Managing Perceptions
Dear Perceptive Readers:
Councilmember Muriel Bowser’s Committee on Government Operations
held a hearing today on the ten ethics bills that are before the
council, and the councilmembers were anxious to determine the minimum
that they could do, with the least enforcement behind it, to give their
constituents the impression that they are going to take real and serious
measures against corruption. Councilmembers will shirk from taking any
measures that actually restrict their behavior, but they want to improve
their constituents’ impressions of their behavior without actually
having to change it.
For example, Councilmember Cheh, in her opening statement, expressed
her opposition to term limits for councilmembers, her opposition to
eliminating or limiting constituent service funds, and her opposition to
requiring councilmembers to be full-time employees. (Councilmember Cheh
is an employee of George Washington University, but she has never
recused herself from deliberations or votes that concern that university
— she said that only two instances of possible conflict of interest
had occurred, and that she had sought counsel opinion, which was that
she didn’t have to recuse herself. Similarly, Councilmember Jack Evans
has only inconsistently recused himself from votes concerning the
Marriott Corporation, a major client of his law firm, as John Hanrahan
writes below). And Ms. Cheh is trying to position herself as a champion
of clean and good government.
Cheh was not alone in having doubts about passing measures that would
materially affect the behavior of councilmembers. Councilmember Evans,
who led the council’s efforts a decade ago to overturn measures for
term limits and limits for campaign donations that had been passed by
voter initiatives, spoke against raising those issues against and also
defended his own use of constituent services funds. Councilmember
Catania, who ran for his first term promising that he would not run for more
than two terms as a councilmember, spoke strongly against term limits as
well as against requiring full-time service as a councilmember.
Councilmembers Alexander and Bowser defended constituent services funds
as being part of the “safety net” for the most needed residents of
the District of Columbia, when only a small portion of those funds are
actually spent to benefit the poor who have emergency needs that cannot
be met by public or private social service agencies. The great majority
of those funds are spent for councilmembers’ private or political
purposes, and that’s what councilmembers are really defending.
Councilmember Orange said that he thought that the public would not
be comfortable with a solution that created an ethics committee of the
council through which the council would police itself. He was right. The
council has shown that it is incapable of policing itself, and that it
is the reason we are in the situation we are in today. But he didn’t
go far enough. Judging from today’s hearing, it’s an open question
whether the council is capable even of writing ethics legislation for
itself.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Legislation to End Predatory Pricing Practices
in DC
Alma H. Gates, ahg71139@aol.com
Speculation continues on the outcome of the Retail Service Station
Amendment Act of 2011. Bill 19-0299 seems to have sparked serious
tension among councilmembers and has begun to redivide the city, in
spite of the mayor’s efforts to create “One City.” Residents of
the District deserve more from their elected leaders than biased
decision making and votes cast in favor of campaign contributions.
One of the prominent players in this issue is former DC Councilmember
and lobbyist John Ray, who represents the interests of Joe Mamo, owner
of the Capital Petroleum Group. CPG earned about 778 million dollars in
2010, and owns 42 percent of the city’s gas stations. Ray has joined
forces with Jesse Jackson and the law firm of Holland and Knight to
defeat passage of Bill 19-0299. Councilmembers, Catania, Mendelson, M.
Brown, Cheh, and Wells support Bill 19-0299, which would prohibit
gasoline distributors from owning and operating retail service stations
in the District of Columbia and would divorce station operators from the
requirement they purchase petroleum from a single source distributor.
Council Chair Kwame Brown and Councilmembers Orange, Evans, Bowser,
Thomas, and Barry do not support the legislation. Councilmembers Jim
Graham and Yvette Alexander are currently undecided.
The council has an opportunity to put an end to the predatory pricing
practices that have sent District residents across state lines to
purchase gasoline. Please send an E-mail to all councilmembers to let
them know you are tired of having to drive to Maryland or Virginia to
purchase lower-priced gas, favor keeping tax dollars in the District,
oppose political outcomes based on financial incentives, and that you
support the legislation proposed under Bill 19-0299.
Councilmembers’ address are: kbrown@dccouncil.us,
dcatania@dccouncil.us, PMendelson@dccouncil.us,
mbrown@dccouncil.us, vorange@dccouncil.us,
JGraham@dccouncil.us, jevans@dccouncil.us,
MCheh@dccouncil.us, mbowser@dccouncil.us,
hthomas@dccouncil.us, twells@dccouncil.us,
yalexander@dccouncil.us, mbarry@dccouncil.us,
###############
Chairman Brown, four-and-a-half more months have gone by since I last
wrote you on June 12 about Councilmember Jack Evans’ continuing
violation of District of Columbia conflict-of-interest reporting laws. I
first wrote you about this matter almost one year ago and this is my
fifth letter to you on this matter. I am getting more than a little fed
up that you have not even bothered to respond to my last letter, and
have apparently done nothing to get Mr. Evans to comply with the law
since you responded in March that you would “look into this matter”
(the only time you have responded to me). Needless to say, I have not
heard from Mr. Evans, either.
The issue is simple and would take you about fifteen minutes to
resolve if you are indeed serious about putting the council’s
activities above reproach. Once again, here are the basic facts: Mr.
Evans spearheaded the legislative drive to win approval of legislation
providing $206 million in public financing for the Marriott convention
center hotel. Then, right on the verge of passage of the legislation,
Mr. Evans on five occasions in June and July 2009 suddenly recused
himself from voting on the matter. The Examiner newspaper
reported on July 1, 2009 that Mr. Evans “recused himself from the vote
because his law firm, Patton Boggs, represents Marriott,” http://washingtonexaminer.com/transportation/2009/07/dc-tentatively-oks-paying-72m-more-finance-convention-center-hotel
Is it correct that Mr. Evans guided the public financing legislation
to the one-yard line and then recused himself — as others carried the
ball over the goal line — because the law firm with which he is
affiliated represented a party that would benefit from the legislation?
If it is correct that his law firm represented Marriott, why did Evans
wait until the last minute to recuse himself? In any event, why does Mr.
Evans refuse to comply with District laws and tell us citizens and
voters exactly why he recused himself? Why, even as he expresses concern
over various ethical issues that have afflicted the mayor and the
council, does Mr. Evans himself refuse to comply with basic ethics laws
that are already on the books? As an attorney, Mr. Evans of all people
should recognize his obligation to exercise prudence when it comes to
matters of conflict of interest or the appearance of same. He is not
above the law, especially laws that specifically apply to top elected
officials.
As I have written in previous correspondence, the law is clear: when
a council member recuses himself or herself on a matter, DC laws — the
District of Columbia Official Code (DC Code 1-1106.01), the DC Municipal
Regulations (Sections 3303 and 3304), and the Council’s own Rule 202
— require that he explain in writing the nature of the conflict of
interest (or appearance of a conflict) and the reasons for the recusal.
These written statements must be submitted to the Council Chairman, the
Board of Elections and Ethics (BOEE) and the Office of Campaign Finance
(OCF). As all three offices have told me in answer to FOIA requests that
I submitted in mid-2010, Mr. Evans has not submitted a written
explanation as required by law to any of those entities. Stripping the
issue down to its basics: councilmember recuses himself. Law says
council member must explain the reason for his recusal, in writing, to
the Council Chairman and to the OCF and the BOEE. Councilmember fails to
file required written explanations for his recusals. To this day,
councilmember remains in violation of the law. Period.
And then, compounding his failure to disclose the reasons for his
recusals, why did Mr. Evans un-recuse himself later, months after the
final council vote, when the deal ran into a legal snag? When a council
member recuses himself, the law makes it clear he is to stay recused —
and not hop back into the matter at some future date when it starts to
go south. But that is precisely what Mr. Evans did. Notwithstanding Mr.
Evans’ recusals and his failure to file written statements explaining
those recusals as required by law, Mr. Evans nonetheless continued to
involve himself in the convention center hotel matter, even after the
public financing legislation was passed.
Press accounts cited in my previous letters to you and others noted
that Mr. Evans worked behind the scenes in 2009-2010 to untangle a
thorny legal dispute involving Marriott and JBG Cos. — a dispute that
was blocking completion of the convention hotel deal. News articles
credited Evans with helping resolve the problem to clear the way for the
convention center hotel deal to go forward. A recusal on a matter means
“hands off,” but not “jump back in when you have to.” If, in
fact, Patton Boggs represented Marriott, then Mr. Evans’ original
recusals and his continuing efforts to overcome the legal obstacles
facing Marriott constitute about as big an apparent conflict of interest
I can think of. (See this article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070605056.html)
Chairman Brown, in the spirit of your stated desire for ethical
reform, I call upon you to do your duty as chairman and require Mr.
Evans to comply with the law’s requirements that he submit to you, the
BOEE and the OCF a written explanation of the reasons for his recusals.
This is an important matter of council ethics, public trust, and the
public pocketbook that must be resolved now.
###############
Elizabeth Noel: “Too
Good to Serve”
Herbert Harris, Jr., Consumer Utility Board, DCCUB@msn.com
There are some well documented ways a nomination can be challenged
and not survive the city council confirmation process. The residency
requirement, unpaid taxes, criminal history, and lack of qualifications
are the most common obstacles. Mayor Gray’s nomination of Elizabeth A.
Noel, former Peoples’ Counsel, for the DC Public Service Commission (PSC)
has created a new twist on nominee qualifications. Can a nominee have
too much experience? Yes — if you are PEPCO. PEPCO thinks Ms. Noel’s
experience before the regulatory body should disqualify her from serving
on the Public Service Commission — she is “too good to serve.”
Mayor Gray should be applauded for the courage of this nomination,
knowing it would draw the ire of the utility companies. PEPCO is the
only utility company publicly challenging the nomination. Washington Gas
and Verizon may have their own consternation, but they have not opposed
the nomination publicly, but PEPCO has launched an aggressive media and
lobbying campaign to derail the Noel nomination. In a letter to Mayor
Gray and media reports in the Washington Post and Washington
Business Journal, PEPCO is alleging that Ms. Noel’s thirty years
of experience and vast knowledge of regulatory law “create an
irreconcilable conflict of interest.” PEPCO also solicited an opinion
from DC Attorney General Irv Nathan that would impose a lifetime ban on
Ms. Noel from ever serving on the PSC. Why would PEPCO not want Ms. Noel
serving on the PSC? The question is not her integrity, work ethic, or
commitment to quality service for District consumers. The allegation by
PEPCO is that Ms. Noel lacks the objectivity to evaluate issues before
the PSC because of her tenure as the Peoples’ Counsel. This one-sided
logic is insulating and epitomizes a new double standard that applies
only to this nomination.
Over the years, PEPCO has stood silently and approved a host of
lesser qualified and under qualified nominees being confirmed to the PSC.
If we apply the logic of PEPCO’s argument about objectivity, current
PSC Chairman and former city councilmember Betty Ann Kane should not
have been confirmed because she served as lobbyist for
telecommunications giant Sprint. No former US Attorney or highly
qualified attorney could be appointed to a judgeship, if we applied the
same logic to the legal community. As a member and Chairman of the DC
Consumer Utility Board, I have witnessed firsthand the major utility
cases and issues over the past decade. PEPCO’s opposition to Ms. Noel’s
nomination centers on one issue — corporate profits. PEPCO repeatedly
attempted to vilify Ms. Noel as Public Enemy No. 1 for being an obstacle
between them and the consumers’ wallets. Courage and effectiveness
will make you an arch enemy. In 2009, this was on full display when
PEPCO orchestrated Ms. Noel’s removal as Peoples’ Counsel during the
Fenty Administration.
Over the past two decades, PEPCO has received $282 million (over one
quarter billion dollars), in rate increases from DC citizens. These
increases didn’t result in improved system reliability or customer
service. Customer service got worse, with longer and more frequent
unexplained power outages. Institutional knowledge can’t be overcome
by a new slick public relations campaign or repackaging old promises.
Ms. Noel knows the how and why PEPCO has deteriorated into the
lowest-rated utility company in USA. The real tragedy is that PEPCO can’t
understand it is best for everyone when you have a strong consumer
advocate and highly-qualified independent members on the Public Service
Commission. Consumers pay far rates and receive quality service while
the company earns a solid rate of return. Instead, PEPCO would prefer a
cast of weak regulators that just rubber stamp their corporate
prerogatives, translating into bigger profits.
This summer PEPCO submitted a new $42 million rate increase request
to the PSC. This proposed increase comes in the aftermath of a poor
performance this winter and a system failure this spring that displaced
residents and shut down parts of northeast near Union Station including
H Street, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the GSA, and
CNN’s Washington Bureau. The glancing blow of Hurricane Irene again
exposed the remaining weaknesses plaguing our system and power
restoration after storms. The newly appointed member to the PSC will
preside during the case on this pending rate increase.
Finally, this nomination is important because it will begin to
rebuild the public trust in the Public Service Commission. In recent
years, the PSC has been reactive or missing inaction at best on far too
many issues. For example, the PSC did not hold a single public hearing
on the power outages that plagued the region in the summer of 2010.
Institutional trust is an integral part of the PSC’s ability to act in
the public interest and effectively regulate these powerful utilities.
The foundation for that institutional integrity is the individual
qualifications and experience of each commissioner. Can he or she do the
job? Elizabeth A. Noel is the right nomination, and we would be well
served with her on the Public Service Commission.
###############
Weekly Residential Street Sweeping Ends
October 31; Leaf Collection begins November 7
Kevin B. Twine, kevin.twine@dc.gov
The DC Department of Public Works (DPW) will end weekly residential
mechanical street cleaning for the season on Monday, October 31, and
enforcement will end after then. “No Parking/Street Cleaning”
restrictions will be lifted and motorists may park on posted,
alternate-side, daytime sweeping routes without moving their cars on
street-cleaning days. Residential street sweeping and parking
restrictions will resume on March 1, weather permitting. Residential
street sweeping is suspended for public safety concerns and to allow the
employees to transition to leaf collection duties, which start November
7. The sweepers release a fine spray of water to control the dust as
they sweep. When the temperature is at freezing or below, the spray can
freeze and cause accidents to vehicles and pedestrians. Overnight
sweeping along the District’s major roadways, e.g.,
Pennsylvania, Georgia, Constitution, and Independence Avenues, will
continue all winter, as weather permits. Motorists should obey the
street sweeping signs posted along these streets.
By suspending the street sweeping program, DPW personnel can focus on
leaf collection, which begins November 7, as well as the upcoming snow
removal season. The 2011-2012 leaf collection season begins November 7
and will run through January 14, 2012. Leaves will be removed from tree
boxes at least twice. Loose leaves raked into the tree boxes or bagged
leaves placed there will be collected and composted.
New brochures announcing the fall/winter leaf collection season were
mailed to residents in October. The 2011-2012 leaf collection schedule
also can be found by visiting http://www.dpw.dc.gov,
selecting “Education and Outreach” and then “Brochures and Fact
Sheets.”
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
Halloween Tour of McMillan Sand Filtration
Site, October 29
Parisa Norouzi, parisa@empowerdc.org
This tour of the McMillan Sand Filtration Site will be free and open
to the public. It will be a great opportunity to see a unique, historic
site and to learn about its potential development. For questions,
contact Gwen Southerland, gwensoutherland61@gmail.com, or John Salatti,
john.salatti@gmail.com and 986-2592.
###############
“One City Insured”: The Health Insurance
Exchange Public Meetings, November 9, 14, 17
Michelle Phipps-Evans, michelle.phipps-evans@dc.gov
The month of November is the District’s fifth annual Health
Insurance Awareness Month. The DC Department of Insurance, Securities
and Banking (DISB) encourages residents to review their family health
insurance needs to ensure they have the most ideal coverage to protect
their family’s future. Also, during November, District government
employees and Medicare beneficiaries enter the open enrollment season
for the health care benefits, flexible spending accounts, or for other
benefits offered by their agencies. Also, during this month, the mayor’s
Health Reform Implementation Committee (HRIC) will like to invite
members of the public to join the final three of the ward-based meetings
in a community conversation on the future of health care in the District
of Columbia. These meetings, which are open to the community, will be as
follows:
Wednesday, November 9, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., Watha T. Daniel-Shaw
Public Library, 1630 7th Street, NW
Monday, November 14, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., University of the
District of Columbia, Health and Natural Science Building 44, Room
A03, 4200 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Enter on Van Ness Street.
Thursday, November 17, Reeves Center, 2000 14th Street, NW.
President Barack Obama signed the health care reform bill into law on
March 23, 2010, and the HRIC has been working since then — to head up
the effort to implement the law in the District. The HRIC is encouraging
all District residents to attend its next meeting to discuss what health
reform means for you: improved access to health care for DC residents
now, help paying for health insurance for residents and small
businesses, opportunities to help shape health care in the District.
For more information, residents should visit http://www.healthreform.dc.gov.
The HRIC needs as much input as possible to make sure that the District’s
health insurance marketplace offers high quality insurance at a price
you can afford. Or please contact HRIC staffer Dorinda White at 442-8992
or dorinda.white@dc.gov.
###############
themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription
to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the
E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the
E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.
All postings should be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should
be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in
one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be printed,
and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief paragraphs
would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can be put into
each mailing.
