Opinion ID: 2347930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Attribution of Great Weight to the Issues and Concerns of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions

Text: D.C.Code 1977 Supp., § 1-171i(d) provides, in pertinent part: Each Commission so notified [i. e., in writing] . . . shall forward its written recommendations . . . to the appropriate agency . . . . The issues and concerns raised in the recommendations of the Commission shall be given great weight during the deliberations by the governmental agency and those issues shall be discussed in the written rationale for the governmental decision taken. [Emphasis added.] This subsection mandates that the ABC Board give great weight to all issues and concerns raised by ANCs in all cases where written notice to ANCs is required. Our next task, therefore, is to determine the meaning of the statutory words great weight. Petitioners assert, first, that the recommendations of citizens' groups are normally given careful consideration in administrative proceedings. They maintain that the legislative choice of the term great weight, rather than careful consideration, in the ANC context must imply greater deference than that accorded ordinary citizens' groups. Second, petitioners stress the canon of statutory construction which declares that legal terminology ordinarily should be given its accepted legal meaning. They then cite cases holding that an expert agency's construction of its own enabling statute should be given great weight, and that a court should adopt the agency's construction unless it is unreasonable. Petitioners urge us to conclude that ANC recommendations are entitled to similar deference at agency hearings. We are not persuaded. First, the cases cited by petitioners do not establish a careful consideration standard for citizens' group concerns, nor do they define such terms. [22] Thus, these cases do not provide a reference point for defining the great weight standard. Second, ANC recommendations, whether in a legislative or administrative context, are not analogous to legal interpretations of enabling statutes by expert administrative agencies charged with regulatory or other governmental responsibilities. If the Board were to afford the degree of weight to ANC judgments urged by petitioners, it would tread perilously close to, if not cross into, the realm of improper delegation of its governmental authority to a private party. Truethe ANCs have governmental responsibilities in the sense that they are created by statute, elected by the general public, and funded by the taxpayers. But neither Congress nor the District Council has even hinted at granting ANCs responsibilities for governmental operations. They are advisory only. To construe their enabling statutes in a way that would grant the ANCs expert status, entitled to special deference as such, would be to sanction interference with the established pattern of governmental relationships. We find no such intention in either the Home Rule Act or the ANC Act. We conclude that great weight, as used in the ANC Act, does not build in some kind of quantum or presumption of deference to be accorded ANCs. It means, rather, that an agency must elaborate, with precision, its response to the ANC issues and concerns. It is a statutory method of forcing an agency to come to grips with the ANC viewto deal with it in detail, without slip-page. In doing so an agency must focus particular attention not only on the issues and concerns as pressed by an ANC, but also on the fact that the ANC, as a representative body, is the group making the recommendation. That is, the agency must articulate why the particular ANC itself, given its vantage point, doesor does not offer persuasive advice under the circumstances. In summary, government agencies are charged to pay specific attention to the source, as well as the content, of ANC recommendations, giving them whatever deference they merit in the context of the entire proceedings, including the evidence and views presented by others. Although great weight in this context is not a quantum requirement, we do not accept respondents' view that the ANC itself need not be mentioned in an ABC Board decision, as long as the issues and concerns of the ANC receive the requisite consideration. To the contrary, we believe that great weight implies explicit reference to each ANC issue and concern as such, as well as specific findings and conclusions with respect to each. Although the statutory language literally does not require such acknowledgment of the ANC source, we have concludedand holdthat such acknowledgment is implicit in the very purpose of § 1-171i(d) of the ANC Act. It is necessary not only to assure compliance with the great weight mandate but also to facilitate judicial review. Without such attribution, there is a danger that an agency, while dealing with ANC issues and concerns, would not analyze the matter in a way that evidences serious attention to the ANC source itself. In this case, the ABC Board failed to give great weight to the issues and concerns of ANCs 3-C and 3-F, as we have construed that standard. It is unclear whether the Board even admitted into evidence the resolution of ANC 3-C. See V, infra. In any event, it is clear that the Board was not cognizant of its duty to give ANC issues great weight. [23] Under the circumstances, we must remand the case to the Board for explicit consideration of the ANC positions upon rehearing.