Court Opinion

ID: 9717511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:04:50.039854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.667389
License: Public Domain

FERREN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I generally agree with the majority opinion and, in particular, with the conclusion *327that the twenty-one acts or categories of behavior in section l-617.1(d)” comprise “an exclusive list” of causes justifying removal from the Service under D.C.Code § l-617.1(b) (1987). Ante at 323. Although it obviously would be desirable for the Council of the District of Columbia to amend § l-617.1(d) if it wishes to include, as a cause for removal, the type of conduct Officer Head engaged in, I do not believe this court should definitively say that “the Council did not intend” any of the causes listed in § l-617.1(d) “to apply to conduct such as what Head did here.” Ante at 323.
The majority stresses — and I agree — that this court has “specifically recognized the ‘special competence’ of the PERB to decide matters entrusted to its expertise.” Ante at 323. Thus, it is not for us to volunteer our views on provisions in § l-617.1(d) — such as subsection (11) (“Discourteous treatment of the public, supervisor, or other employees”) — which, as the majority acknowledges, the PERB has not addressed in this case. Ante at 326 n. 13.
I write separately on this point simply to express concern that, in this case, we do not incidentally and improperly decide issues that are not presented here and yet may presently be in litigation before an arbitrator or the PERB.