbia; and drafts statutes and regulations for the EOM and the
agencies. The Legal Counsel Division also determines legal sufficiency for legislation,
rulemakings, Mayor’s Orders, and inter-agency MOUs. In addition, the Division prepares
formal opinions, legal memoranda, Office Orders for the Attorney General, and serves as an
attorney-advisor to the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions.
OBJECTIVE 1: Provide legal research and advice for the Executive Office of the Mayor,
Office of the Attorney General, client agencies, and occasionally the Council of the District
of Columbia.
Initiative 1.1: Offer appropriations law training to LCD attorneys to enhance their ability
to provide legal advice to their District government clients.
During FY 2013, LCD will offer appropriations law training to division attorneys to
enhance the division’s ability to provide legal support to EOM, OAG, and the other
District agencies who frequently seek advice involving the applicability of appropriations
law and the federal and local anti-deficiency acts. The initiative will be successful if the
division offers at least two substantive training sessions to LCD attorneys and a
subsequent workshop to consider solutions to hypothetical situations likely to be raised
by District officials and employees. An attorney in LCD will also offer to conduct
appropriations training to others in the Office of the Attorney General and District
government. This initiative will be considered successful if two training sessions and at
least one follow-up workshop for LCD attorneys are conducted and at least 70 percent of
the attorneys in LCD receive appropriations law training in FY 2013.
Initiative 1.2: Assist in the creation of a new Office of Government Ethics and
Office of Open Government within the newly created Board of Ethics and
Government Accountability
The Legal Counsel Division will work with the recently confirmed board members of the
newly-created BEGA to assist with getting the Office of Government Ethics and the
Office of Open Government up and running. At least two sets of rulemakings need to be
prepared. The first set of rules will set up the way the Board receives and answers
government ethics queries. The second rulemaking will establish the
investigatory/prosecutorial functions of the new Office. The second set is expected to be
complex insofar as there is no working equivalent currently in the District government.
The BEGA will also need assistance with creating the statutorily mandated Governments
Ethics Manual, as well as a "best practices" report due to the Council by January 1, 2013.
Additional reports concerning recommended changes to the Code of Conduct will also be
required. Moreover, the BEGA is required to assume from OAG the financial disclosure
filings required by District employees by April and May of 2013. Finally, the BEGA will
12
be required to provide ethics training to District employees -- another function currently
handled by the Legal Counsel Division. Insofar as the Legal Counsel Division now
handles many of the functions that will be assumed by the BEGA, OAG involvement
with the transition will be not only important, but necessary. This initiative will be
considered successful if the BEGA and the Office of Government Ethics becomes a fully
functioning agency and successfully completes all of its first year statutory requirements.
Completion date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.3: Provide timely and reliable oral and written advice on government
and legal ethics.
During FY 2013, the Legal Counsel Division will assist agency ethics officers and
employees throughout District government by providing timely and reliable oral and
written advice on government and legal ethics to those ethics officers and District
government employees who request it. This initiative will be considered successful if the
Legal Counsel Division provides 100 responses to ethics inquiries orally or in writing by
the end of the fiscal year. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Legal Counsel Division
Measure
Number of
rulemaking
projects
completed for
client agencies.
Percent of
written
assignments
completed by
deadline given
by client
agency, or 30
days if no
deadline given.
Number of
completed
written
assignment per
FTE.
Number of
high-profile
lawsuits
directly assisted
Number of
written
opinions issued
to ANCs
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
FY12
YTD
36
40
39
40
40
41
99%
99%
99.46%
99%
99%
99%
45
53
54.79
53
54
54
15
20
13
15
15
16
17
20
13
15
15
16
FY13
FY14
FY15
Projection
13
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Office of the Solicitor General manages the District’s civil and criminal appellate litigation
and practices most frequently before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the
United States. The docket includes appeals in a wide variety of civil, family, criminal, juvenile,
tax, and administrative cases from trial courts and petitions for review from District agencies.
OBJECTIVE 1: Provide affirmative and defensive appellate litigation services for the
District of Columbia government.
Initiative 1.1. Assign cases to attorneys based on general areas of expertise.
The Office of the Solicitor General will institute a formal process to assign cases to
Assistant Attorney Generals (AAG) based on general areas of expertise. There are
informal practices already in place to assign appeals to AAGs who have handled prior
appeals in that subject matter. Making assignments based on expertise a more formal
process will encourage staff to retain and broaden their expertise. This will make staff
more likely to do well in appeals in that area, and also allow them to be points of contact
for trial attorneys seeking guidance in that area. The initiative will thereby increase our
percentage of favorable resolution in defensive appeals cases. Completion date:
September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.2. Recording and reviewing D.C. Court of Appeals oral arguments.
Oral argument is an important part of appellate litigation. One way to improve the
performance of AAGs in oral arguments is to record and review oral arguments presented
to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which are streamed live over the internet. Recording oral
arguments regularly, requiring AAGs to review them, and having managers also go over
at least some recordings with AAGs will improve their skills. The initiative will thereby
increase our percentage of favorable resolution in defensive appeals cases. Completion
date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.3. Soliciting moot court judges from other divisions.
Moot courts are an important part of preparing for oral arguments. Procuring volunteer
judges from outside the Office of the Solicitor General helps break AAGs out of routines
and ensures that someone without prior contact with the case can view the briefs with a
fresh perspective. Regularly soliciting volunteer moot courts judges from other divisions
will improve moot courts, and also provide a source for judges when attorneys with the
Office of the Solicitor General are busy with their own assigned cases. The initiative will
thereby increase both our percentage of favorable resolution in defensive appeals cases
and the percentage of regular calendar arguments in which a moot court is held.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Office of the Solicitor General
14
Measure
Percent of
favorable
resolution in
defensive
appeals cases.
Percent of
regular
calendar
arguments in
which a moot
court was held.
Motions for
summary
disposition
filed per FTE
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
FY12
YTD
94%
92%
93.15
92%
93%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2
2.1
2.83
2.2
2.2
2.3
FY13
FY14
FY15
Projection
15
Personnel, Labor and Employment Division
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Personnel, Labor and Employment Division defends agencies in personnel-related matters
such as suspensions, terminations for employee misconduct, and reductions in force. The
Division also provides training and professional development for all OAG employees in order to
more effectively fulfill its mission; hires and maintains excellent and diverse staff through on
campus interviews, interviews at job fairs, and traditional acceptance of applications; ensures
fairness and diversity in the workplace; processes all discipline grievances; and serves as OAG’s
chief negotiator on collective bargaining issues for the attorney union.
OBJECTIVE 1: Defend District agencies in personnel-related matters.
Initiative 1.1:Provide agencies with legal advice on how to decrease employment
litigation.
The Office of the Attorney General will prepare a memorandum for at least four of the
agencies with the highest volume of litigation to provide legal advice on how to decrease
employment litigation based on previous cases. Attorneys will either review proposed
adverse personnel actions sent to the section by agencies or develop advice based on
cases filed in the current and previous fiscal year to ensure that all applicable procedures
have been followed and that the actions are supported by adequate documentation.
OBJECTIVE 2: Hire and retain a highly qualified workforce of attorneys and legal
support staff.
Initiative 2.1: Enhance the quality of the agency’s applicant pool
In an effort to market the Office of the Attorney General as an elite organization and
compete with the private and federal sector to attract top-notched staff, there is a need to
enhance the agency’s electronic and other marketing material provided to prospective
applicants. In addition to local job fairs and recruitment efforts, OAG will focus on a
national level to compete with the private and federal sectors to increase OAG’s
attractiveness to potential applicants at job fairs on the local and national job market.
Initiative 2.2: Enhance staff morale.
To promote positive labor management, OAG will sponsor at least one program/event
with either its support staff or attorney union each quarter which is designed to promote
staff morale and enhance staff retention. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Personnel, Labor and Employment Division
Measure
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
FY12
YTD
Number of
attorneys who
29
35
37
FY13
FY14
35
35
FY15
Projection
35
16
left the agency.
Number of
interns assisting
attorneys and
staff on an
annual basis
Number of inhouse training
hours taken per
legal FTE
256
250
273
250
250
250
33.5
25.00
18.48
25
25
26
17
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Public Safety Division enforces District laws and regulations by taking appropriate legal
action on behalf of the District of Columbia. The Division initiates legal claims (both criminal
and civil) to protect the public and seek restitution where applicable. The Division prosecutes
juveniles for various offenses, adults for misdemeanor offenses, and protects neighborhoods
through the prosecution of various nuisance property offenses.
OBJECTIVE 1: Enforce District laws and regulations by taking appropriate legal action
on behalf of the District government.
Initiative 1.1: Successfully prosecute DUI cases utilizing the District’s newly
established Alcohol Breath Testing Program.
The Criminal Section has worked closely with the Metropolitan Police Ddepartment and
the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to ensure that the Alcohol Breath Testing
Program is fully operational in FY 2013. This initiative will be considered successful if,
by the end of FY 13, the Criminal Section obtains DUI convictions utilizing admissible
breath test results from the District’s newly established Alcohol Breath Testing Program.
Initiative 1.2: Refer individuals improperly renting a property in the District to the
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.
During this fiscal year, the Neighborhood and Victim Services Section will initiate
referrals to the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs when it is discovered
that individuals are improperly renting their units without a basic business license. The
purpose of this initiative is to ensure that the proper licensing fees and taxes are paid to
the District of Columbia. Successful completion of the initiative will be at least 20 cases
referred during FY 2013. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.3: Expand eligible juvenile case referrals to the Family Court Juvenile
Behavioral Diversion Court to include status offenses.
The Family Court initiated a Mental Health Calendar to help ensure that juvenile
respondents with mental health issue receive services. During FY 2013, the Juvenile
Section will expand case referrals to include status offenses, as appropriate. The purpose
of this initiative is to further the goal of treatment and rehabilitation in the District while
also protecting public safety. Successful completion of this initiative will be an overall
referral rate of 12% of the eligible cases, including the status offenses. Completion date:
September 30, 2013.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Public Safety Division
Measure
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
FY12
YTD
FY13
FY14
FY15
Projection
18
Number of
nuisance
property
prosecutions
Juveniles
referred for
rehabilitation
Successful
criminal cases
per FTE
11
15
13
15
15
15
89%
90%
85.07%
90%
90%
90%
72
65
60.84
65
65
66
19
Agency Management Division
OBJECTIVE 1
The objective of the Agency Management Division is to guide and support the legal divisions of
the office.
SUMMARY OF SERVICES
The Agency Management Division provides leadership and overall supervision, coordination,
and guidance to the entire office, including the legal services provided through the General
Counsels to the various subordinate Mayoral agencies. The Agency Management Division also
serves as the infrastructure of the agency by providing logistical and operational support as well
as information technology, financial, human resources, customer service and investigative
support.
Initiative 1.1: Ensure that litigating divisions receive regular oversight and
guidance on high-profile matters that could potentially affect the District of
Columbia Government or city residents fiscally, politically, or from a policy
standpoint.
To improve the likelihood of a favorable outcome in high-profile matters, the Immediate
Office will maintain regular communication with the litigating divisions of the OAG to
discuss any high-profile matters that may impact the District of Columbia Government
and its residents and devise strategies to ensure a successful outcome or mitigate risk.
Initiative 1.2: Implement cross-divisional team to more efficiently respond to IntraNet Quorum (IQ) Ask The Director (ATD) inquiries.
The Customer Service Unit will work collaboratively with each legal division of the
OAG to ensure that it responds to inquiries from the public within two business days.
This initiative will provide the public with timely information about the OAG’s
operations to promote positive, professional interactions with the public. Completion
date: September 30, 2013.
Initiative 1.3: Ensure that all investigators are trained on the service of civil
summonses.
To improve the litigators’ ability to successfully defend or prosecute legal matters, the
Investigations Section will ensure that all investigators receive training on the service of
civil summonses. The training will include information on the limits of their authority
and the use of information technology and other tools to increase the likelihood of
locating a witness. Completion date: September 30, 2013.
20
Key Performance Indicators
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — Agency Management Division
Measure
Number of
case/matter
review
meetings with
senior staff
Percentage of
IQ responses
sent within two
business days
Number of
summons
served per FTE
FY11
Actual
FY12
Target
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
FY12
YTD
NA
FY13
FY14
FY15
Projection
8
12
15
NA
90
92
95
NA
215
221
230
21
22

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of the

Transcription

Similar documents

open Office Overview Brochure

Consumer Fraud Complaint - Sacramento County District Attorney

Community Justice Centers - Cook County State`s Attorney`s Office

090707_Red Bull Report - Minnesota National Guard

to view - KDH Your Right to Know

- Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit

Hypothetically Speaking - Philadelphia Bar Association

COMMUNICATOR - Volusia County Bar Association

to the PowerPoint presentation for the webinar.

dauphin county bar association may, 2015 - Dcba