Back to School Governance Charter Amendment main page
DCWatch July 10, 2000 Mr. Benjamin Wilson
In the matter of the appeal by Robert Rigsby, Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, on June 30, 2000, from the Office of Campaign Finance (OCF) order of June 16, 2000, in Docket No. MUR 00-01: I, Dorothy Brizill, make a preliminary motion to the Board of Elections and Ethics that this appeal be dismissed because it was not properly filed by Robert Rigsby, Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia. Thank you for your consideration of this motion. Sincerely, Pleading1. The Corporation Counsel is the official attorney of the government of the District of Columbia, and represents that government. The duties of the Corporation Counsel are established in Title 1, § 1-361.
2. While the Corporation Counsel reports to and is under the direction of the Mayor, he is not the private attorney for the Mayor. Instead, he has "charge and conduct of all law business of the said District, and all suits instituted by and against the government thereof." 3. The Mayor of the District of Columbia, when he campaigns in an election, either for or against a candidate or for or against a ballot measure, is not acting in his official or public capacity. He is not representing the government of the District of Columbia, or presenting the official opinion of that government. Instead, he is acting purely in his private capacity, as an individual citizen. 4. The OCF, on the other hand, is the administrative body charged with interpreting and enforcing the District’s campaign finance and ethics laws. When the OCF issued an opinion in this matter, it was acting purely and solely in its official capacity as an agency of the government of the District of Columbia. 5. Therefore, it is the legal and ethical responsibility and duty of the Corporation Counsel to uphold and represent the opinions and findings of the Office of Campaign Finance in any matter in which it issues an order involving any employee of the District government, including the Mayor. It is illegal, unethical, and impermissible for the Corporation Counsel to represent the interests of an employee of the District government or a private citizen (the Mayor of the District of Columbia when he is acting in his private capacity) against the interests of the government of the District of Columbia, as represented in this case by the Office of Campaign Finance. 6. This opinion could have been appealed by the Mayor in his own behalf or by a private attorney representing the Mayor. It cannot be appealed by the Corporation Counsel on behalf of the Mayor. The Mayor’s use of the Corporation Counsel to file this appeal is a misuse and misappropriation of governmental resources. 7. Should the Board of Elections and Ethics allow this appeal to proceed, should it accept the Corporation Counsel’s representation of the Mayor in this case, and should it then uphold the order of the Office of Campaign Finance, this government will be placed in an untenable position were the Mayor to appeal the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals. The Corporation Counsel would either have to represent both sides in this dispute, which would be unethical; it would have to represent the Mayor as a private individual against the Board of Elections and Ethics, an agency of the government of the District of Columbia, which would be illegal; or it would have to represent the Board of Elections and Ethics against the Mayor, which would repudiate the position it argued in the appeal it filed on June 30, 2000. 8. The only way to escape this ethical and legal dilemma is for the Board of Elections and Ethics to dismiss the appeal as having been improperly filed, and not to hear it. Dorothy A. Brizill |
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)