DC DC-OAG-2011-02-08-Opinion-July-2014-Housing-Authority 2011-02-08

Can DC's elected Chief Financial Officer hire, fire, and direct the financial staff at the DC Housing Authority, even though DCHA is technically an independent agency that gets most of its money from federal HUD?

Short answer: Yes. Congress has repeatedly amended the Home Rule Act since 1995 to give the DC CFO control over financial personnel at all DC agencies, including independent ones. DCHA is part of the DC government (the Council can only create entities that are part of the government). The 1999 DCHA Act expressly says DCHA shall expend funds 'in the same manner as all other agencies of the District government.' HUD's own regulations recognize that local agencies receiving HUD funds operate under local law. So DCHA's financial functions and financial personnel sit under CFO authority.

Disclaimer: This is an official DC Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed DC attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

DCHA had taken the position that, as an "independent authority of the District" with "a legal existence separate from the District government" (per its 1999 enabling statute), and as an agency that received most of its operating funds from federal HUD, it stood outside the DC CFO's direction-and-control authority. The DC CFO disagreed.

Acting Attorney General Irvin Nathan resolved the dispute in the CFO's favor, walking through the federal and local law step by step.

First, Congress has been clear since 1995. The original FRMA Act created the DC CFO as an independent constitutional officer with broad fiscal authority. The Home Rule Act § 424d gives the CFO custody and control over "all public funds belonging to or under the control of the District government (or any department or agency of the District government)" and "all investment and invested funds of the District government or in possession of the District government in a fiduciary capacity." That language reaches DCHA whether DCHA is treated as a District agency or as a fiduciary-only holder of HUD funds.

Second, the personnel authority. Congress added a 1996 Appropriations Act provision (later extended) putting all financial personnel of "independent agencies, but not including personnel of the legislative and judicial branches" under CFO direction-and-control. In 2006 Congress codified this as § 425 of the Home Rule Act. The legislative history says Congress meant to "insure that the financial personnel of each independent agency in the District, without exception, are appointed by, serve at the pleasure of, and act under the direction and control of the Chief Financial Officer."

Third, DCHA is part of the District government. The 1999 DCHA Act describes DCHA as an "independent authority of the District" with separate legal existence. Boilerplate language. As prior AG opinions (2006 NCRC opinion) had concluded for similar entities, the Council cannot create entities outside the District government because Home Rule Act § 404(b) only authorizes the Council to create entities "of the government of the District." DCHA is independent (free of Mayoral administrative authority), but it remains within the District government.

Fourth, the 1999 DCHA Act itself was amended in 2005 to say DCHA "shall expend, and account for the expenditure of, funds in the same manner as all other agencies of the District government." The 2005 amendment was added explicitly to provide for Council oversight of DCHA funds. The Council is presumed to have known about the CFO's authority over independent agencies when it added that language, and the language confirms DCHA's parity with other DC agencies on financial matters.

Fifth, federal HUD funding does not change the analysis. Many DC agencies receive most of their money from federal grants, and they all sit under the CFO. Even if HUD funds were treated as held in a fiduciary capacity rather than as DC public funds, the CFO's § 1-204.24d(12) authority covers "all investment and invested funds of the District government or in possession of the District government in a fiduciary capacity." HUD's own Procurement Handbook recognizes that local agencies receiving HUD funds must comply with state and local law on operational matters.

The opinion notes that the DC Water and Sewer Authority obtained an express congressional carve-out from the CFO's personnel authority in 2008 (§ 1-204.25(e)). DCHA had no such carve-out.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The DC CFO statutory framework has been amended since 2011, and DCHA itself has gone through additional governance reforms following financial-management concerns flagged by federal HUD oversight in 2022-2023.

Historical context

The 1995 fiscal crisis pushed Congress to create the DC CFO as a structurally independent fiscal officer. The CFO's hiring authority over agency-level financial personnel was the FRMAA's most controversial provision because it shifted lines of accountability from agency heads to the CFO. Independent agencies fought the change throughout the late 1990s and 2000s, with carve-outs occasionally negotiated case-by-case (Water and Sewer Authority in 2008).

DCHA's position in 2010-2011 reflected one of those institutional pushes: HUD-funded agencies operate under heavy federal oversight, the argument went, and adding DC CFO oversight on top creates tension. The AG opinion rejected that framing. Federal oversight and DC CFO oversight are layered, not exclusive, and HUD itself recognized the layering in its own procurement handbook.

The opinion is also a reminder of how much the boilerplate "independent agency with separate legal existence" language does NOT do. Across multiple AG opinions (1998 IG/DCHA, 2006 NCRC, 2011 CFO/DCHA), the same language has been read narrowly: an "independent" DC agency is independent of Mayoral administrative direction, but not independent of the structural rules that apply to all DC entities (CFO authority, anti-deficiency law, Council § 451(b) approval, IG subpoena power, etc.).

Common questions

Q: Who is the DC CFO?
A: An independent constitutional officer created by FRMA (1995) and codified in §§ 424a-424e of the Home Rule Act. The CFO is appointed by the Mayor with Council confirmation, but operates independently of the Mayor on financial matters.

Q: Does the CFO control DCHA's spending decisions?
A: The CFO controls the financial-management infrastructure (custody of funds, financial personnel) but not DCHA's substantive decisions about housing programs. DCHA's Board still sets policy. The CFO ensures that whatever DCHA decides to do is executed within proper financial controls.

Q: Can the DCHA Executive Director hire her own CFO?
A: Under § 425, the Agency Chief Financial Officer at DCHA serves at the pleasure of the District CFO and acts under the District CFO's direction and control. The DCHA Executive Director cannot bypass that structure.

Q: Did the DC Council intend this result?
A: Yes. The 2005 amendment to the DCHA Act expressly required DCHA to handle funds "in the same manner as all other agencies of the District government." The amendment was added "to provide for Council oversight" of DCHA funds.

Q: Are there any DC agencies outside CFO authority?
A: Yes, by express congressional carve-out. The Water and Sewer Authority (D.C. Code § 1-204.25(e)) has an explicit exemption. The Council and the judicial branch are also outside (per § 425(b)(3)).

Citations

Statutes
- DC Home Rule Act §§ 424a-424e (DC CFO authority)
- DC Home Rule Act § 425 (CFO personnel authority over independent agencies)
- DC Home Rule Act § 446 (appropriations requirement)
- DC Home Rule Act § 490(n)(2) (District instrumentality definition)
- DC Housing Authority Act of 1999, D.C. Law 13-105
- FY 2006 Budget Support Act of 2005 § 2022, D.C. Law 16-33

Cases and prior AG opinions
- Scholtz Partnership v. DC Rental Accommodations Comm'n, 427 A.2d 905 (D.C. 1981) (Council presumed to know existing law)
- US Parole Commission v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084 (D.C. 1997)
- AG opinions: Charles F.C. Ruff, May 10, 1996 (Council review of independent-agency contracts); Eugene A. Adams, December 8, 2006 (NCRC opinion); Robert J. Spagnoletti, February 16, 2006 (Water and Sewer Authority CFO authority)

Source

License

This opinion is published by the Office of the Attorney General for the
District of Columbia. Per the DC.gov terms of use, content is licensed
under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0,
which permits commercial use, redistribution, and modification with
attribution.

Original opinion text

(

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

February 8, 2011

OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT:

Authority of the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer Over the Financial
Functions and Financial Personnel of the District of Columbia Housing Authority

Hon. Adrianne Todman
Executive Director
D.C. Housing Authority
1133 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear Ms. Todman:
This opinion, which is issued pursuant to Reorganization Order No. 50 of 1953, as amended,
and, as such, operates as "the guiding statement of the law" to be followed by all District
agencies and employees "in the performance of their official duties," in the absence of specific
action by the Mayor or the Council, or until overruled by controlling court decision, I addresses
the recently posed question that was discussed between you and the City Administrator:
Does the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer (District CFO) have the authority to
supervise and to control the financial functions and financial personnel of the District of
Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA)?
I understand that the question has been the subject of some debate. DCHA has maintained that
the District CFO does not have the requisite authority, based on DCHA's establishment as an
indepe'ndent agency of the District government and its receipt of funds by the federal Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The District CFO has taken the opposite view,
contending that the reach of his powers extends to both subordinate and independent District
agencies, including those that receive most or a substantial portion of their funding from the
federal government.
This opinion is designed to resolve the question definitively. Having reviewed the applicable
congressional and Council legislation, the legislative history, and the uniform opinions of my
I See also United States Parole Commission v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084, 1099 (D.C. 1997), adopted on rehearing en
bane, 711 A.2d 85 (D.C. 1998).

441 Fourth Street" NW, Suite l180N, Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 724-1301, Fax (202) 741-0580

predecessors, as explained below, I conclude that the District CFO has the authority to supervise
and to control the financial functions and financial personnel of DCHA.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Continuously since 1995 Congress has passed legislation amending the Home Rule Act and
providing that the District CFO has the responsibility for supervising the control of "all" public
funds belonging to or "under the control" of any department or agency of the District
government, including any of its independent agencies. In 1996, my predecessor, Charles F.C.
Ruff, issued a formal opinion making clear that all independent agencies of the District
government were bound to follow the requirements of the Home Rule Act. A later opinion made
clear that the District Council has no authority from Congress to create any entity which is not
part ofthe District government. In 2005, when the Council amended DCHA's enabling statute, it
was aware of both the congressional provisions relating to the District CFO and the binding,
unopposed opinion of Corporation Counsel Ruff. Therefore, it specifically provided in its
amendment to the section of the statute creating the DCHA, as an independent agency of the
District government, that the DCHA "shall expend, and account for the expenditure of funds, in
the same manner as all other agencies of the District government." Corporation Counsel and
Attorney General opinions subsequent to the creation ofthe DCHA have reiterated that all
independent agencies of the District govenunent are bound by the financial requirements of the
Home Rule Act, unless expressly exempted by Congress. In view of the plain language of the
congressional and Council legislation, the legislative history of those statutes, and the uniform
interpretation of governing Corporation Counsel and Attorney General opinions, it is absolutely
clear that the financial affairs of the DCHA, including the funds it holds in a fiduCiary capacity
from the federal government, must be under the supervision and control of the District CFO.
Indeed, the regulations of HUD specifically recognize that local agencies receiving its funds
must handle them in accordance with governing local law, which, of course, is all the more
imperative when that local law has been passed and/or reviewed by the United States Congress.
DISCUSSION

My conclusion is best viewed in the context of legislation that was initially passed, respectively,
by Congress and the Council in response to two events in the District's recent history. The first
event was the fiscal crisis of the mid-1990s, which resulted in, among other things, Congress's
creation of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) as an independent entity established
by sections 424a through 424e of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Home Rule Act),
approved December 24, 1973, Pub. 1. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774, D.C. Official Code §§ 1-204.24a
through 1-204.24e (2010 Supp.). The other was the failure of the District's public housing
program, which led the Council to establish DCHA in 1999. I will discuss each development in
turn.

I. The Role of the CFO in the District of Columbia Government
In 1995, the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight found that the District was
then "experiencing a chronic and profound budgetary crisis," H. R. Rep. No. 104-96, at 15
(1995), and that the "problems exceed[ed] the challenge of debt management alone." Id. The

legislative response came in the form of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995 (FRMAA), approved April 17, 1995, Pub. 1. 104-8, 109
Stat. 97, which was described in the committee report, at 33, as "Congress's commitment...to
assure the fiscal health of the District of Columbia in both the short and the long term."
One key provision of the FRMAA2 was the establislunent ofOCFO, to be headed by the District
CFO. J Indeed, the importance of the District CFO's role in the overall scheme was underscored
by the House committee's stated expectation that "the Mayor [would] recognize the vital role
that the CFO will play in the implementation of this legislation." H. R. Rep. No. 104-96, at 48.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The FRMAA vested the District CFO with broad authority over the District's finances and
financial personnel. The District CFO's specific duties are now set out in section 424d of the
Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code § 1-204.24d) and include most that were originally set out in
the FRMAA. Of those duties, three are quite relevant here. See D.C. Official Code § 1204.24d(6) ("Supervising and asswning responsibility for financial transactions to ensure
adequate control of revenues and resources."); D.C. Official Code § 1-204.24d(11)
("Maintaining custody of all public funds belonging to or under the control of the District
government (or any department or agency of the District government)[.] ") (emphasis supplied);
and D.C. Official Code § 1-204.24d(l2) ("Maintaining custody of all investment and invested
funds of the District government or in possession of the District government in a fiduciary
capacity[.]"). (Emphasis supplied.)
In 1996, the District CFO's personnel authority was clarified by section 142(a) of the District of
Colwnbia Appropriations Act, 1997, approved September 9, 1996, Pub. L. 104-194, 110 Stat.
2356, which provided that during any control period:
The heads and all personnel of the following offices, together with all other
District of Colwnbia accounting, budget, and financial management personnel
(including personnel of independent agencies but not including personnel of the
legislative and judicial branches of the District government), shall be appointed
by, shall serve at the pleasure of, and shall act under the direction and control of
the Chief Financial Officer. (Emphasis supplied.)
This provision4 was explained in the legislative history as a necessary clarification to "insure that
the financial personnel of each independent agency in the District, without exception, are
appointed by, serve at the pleasure of, and act under the direction and control of the Chief
Financial Officer." H. R. Rep. 104-740, at 17-18 (1996) (Conf. Rep.). (Emphasis supplied.)
2 This provision was added as section 424a(a) of the Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code § 1-204.24a(a)).

Another FRMAA provision, codified at D.C. Official Code § 47-391.01(a) (2005 Rep!.), was the establishment of
the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, better known as the Financial Control Board.
The Board suspended its operations on September 30,2001, when the District achieved its fourth consecutive
balanced budget.
J

The provision was never codified.

Although the 1997 Appropriations Act provision pertained to the District CFO's authority during
a Financial Control Board period, Congress later extended and broadened the District CFO's
personnel authority to apply to non-control years. See, e.g., section lll(c) of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002, approved December 21, 2001, Pub. L. 107-96, 116 Stat.
820; section 336 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005, approved October 18,
2004, Pub. L. 108-335, 118 Stat. 1322.
Most recently, in 2006, Congress further clarified the District CFO's personnel authority by
adding a new provision to the Home Rule Act that is codified at D.C. Official Code § 1-204.25
(2010 Supp.». 5 The new section, headlined "Authority of Chief Financial Officer over
Personnel of Office and Other Financial Personnel," provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) In General. Notwithstanding any provision of law or
regulation ... employees of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District
of Columbia, including personnel described in subsection (b), shall be
appointed by, shall serve at the pleasure of, and shall act under the direction and
control of the Chief Financial Officer of the District ofColumbia.
(b) Personnel. The personnel described in this subsection are as follows:
(3) The heads and all personnel of the subordinate offices of [OCFO] and the
Chief Financial Officers, Agency Fiscal Officers, and Associate Chief Financial
Officers of all District of Columbia executive branch subordinate and
independent agencies ... , together with all other District of Columbia accounting,
budget, and financial management personnel (including personnel of executive
branch independent agencies, but not including personnel of the legislative or
judicial branches of the District government). (Emphasis supplied.)
In sum, Congress saw what it considered to be a problem and, in progressively clearer terms, has
addressed it by providing the District CFO with broad powers over all public funds belonging to
the District, or under its control, as well as the finances and financial personnel of all the
District's subordinate and independent agencies. 6 In light of this clear and unambiguous
legislative history, DCHA cannot reasonably contend that it alone stands outside the reach of this
congressional legislation amending the Home Rule Act, which necessarily informs and takes
precedence with respect to all legislation adopted by the District government, including the local
legislation establishing DCHA.
5 The new provision was added by section 202(a)(I) of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005, approved

October 16, 2006, 109 Pub. L. 109-356, 120 Stat. 2019. This law inadvertently numbered the new provision of the
Home Rule Act as "424a", although there was already a section 424a. Thus, the codifier property treated the new
provision instead as section "425".
6 See also the attached copy of Attorney General Robert J. Spagnoletti's February 16,2006 memorandum to then-

City Administrator Robert C. Bobb (concluding that the District CFO has personnel authority over the financial
personnel for the independent Water and Sewer Authority). In 2008, the Water and Sewer Authority obtained
express congressional exemption from the District CFO's control. See D.C. Official Code § 1-204.25(e) (2010
Supp.).

II. DCHA
By 1992, the Department of Public and Assisted Housing (DPAH) was plagued with so many
problems that applicants on the housing waiting list sued in the Superior Court of the District of.
Columbia to seek redress. See Report of the Committee on Consumer and Regulatory Affairs on
Bill 13-169, the District of Columbia Housing Authority Act of 1999, at 2 (Council of the
District of Columbia, November 15, 1999) (DCHA Committee Report). The Council,
recognizing the "serious deficiencies" with DPAH, replaced it with the immediate predecessor
agency of DCHA, which was also known as the District of Columbia Housing Authority. Id.
(citing the District of Columbia Housing Authority Act of 1994 (1994 Act), effective March 21,
1995, D.C. Law 10-243,42 DCR 91).7 The 1994 Act was intended to provide "the tools to begin
transforming the Housing Authority from a troubled public housing authority to a high
performing housing authority." Id. However, several months later, the court appointed a
receiver to take control of, and operate, the new entity. Id.
Progress was fortunately made, and, in anticipation of the end of court-ordered receivership, the
Council found that "it [was] time to insure that the form of governance of the rejuvenated DCHA
in the post-Receivership period [was] designed to prevent the policies, practices, and influences
that led to its predecessor's downfall." Id at 3. Accordingly, the Council passed the District of
Columbia Housing Authority Act of 1999 (1999 Act), effective May 9,2000, D.C. Law 13-105,
D.C. Official Code § 6-201 et seq. (2008 Repl. & 2010 Supp.). In so doing, the Council repealed
the 1994'Ad and established the current DCHA as "an independent authority of the District,"
with "a legal existence separate from the District government." See section 3(a) of the 1999 Act
(D.C. Official Code § 6-202(a)).
Given the importance, for present purposes, that DCHA places on its establishment as an
independent authority of the District, the subject warrants some additional analysis.

A. DCHA is Part of the District Government and SUbject to All Requirements of the Home
Rule Act
The District's government was created as a municipal corporation and
is constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be
contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and
exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this Code. 9

7 As explained in the text below, the 1994 Act was subsequently repealed.
8 See section 30 of the 1999 Act (uncodified).
9 Section

I of An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, approved February 2), 187) (16 Stat.
419; D.C. Official Code § 1·102 (2006 Rep!')). See also section 717(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
(Home Rule Act), approved December 24,1973,87 Stat. 779, D.C. Official Code § 1-207.17(a) (2006 Rep!.).

Title IV of the Home Rule Act established a Charter for the District which provides for the
District's current means of governance and delegates certain legislative powers to the District.
The Home Rule Act serves as an enabling act, determining what the District, through its three
branches of government, can and cannot do. Section 404 of the Home Rule Act (D.C. Official
Code § 1-204.04 (2006 Rep!.», delegates certain legislative powers to the Council. Among
those powers, as set out in section 404(b) ofthe Home Rule Act, is the Council's power to:
create, abolish, or organize, any office, agency, department, or instrumentality of
the government of the District and to define the powers and duties, and
responsibilities of any such office, agency, department, or instrumentality.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Similarly, section 422(12) of the Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code § 1-204.22(12) (2010
Supp.» authorizes the Mayor to
Reorganize the offices, agencies, and other entities within the executive branch of
the government of the District by submitting to the Council a detailed plan of such
reorganization.
An early home rule law of the District government, the Governmental Reorganization
Procedures Act of 1981, effective October 17, 1981, D.C. Law 4-42, D.C. Official Code § 1315.01 et seq. (2006 Rep!.», implements these Charter provisions and reflects the Council's and
the Mayor's joint understanding that sections 404(b) and 422(12 of the Home Rule Act limit the
District government's power to create or reorganize offices, agencies, departments, authorities,
and instrumentalities only to entities that are a part of the District government itself. Indeed, this
Office reached this conclusion in another formal opinion by one of my predecessors. See pp. 2-4
of the attached copy ofInterim Attorney General Eugene A. Adams's December 8,2006 opinion
to then-Mayor Anthony A. Williams (concluding, among other things, that the former National
Capital Revitalization Corporation - which was governed by statutory enabling language
identical to that of DCHA - was part of the District government).
The Council and the Mayor clearly have the authority under the Home Rule Act to create or to
reorganize an instrumentality of the District government and define its powers, duties, and
responsibilities. The power to create or to reorganize an entity outside of the District
government has never been granted by Congress to the Councilor to the Mayor.
Because Congress has never granted such power, the District government cannot create any
office, agency, department, authority, instrumentality, or other entity that is outside the District
government. Construing the 1999 Act to the maximum extent of the Council's powers, the
description ofDCHA as "an independent authority of the District," with "a legal existence
separate from the District government" - standard, boilerplate language that has appeared in
many of the enabling laws for the District's independent agencies - means that DCHA, while
still a part of the District government, is nevertheless independent and separate from other
agencies, including the administrative control of the Executive Office of the Mayor.

The legislative history of the 1999 Act reflects the Council's intent that DCHA be a part of the
District government. For example, the DCHA Committee Report, at 3, states:
The Committee also believes that under limited circumstances and only after
first submitting a resolution for the approval of the Council of the District of
Columbia (as does the National Capital Revitalization Corporation
("NCRC") and the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency ("HF A"»,
DCHA should be endowed with the powers of eminent domain and with the
ability to issue tax-exempt Obligations [sic] to enable the DCHA to fulfill its role
as a provider of safe, sound and sanitary housing for low and moderate income
persons and families in the District of Columbia. (Emphasis supplied.)
The 1999 Act itself, through provisions that were part of the original legislation or were added
later, expressly reserves substantial Council control and oversight of DCHA activities. For
example, and perhaps most relevant here, section 3(d) of the 1999 Act (D.C. Official Code
§ 6-202(d» provides that DCHA "shall expend, and account for the expenditure of, funds in the
same manner as all other agencies of the District government." (Emphasis supplied.) This
provision was added by section 2022 of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Support Act of2005,
effective October 20,2005, D.C. Law 16-33, 52 DCR 7503, "to provide for Council oversight of
funds provided by [sic] the District to the Housing Authority." See Report of the Committee of
the Whole on Bil116-200, the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Support Act of2005, at 15 (Council of
the District of Columbia May 10, 2005).
On the subject of oversight, it is worth noting that the Council can be presumed to have known
about the CFO's authority over the finances and financial personnel of the District's independent
agencies when it passed the 1999 Act. See, e.g., Scholtz Partnership v. District of Columbia
Rental Accommodations Com'n., 427 A.2d 905, 916 (D.C. 1981) ('the legislature is presumed to
know [the] law"). Congress had, by 1999, made its intentions explicitly clear that the District's
CFO would supervise and control the financial operations and staff of both subordinate and
independent agencies of the District government. The Council was also presumptively aware of
a recent fonnal opinion in which the Corporation Counsel had concluded that independent
agencies of the District government were bound to submit their contracts in excess of$1 million
in a 12-month period for Council approval under section 451(b) of the Charter. See the attached
copy of Corporation Counsel Charles F. C. Ruffs May 10, 1996 opinion to the then-General
Counsel to the Council, Charlotte Brookins-Hudson (opining with respect to the obligations of
the independent Washington Convention Center Authority). Other examples of the Council's
reservation of control in the 1999 Act include section 5(a) (D.C. Official Code § 6-204(a)
("Absent an agreement with [DCHA] approved by the Council, for-profit activities shall not be
exempt from District taxation.") and section 26a(c) (D.C. Official Code § 6-226(c) (2010 Supp.)
("[DCHA] shall promulgate rules, subject to Council approval, as required in §§ 6-227 and 6228, which shall govern the distribution of funds under [the Rent Supplement Program].").
The foregoing analysis makes it clear that DCHA is part of the District government and must
account for its funds in exactly the same way as all other agencies of the District government,
including subordinate and independent agencies. This conclusion is further reinforced by the
definition of "District instrumentality" in section 490(n)(2) of the Home Rule Act (D.C. Official
Code § 1-204.90(n)(2) (2006 Rep!.», which means "any agency or instrumentality (including an
7

independent agency or instrumentality), authority, commission, board, department, division,
office, body, or officer of the District of Columbia goverrunent duly established by an act of the
Council or by the laws of the United States, whether established before or after August 5, 1997."
(Emphasis supplied.) Accordingly, as part of the District goverrunent, DCHA is subject to all the
requirements of the Home Rule Act pertaining to District goverrunent subordinate and
independent agencies, including the authority of the District CFO to supervise and control
DCHA's financial operations and staff.
B. DCHA's Receipt of Federal Funds
DCHA also relies for its position on the fact that it receives funding from HUD. Such funding,
in and of itself, is no basis on which to distinguish DCHA from the several other independent
and Executive Branch subordinate agencies of the District goverrunent that receive all or most of
their funds from the federal goverrunent.
More to the point, the funds received by DCHA from HUD are public funds of the District
government by virtue of the fact that DCHA is, as concluded above, part of the District
government. Even if such funds were not owned by the District government, the District CFO's
authority extends to maintaining custody of all funds in possession of the District government in
a fiduciary capacity. See D.C. Official Code § 1-204.24d(12) ("Maintaining custody of all
investment and invested funds of the District government or in possession of the District
government in a fiduciary capacity[.]").
Furthermore, HUD itself has commented on the sometimes conflicting nature of federal and state
requirements. In the Procurement Handbook for Public Housing Agencies (Handbook No.
7460.8 REV 2 (Feb. 2007)), at 13-1, for example, HUD states that "[s]ome State public housing
laws also provide guidance on specific operational tasks, such as procurement actions with
which the [Public Housing Authorities] must comply." (Emphasis supplied.) Consequently,
the fact that DCHA receives funding from HUD does not alter my conclusion that the District
CFO has the authority to supervise and to control the financial functions and financial personnel
of DCHA.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is the considered and binding opinion of this Office that the
District's CFO has the authority to supervise and to control the financial functions and financial
personnel of the DCHA.
Sincerely,

()~\ ~ ~----- .
dvin B. Nathan
Acting Attorney General
for the District of Columbia

Attachments (as stated)
cc: Mayor Vincent C. Gray
Allen Y. Lew, City Administrator
Brian K. Flowers, General Counsel to the Mayor
Dr. Natwar Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer
Janene D. Jackson, Director, Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs