Some sections of the DC Code that caught my eye today:
§ 3-1104. Restriction on job training program combined with sprinkler installation program.
Any job training programs chosen to be combined with a sprinkler installation program shall perform their job training activities within the District of Columbia.
§ 3-342.01. Definitions.
For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “Baseball Stadium” shall have the same meaning as that provided for the term “Ballpark” in § 47-2002.05(a)(1)(A)
Grave robbery, and trafficking in bodies, carries a $200 fine or up to one year imprisonment in the Workhouse. So don’t do it, ‘kay?
DC Code § 3-206
Skimming the DC Code and I come across Presidential Inaugural Ceremonies after 1998. The statute gives Council the authority to issue rules, which struck me as kind of…off-putting? since rules are generally the province of the executive/Mayor. But whatever. A bit further along I notice reference to streetcars, and of course we’re in the process of getting streetcars now, again, but in 1998 there weren’t streetcars, so why did the law mention them?
Then I get to Presidential Inaugural Ceremonies after 1956 and it all becomes almost clear. In skimming, I noticed no differences — NONE — (though again, I was only skimming) in content between the two. The only differences were in format.
Why do I say “almost clear”? Because 1. the 1998 law was passed by Congress (which explains the keeping of Council-as-rule-maker, but why wasn’t the law the doing of Council?) and 2. if there’s no difference, then why the new law?
Anyone have insight on this?
Did I fool you into thinking that this would be a political post?
Sorry, no such luck. Just wanting to point out an inconsistency I came across while skimming the DC Code regarding public sector workers’ compensation. (Not injured on the job. Putting together some information about DCHR.) DC Code 1-623.01, definitions:
(9) The term “child” means one who at the time of the death of the employee is under 18 years of age or over that age and incapable of self-support, and includes stepchildren, adopted children and posthumous children, but does not include married children.
(10) The term “grandchild” means one who at the time of the death of the employee is under 18 years of age or over that age and incapable of self-support.
Notice: the definition of “child” excludes married children. The definition of “grandchild” does NOT exclude married grandchildren.
Any thoughts as to why?
I needed to read the Council rules for a quick bit of research. In doing so, I skimmed the definitions section, where I came across the definition of Council recess:
You will note that recess includes August through September 15…and, listed separately, July 15-August 1. So I ask, is there some substantive difference that requires the two periods to be identified separately, and not be written simply as “July 15th through September 15th”?
Today’s post comes from a combination of my curiosity and my ignorance of history.
I would guess (with no research into the question), as a matter of course, that a government’s default stance is that a person is ineligible for benefits until proven otherwise. It just makes sense, as sound fiscal policy. (This does not mean that a government should create hurdles to proving eligibility, though.) It also makes sense that someone who isn’t a resident of a given jurisdiction shouldn’t be eligible for that jurisdiction’s benefits.*
Additionally, it seems to me, though if you haven’t noticed yet I am the master of overly-broad-generalizations-based-on-not-much, that there has been a trend recently (where by recently I mean in the time I’ve lived in DC) to expand eligibility.
So I was surprised to come across this policy order from 1969:
Was this standard at the time? Or was it a progressive move by the federally-appointed folks running DC in those days?
I’d love to learn more.
*BIG issue regarding services for homeless people. I’m not talking about those.