Back to Inspector General’s report — Back to publicly released version of Inspector General’s report
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
COUNCIL
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA May 27, 2003
Charles C. Maddox, Esquire RE: Response to your conclusory and misleading statements contained in OIG No. 2002-0252 Dear Mr. Maddox: I must respond to your unfounded assertions pertaining to me and to your dishonest characterization of the discussion we had regarding your possible separation from the government. I am on record as stating that I would seek amicable means to bring this impasse to resolution. I met with you for just that reason, to discuss a possible settlement that would facilitate your exit from the government on mutually satisfactory terms. I certainly did not meet with you to offer you a "buyout," or to undermine any investigation being conducted by your office. I have never engaged in negative political campaigns of any kind, ever, and I deeply resent your mischaracterization of our discussion and of me. Not only were your comments untruths, they bore little relation to the subject of your investigation. Rather than addressing the issues that you are charged with investigating, you turned your report, which was, ostensibly, a report on the Board of Elections and Ethics and the Office of Campaign Finance, into an unprofessional, untrue, and unrelated diatribe against the Council. But the Council, at all times, has the best interests of the District and the people it serves in mind. It is my hope that you will put the interests of the District in the forefront as well. When I met with you to discuss your possible exit from the government, it was with the full knowledge of the media, the Council, and the Mayor that I was trying to reach an amicable settlement in this matter. In fact, the nature of our meeting was based upon previous discussions I had with the executive branch. If you are going to include a discussion about our April 23, 2003, meeting in your unrelated investigatory report on the Board of Elections and Ethics and the Office of Campaign Finance, you should also have stated that our meeting followed a similar discussion you had with the Mayor on this same issue. If my meeting with you could be construed as an interference with your investigation, why wasn't the same discussion with the Mayor treated similarly in your report? The report omitted any mention of the Mayor. Your failure to include that discussion in this report indicates your bias, showing your lack of objectivity, a vital attribute in an inspector general, as well as your penchant for misrepresenting the truth to fit your political objective. Either way, your tenuous attempt to tie our discussions with your investigation of these agencies is conduct unbecoming an Inspector General. How you can now, in a report unrelated to the subject of our discussion, include our discussion as being part of an alleged effort to influence the outcome of ongoing and future OIG investigations is beyond my comprehension. The assertion is particularly alarming because, at the time we met, it was my belief that the investigation by the OIG was concluded. Your report is so fraught with conclusory statements which bear no basis in fact and words and comments taken out of context, that it is totally misleading to label it as an investigatory report. It is still my hope, however, that there can be an amicable resolution in this matter.
Sincerely
cc: Honorable Anthony Williams, Mayor |
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)