Issue No. 13

Litigation Update

Council of the District of Columbia v. Muriel Bowser (Case No. 2026-CAB-001463 (D.C. Super. Ct.))

On March 5, 2026, the Council of the District of Columbia (“Council”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Mayor Muriel Bowser, in her official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia (“Mayor”). The Complaint alleges that the Mayor unlawfully refused to provide the Council with certain agency budget enhancement requests for FY 2025 and FY 2026 that had been requested by Council Committees as part of the Council’s ongoing performance oversight process. The Complaint further alleged that the Council anticipated the Mayor’s refusal to provide any agency budget enhancement requests for FY 2027.

On May 15, 2026, the Court granted summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiff Council’s claim for budget enhancement requests for FY 25 and FY 26. The Court stated that “Because the Council seeks the documents to assist in its consideration of the Fiscal Year 2027 budget – which is currently under review and scheduled for votes on June 9 and 23, 2026 – the Court finds expressly that there is no just reason to delay entering judgment and injunctive relief as to this portion of Plaintiff’s claim.”

The Court ordered Mayor Bowser to provide the Council with the agency budget enhancement requests for FY 25 and FY 26 for those agency budget enhancement requests recently requested by Council Committees as part of the FY 25 and FY 26 performance oversight process.

Legislative Update

OMA Legislative Action 

Following over a year of emergency and temporary measures, the most recent of which are still effective, Chairman Mendelson introduced B26-0208, the “Open Meetings Clarification Amendment Act of 2026.” This bill seeks to make permanent changes to the Open Meetings Act first introduced last year. The bill provides for a public body’s ability to be briefed about potential terrorist or public health threats so long as no official action is taken; exempts from the act meetings between the Council and the Mayor provided that no official action is taken at such meetings; and provides that a meeting shall be deemed open to the public if the public body takes steps reasonably calculated to allow the public to view or hear the meeting while the meeting is taking place, or, if doing so is not technologically feasible, as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable.” The Council considered the bill on the non-consent agenda. An amendment by Councilmember Allen which “adds a new, post hoc notice requirement…that gatherings of a quorum of the Council…at which Councilmembers [engaged in activity defined by the OMA as a “Meeting where] the gathering of Councilmembers was not otherwise noticed in advance, be noticed by the Secretary….[and] would have to include certain information and requirements to ensure transparency,” passed and was added. The amended measure passed the Council on first reading by a vote of 10 ‘yes,’ 2 ‘no,’ and 1 ‘present.’ The bill must pass on second reading, following the Council’s recess, before being sent to the Mayor and, following her signature or the override of a veto, would then be subject to the congressional review period.

FOIA Legislative Action Regarding Body-Worn Cameras and Use -of- Force

Over the past several months the Council has considered a parallel series of measures regarding access to body-worn camera footage and use of force incidents, all of which amend the Body-Worn Camera Regulation and Reporting Requirements Act of 2015. All of these measures are concerned with documenting the presence of law enforcement officers of all agencies at the scene of arrests or use-of-force incidents.

Of the measures introduced by Councilmember Robert White, a resolution (PR26-0562) declaring “the existence of an emergency with respect to the need to require Metropolitan Police Department officers to document identifying information for all law enforcement officers present at the scene of an arrest and any use of force in documents supporting an arrest, including probable cause affidavits,” passed the Council in March. The emergency “Full Accountability in Arrest Reporting Emergency Amendment Act of 2026” (B26-0614) and temporary “Full Accountability in Arrest Reporting Temporary Amendment Act of 2026” (B26-0615) bills passed the Council, and after being either vetoed or passed without the Mayor’s signature, were enacted. The emergency bill (A26-0690) will expire in late June, while the temporary measure (A26-0304) is set to become effective on June 17, 2026, barring congressional action.

Councilmember Brooke Pinto introduced a resolution (PR26-0563) which declared “the existence of an emergency with respect to…require the release of body-worn camera recordings of Metropolitan Police Department Officers present in the event of an officer-involved death or serious use of force by a law enforcement officer other than a Metropolitan Police Department Officer.” The companion emergency “Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Emergency Amendment Act of 2026” (B26-0616) and temporary “Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Temporary Amendment Act of 2026””(B26-0617) measures were signed by the Mayor, with the emergency bill (A26-0282) expiring at the end of June, and the temporary measure (A26-0305) set to become effective on June 17, 2026, barring congressional action.

For further details, please consult the Legislative Information Management System (LIMS).

Judicial Privacy

In April, Chairman Mendelson introduced B26-0655, the “Protecting Judicial Privacy Act of 2026,” which “would prohibit government agencies, individuals, businesses, private associations and organizations from, upon receipt of a written request, publicly displaying available content that includes a judicial officer’s personal information.” The bill has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety with comments from the Committee of the Whole.

Protecting Victims

Also in April, at the request of the Mayor, Chairman Mendelson introduced B26-0671, the “Protecting Victims Amendment Act of 2026,” which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. This measure would “hold offenders accountable for repeated violations of temporary and civil protection orders as well as stay away and no-contact orders in criminal cases.” In part, the bill would deal with personal information of crime victims. Specifically, the bill’s memorandum states that “to further protect victim privacy, the bill amends MPD’s public disclosure requirements to prevent the improper release of identifying information for crime victims, including domestic violence victims, as well as individuals who report on their behalf,” and that “District law provides for the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP), administered by the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants (OVSJG)…authorizes a substitute address for victims of domestic violence, sexual offenses, trafficking, or stalking, to protect their actual address from [DC] FOIA…withholds ACP participants’ information from public inspection as required for records maintained by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)…[and] provides that victims of, or witnesses to, a criminal offense may be added to the ACP.”

Data Privacy

Councilmember Brianne Nadeau introduced B26-0670, the “District of Columbia Government Data Privacy and Protection Act of 2026” at the end of April. This measure establishes comprehensive privacy protections governing the collection, use, sale, and disclosure of individuals’ personal data by District government agencies and third parties. It also confers specific rights upon individuals regarding their personal information. The measure further provides for the creation of a Chief Privacy Officer position within the Office of the Chief Technology Officer to ensure agency-wide compliance and implementation. The Committee on Public Works and Operations has noticed a public hearing on the bill for June 29, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Pop-Up Restaurant Licensing

At the end of March, at the request of the Mayor, Chairman Mendelson introduced B26-0648, “DC Hospitality Amendment Act of 2026,” which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Operations. This bill would create a “pop up restaurant” license category, and addresses issues specific to the category. In terms of DC FOIA, “[t]he Board shall make a licensee’s quarterly statements available to any protestant, and to any member of the public who requests it pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act of 1976 (“FOIA”), effective October 21, 1986 (D.C. Official Code § 2-531 et seq.), for the purpose of allowing a protestant of a license to determine the gross annual receipts of a licensee. The disclosure of a quarterly statement to a protestant under this subparagraph, or to a member of the public who requests it, shall be subject to the disclosure exemptions set forth in section of [DC] FOIA.” The Committee has noticed a public hearing for July 8, 2026, at 10 a.m.

Rulemaking Regarding the Office of Open Government and the Open Meetings Act

A Notice of Second Proposed Rulemaking was published in the D.C. Register on May 15, 2026. Previous versions of this Rulemaking contained a new subsection that authorized votes to enter into closed session of a public meeting in advance of the actual meeting in which the closure will occur. The Office of Open Government received several comments that this section was problematic and may compromise the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.  To address those comments, OOG will take up that matter in a separate Rulemaking.  The remaining subsections contained in OOG’s Notice of Second Proposed Rulemaking will be finalized upon the publication of a Notice of Final Rulemaking in the D.C. Register. Technical changes were made to adjust the numbering due to the removal of the subsection authorizing a pre-approved closed meeting.

Advisory Opinions Issued by OOG Concerning Educational Entities

Open Meetings Act Violations by the Boards of Trustees for District of Columbia Public Charter Schools

Advisory Opinion #OOG-2025-0014

On March 30, 2026, Director Allen issued an Advisory Opinion #OOG-2025-0014, in response to a complaint which alleged that Creative Minds International Public Charter School Board (“Creative Minds PCSB,” or the “Board”) failed to publish the location and times of its meetings.

Director Allen found that Creative Minds PCSB did not violate the OMA, because at the times OOG conducted its investigation, the Board’s complete meeting notices for upcoming meetings were posted on the Public Charter School’s (the “PCS”) website. Furthermore, the Board has since March 2025 stated the location of its in-person meetings on the Board’s designated webpage of the Public Charter School’s website and in the meeting notices linked to the webpage, instead of assuming the public knows that the location of its in-person meetings is at the PCS. As such, the Director dismissed this matter pursuant to 3 DCMR §10403.1(b) and 3 DCMR §10403.1(f), respectively, because the action of (alleged) unpublished times of the Board’s meetings did not violate the OMA, and the unstated location of the Board’s meetings is moot.

Director Allen advised that the Board posts its annual schedule (with no other school events) on the PCS’ webpage designated for the Board’s information. Creative Minds PCS’ general calendar has the dates and times of the Board’s scheduled meetings, which is helpful for publication of the Board’s meetings. However, the Board’s scheduled meetings on the PCS’ general calendar do not constitute “an annual schedule” of the Board’s meetings as required by the OMA. The statute contemplates a document with the dates, and if available, the times of the Board’s meetings alone, and not of various school and community activities. Furthermore, for accessibility purposes, Director Allen recommended that Creative Minds PCSB’s annual schedule of meetings is posted on the webpage (tab) designated for the Board’s information and not on a separate page or tab.

Read the Advisory Opinion here:

Advisory Opinion #OOG-2025-0023

On April 8, 2026, Director Allen issued an Advisory Opinion #OOG-2025-0023, in response to a complaint which alleged that Harmony Public Charter School Board (“Harmony”) had not posted meeting links, or meeting locations and times on its meeting notices. The Complaint also alleged that Harmony failed to publish dates for its fall 2024 meetings on the Public Charter School’s website.

Director Allen dismissed the Complaint pursuant to 3 DCMR §10403.1(b) because the Director found that Harmony did not violate the OMA based on OOG’s investigation. The investigation revealed that Harmony published complete and timely upcoming meeting notices. Harmony Public Charter School’s website included the location (login information and weblink) and the time of Harmony’s meetings. OOG’s investigation also revealed that Harmony published an annual schedule of its 2024 and 2025 meetings. The Director advised Harmony to ensure that its annual schedule is updated in a timely manner, if changes are made. Director Allen further advised that if a meeting notice is published and the meeting is cancelled, the word “Cancelled” must be printed on all the meeting notices as soon as the Board is aware of the cancellation.   

Read the Advisory Opinion here: 

Advisory Opinion #OOG-2025-0009

On April 28, 2026, Director Allen issued an Advisory Opinion #OOG-2025-0009, in response to a complaint which alleged that Capital City Public Charter School Board (“Capital City PCSB”) had not published proper meeting notices.

Director Allen found that Capital City PCSB did not violate the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”). OOG’s investigation revealed no issues with the OMA’s Notice of meetings requirements. As such, the Director dismissed the Complaint. However, Director Allen recommended that, if possible, Capital City PCSB provides access to its virtual meetings without a requirement of prior registration to access the meetings. 

Read the Advisory Opinion here:                              

Dismissal Letter Issued by OOG Concerning Educational Entity 

Dismissal #OOG-2026-0009

On May 4, 2026, Director Allen dismissed Complaint #OOG-2026-0009, with an allegation from the same complainant, which the Director addressed in Advisory Opinion #OOG-2025-0023, issued on April 8, 2026. The allegation pertains to the time within which Harmony PCSB updated its annual meeting schedule.

Director Allen dismissed this Complaint as moot pursuant to 3 DCMR §10403.1(f) because the concerns raised were addressed in the complaint the Director dismissed and Harmony is subject to ongoing oversight pursuant to the OMA advice issued on April 8, 2026. Thus, no further investigation or enforcement action by OOG is warranted because OOG is actively monitoring Harmony’s OMA compliance. 

Read the Advisory Opinion here: 

OMA in Action

The OMA allows that “[a] meeting, or portion of a meeting, may be closed for the following reasons,” (D.C. Official Code § 2-575(b)) and then proceeds to enumerate sixteen (16) different reasons for allowable closure of a portion of a meeting.

First, please note that the law states that the meeting or portion “may” be closed. Unless it is required to do so, a public body might exercise its discretion and choose to conduct some proceedings in open, rather than closed, session. The very first reason for allowable closure, § 2-575(b)(1), however, gives the primary reason why a body might not have that discretion, where it allows closure when “[a] law or court order requires that a particular matter or proceeding not be public.” Here, an external legal authority’s “requirement” makes the determination. The members of the public body, with the advice of their respective legal counsel, must always consider and determine whether closure is required or allowable. The remaining reasons allowing for closure run the gamut from the general, such as contracting, to the very specific, in some cases dealing with only one type of matter.

After making that first determination of whether to close, a body, which must properly notice their meeting, where “[i]f the meeting or any portion of the meeting is to be closed…notice shall include, if feasible, a statement of intent to close the meeting or any portion of the meeting, including citations to the reason for closure under § 2-575(b), and a description of the matters to be discussed” (D.C. Official Code § 2-576(5)). Whenever possible, the determination regarding closure should be made in advance, as notice is always required of OMA-subject meetings, and the purpose of the OMA is “to maximize public access to meetings…[where] exceptions shall be construed narrowly and shall permit closure of meetings only as authorized by this chapter” (D.C. Official Code § 2-573).

Finally, at the time of the meeting, there are procedural requirements that “[b]efore a meeting or portion of a meeting may be closed, the public body shall meet in public session at which a majority of the members of the public body present vote in favor of closure,” (D.C. Official Code § 2-575(c)(1)) and that “[t]he presiding officer shall make a statement providing the reason for closure, including citations from…this section, and the subjects to be discussed.” (D.C. Official Code § 2-575(c)(2)) Further, procedurally, “[a] public body that meets in closed session shall not discuss or consider matters other than those…listed under…this section” (D.C. Official Code § 2-575(d)). It is important that the notice, procedure, and reporting requirements be followed.

As always, public bodies and support staff are free to contact OOG for assistance with adhering to the OMA's requirements.

FOIA Training

OMA Training

Further Updates Regarding Educational Entities

The OOG’s Educational Training Series for Boards of Trustees for District of Columbia Public Charter Schools (Boards of Trustees) and DCPS Local School Advisory Teams (LSAT) are ongoing, and the schedules are published. The most recent training session for Boards of Trustees was on June 10, 2026, and the next session will be on September 9, 2026. The training schedule is accessible here: 

OOG’s website (www.open-dc.gov) at the “News” tab is updated two weeks prior to each training with the login information for the respective training. In addition, OOG continues to send training invites to Boards of Trustees members two weeks prior to each training session and a reminder one week prior to the sessions.    

Likewise, the training schedule for LSATs is available on OOG’s website. It is accessible along with login information that we will continue to provide at least two weeks prior to each training session here:

The next training session will be on November 10, 2026. OOG has informed Boards of Trustees and LSATs of general OMA training that will be provided by OOG at the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability (BEGA) “Ethics Week.” In addition, OMA training materials are accessible on OOG’s website by clicking on the “Documents and Trainings” tab. 

SUNSHINE MOMENT

The District of Columbia Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (“the Board”) was established to regulate how professional engineers and land surveyors obtain initial licensure and renewals. The Board determines the appropriate level of regulation, the scope of practice, and continuing education requirements. As a safety measure to help protect the public, the Board is tasked with ensuring the District of Columbia’s Professional Engineers municipal regulations are upheld. Appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the Council, seven Board members are appointed to serve three-year terms. A valid DC Professional Engineer License is a requirement for four members to serve on the Board, two members are required to have a valid DC land surveyor license to serve, and one member is required to be a consumer. Each Board member, excluding the one consumer, must have five years of experience engaging in the practice of engineering or land surveying in the District of Columbia prior to their appointment. The Board meets each month on the fourth Thursday at 11am. For more information, visit the District of Columbia Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors' website.