Midsummer's Night Dream
Dear Friends:
The Council Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs will
hold a roundtable on Pepco and the reliability of electrical service on
Friday, July 13, at 1:00 p.m., in council chambers, 1350 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Room 500.
The Council for Court Excellence will hold a public forum with Chief
Judge Lee F. Satterfield, the sole candidate to be the DC Superior Court
Chief Judge candidate, on Tuesday, July 10, at 5:00 p.m., in the DC
Superior Court Jurors’ Lounge, 500 Indiana Avenue, NW. The public is
invited.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Robert Spagnoletti, Ethics and Conflicts of
Interest, Part 2
Dorothy Brizill,
dorothy@dcwatch.com
On Tuesday, June 10, the council is scheduled to consider and vote on
Mayor Gray’s three nominees to the DC Board of Ethics and Government
Accountability — Robert Spagnoletti, Deborah Ann Lathen, and Laura
Richards. Since Tuesday will be the council’s last session prior to its
summer recess, Councilmember Bowser is pressing her colleagues to
approve the three nominees so that the Ethics Board can comply with
thelegislative mandate to be fully operational by October 1, 2012. As a
result, although serious concerns have been raised regarding Robert
Spagnoletti’s nomination as a member of and chair of the Ethics Board,
Bowser and the Gray administration are pressing that such "concerns be
set aside for the time being in order to meet a tight time frame" (Draft
Committee Report on PR 19-759, the Board of Ethics and Government Robert
James Spagnoletti Confirmation Resolution of 2012, p. 5). Thus, in the
name of expediency, the council, to the surprise of few DC residents,
will again be likely to take the easy low road when it comes to
addressing ethics reform in the District, and will not evaluate the
three nominees to the Ethics Board critically.
With regard to Spagnoletti, the issue is very simple. Spagnoletti is
a partner in the law firm of Schertler and Onorato (http://schertlerlaw.com),
where he "regularly advises individuals and businesses on how to
navigate a variety of legal issues through the District government and
negotiates on their behalf with District of Columbia agencies and
officials." In the past, Spagnoletti’s clients have included Mayor Gray
(when he was chairman of the council and had a permit dispute with the
DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, and also when he was
summoned to an administrative proceeding before the DC Office of
Campaign Finance), the Office of the DC Auditor, and witnesses called to
testify before the council. However, neither Spagnoletti nor Mayor Gray
is willing to be forthright and admit that Spagnoletti’s current law
practice represents a conflict of interest that is inconsistent with the
goal and purpose of the Ethics Board, which should be governed by
"integrity, independence, and public credibility" (The Board of Ethics
and Government Accountability Establishment and Comprehensive Ethics
Reform Amendment Act of 2011, DC Law 19-124, Sec. 103(f)(2)).
In press interviews, as well as in his written testimony before the
Council Committee on Government Operations on June 25, Spagnoletti has
been very dismissive of concerns that have been raised regarding his
service on the Ethics Board. He has refused to categorically state that
he will not take any new cases or clients that would require him to
appear as legal counsel before a board, agency, department, or office
within the District government. In his written testimony, Spagnoletti
noted that, with regard to his law firm, "in the course of our practice,
we may have occasion to become involved in matters involving agencies or
individuals affiliated with the District of Columbia government. It is
unlikely that such matters would present an actual conflict of interest
with my responsibilities on the Board. However, it is possible that
matters my firm might handle involving the District of Columbia may
present the appearance of a conflict with my duties on the [Ethics]
Board." He goes on to state that, "In those circumstances, I would make
an assessment of whether I should recuse myself from Board consideration
of the matter based on the nature of the relationship." At the
confirmation hearing, Spagnoletti also stated that he would recuse
himself from any cases directly involving Mr. Gray, but only "in the
short term." While it can be assumed that the Ethics Board will at some
future date adopt rules and/or regulations regarding the ethics and
conduct of Board members and staff, at least initially, Spagnoletti will
have sole discretion to decide whether a conflict of interest exists,
and he will be certain to claim that his and his firm’s client list is
confidential, so that the public cannot make an independent judgment
about potential conflicts. Moreover, because the Board is small, with
only three members, a recusal by Spagnoletti could result in a
gridlocked Board that is unable to take action on a given matter.
In an effort to bolster Mayor Gray’s nomination of Spagnoletti, the
DC Attorney General, Irvin Nathan, has issued two legal memoranda. The
first, dated June 11, 2012, titled, "Service on the Board of Ethics and
Government Accountability by Practicing Attorneys," was addressed to
Spagnoletti. It initially argues that, under the DC Bar Rules of
Professional Conduct, "Since service on the [Ethics] Board is not the
practice of law and since the Members are not acting for a client, there
is no need for a Member or his or her [law]firm to seek a waiver of
conflict of interest if the Member or his or her firm represents a
client adverse to the District." Nathan however, concludes with advice
to Spagnoletti, "I also encourage you and the other Members of the
Ethics Board to consider adopting rules that would place restrictions on
a Board Member when the Member or his/her firm is representing a client
before a District agency whose officials are subject to Board scrutiny.
There is a reasonable concern of appearance of conflict of interest
where a Member is serving on a Board and the Board Member or the firm is
simultaneously representing a client in a matter before a District
agency." The second Nathan memo, dated June 29, 2012, is titled "Service
on the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability and Outside
Activities by Board Members Involving the District." It is addressed to
Councilmember Muriel Bowser, and argues that, "Mr. Spagnoletti’s private
representation of individuals or entities in District matters that do
not involve the Ethics Board would be legally permissible in some
circumstances" and that, "The mere representation of a private client
before a District agency, without more, would not violate the DC Code
provision." As in the first memo, Nathan concludes that, "In short,
there is no legal or ethical reason that Mr. Spagnoletti should not be
confirmed as chair of the Ethics Board."
In addition to his effort to claim that Spagnoletti’s appointment
presents no potential conflict of interest, the Attorney General’s memos
are curious for a variety of reasons. First, the Office of the Attorney
General provides legal representation to the Executive branch of the
District government,and not to private citizens or the city council. In
addition, Nathan’s position contradicts the viewpoint of law professor
Kathleen Clark, who served as his special counsel for ethics until this
past spring. In a Washington Post op-ed piece Clark wrote with
Robert Wechsler on June 23, Clark wrote that, "ethics board members
especially need to be free of conflicts of interests that could make it
appear that they are not acting impartially. . . . Representing private
parties before the District would conflict with the responsibilities of
the ethics board chair,"
http://tinyurl.com/7549d4k.
###############
Law? What Law? Who Cares, What Law? Continued
Jack McKay,
jack.mckay@verizon.net
I've complained here twice (May 19, 2011, and March 8, 2012) about
the insistence of parking ticket writers to check off P055, no parking
anytime as the supposed parking violation, when in fact the ticket
writer may not have a clue as to what the actual violation is. P055
explains nothing, and the ticket writer, whether MPD or Parking
Enforcement officer, likely doesn't know why there's a no parking sign
at that location. There just is, and you're supposed to quietly go pay
the fine, even if neither you, nor the ticketing officer, nor the
Department of Motor Vehicles, can say what parking law has been
violated.
A neighbor brought me an especially ludicrous example of this
mindless approach to parking tickets. He got two tickets, on a car that
was in fact quite legally parked, issued by a Parking Enforcement
officer who plainly had no idea what the supposed parking violation was.
There's a lone no-parking sign adjacent to a nearby alley, a sign which
in fact designates the minimum five feet required from the alley (18
DCMR 2405.2). Oddly, there's no matching signpost on the other side of
the alley. So our brilliant Parking Enforcement officer, one "Hunter,
G.," having no idea why that signpost was there, decided that it meant
no parking for the entire remainder of the block. He could do this, and
write the bogus tickets, because P055, no parking anytime, allows him to
issue the ticket without having to understand, or explain, why parking
was prohibited. His blunder gets the fine wrong, too: a violation of
2405.2 gets a $20 fine, but "Hunter, G." specified $30 on each of the
two tickets.
Maybe, if MPD and Parking Enforcement personnel were actually
required to figure out and explain why there was no parking posted
there, and hence, specifically what parking regulation was being
violated, Hunter, G. would have realized that there was no violation.
But this is evidently too much to ask of our Parking Enforcement
personnel, and MPD officers too. Even with an assist from Councilmember
Jim Graham, who agrees that anyone charged with violating a law ought to
be told what law he's charged with having violated, the Department of
Motor Vehicles, which seems to be in charge of this, refuses to give up
on the catchall P055 violation. If you get a parking ticket, you're just
supposed to shut up and pay the fine, even if neither you, nor the
ticket writer, nor the DMV, knows what regulation you're supposed to
have violated.
###############
Burying the Lines
Daniel Goldon Wolkoff,
amglassart@yahoo.com
We have to consider the cumulative costs of the whole range of
things, especially the environmental damage and human costs. Pepco and
the DC Office of Planning are doing such a poor job on this issue, it is
actually called urban planning. How come every single utility, cable TV
company, DDOT, and all kinds of other agencies and corporations dig up
(and destroy) the streets everyday, but Pepco cannot organize the
systematic undergrounding of the power lines? Maybe if they spend less
on public relations on TV, they would begin to fund the proper accounts
for the vital process to move ahead. It is obvious that no basic
coordination of these things is being done in DC, at what huge expense?
We probably would actually have undergrounded most of the city, and
saved a fortune, had the planning process been coherent. The Office of
Planning is completely obsessed with promoting development, not doing
their real job. When is the cost of not undergrounding the power lines
estimated? How can these costs be calculated? The millions of dollars
spent, decade in and decade out, for tree cutting has which obviously
been a failure. See the scarred and stunted trees we pay a fortune to
contractors to butcher; the arborists, man hours, heavy equipment, saws
and chippers, trucks, diesel fuel and gasoline consumption, pollution,
wasted wood, and critically, environmental damage to the tree canopy and
the land. Of course, critical as well, damage to the ground water
recharge and numerous other environmental costs.
The human toll must be included, this enormous expense to the rate
payers and the general impact on the community, the outages and the
deaths they have caused, and the effect on the elderly, etc. Alas, to
Pepco and the city government these are just statistics, for which they
will arrogantly express regret, at the hearings. What is the real cost
of undergrounding in some kind of process over time (this is actually
called urban planning), and coordination with streetscaping, utility
work, street repaving, etc. How would undergrounding coordinate with new
functions like Smart Grid, consumer solar, wind, and other sustainable
decentalized energy production and consumption? Is this not the
definition of insanity, continuing to do the same thing and expecting a
different outcome? Where is the analysis of the most efficient process?
In Brookland, the 12th Street, NE, streetscape recently cost twelve
million dollars, Adams Morgan six million, and so on. Is that money
thrown away when they finally bury the lines? Can they go under the
sidewalk? When is there going to be an innovation here, never?
###############
Summer Youth Employment Program
Denise Wiktor,
Denisewiktor@yahoo.com
It appears the SYEP program is off to another great start this year.
DOES terminated a contract with whoever did the payroll (ADP?) and went
to the Citicard program, again. As I recall, in 2008 it was rife with
problems and expensive, so it appears again. A local Ward 1 business,
who had already hired two youths for the summer — outside the program —
agreed after several visits to bring on up to four people, two of whom
would be the youth he has already hired. When he called to inquire where
the two additional youth were, he was told that actually there was 175
vacancies so they had no one to send him. Apparently if you did not show
up for orientation you were not allowed in the program — a good idea,
except certain youths were excluded from this requirement. Now, on to
payroll he had to have payroll entered into the city’s system by the
Friday of the first week, except no one had coordinated the IT programs
so no employer, at least no private employer, could enter time. A
supervisor did it for him and he was told that the four supervisors for
all the kids would spend the fourth of July entering data and everyone
would be paid timely. Oops, that is, if they have a card. A
fourteen-year-old I know well did not get her card by the June 29
deadline. She and her mother first confirmed she was in the program (due
to contradictory information) as did her employer. She and her mother
called Citibank three times, and they finally concluded she was not in
the system and to talk to her employer, who has nothing to do with the
cards. She called DOES back, and was told by a supervisor that if DOES
has her in the system then Citibank should, and there is nothing they
could (would) do for her. She called Citibank back with this information
only to be told they do not have her in the system. She was told that a
lot of people didn’t get their cards but they get them after calling
Citibank. Now she is in limbo, and her private employer has said he will
pay her if the city does not come up with the card.
Why again is the city paying Citibank for cash cards (in what I
assume was a no-bid contract)? First, I have heard of these things
called checks. There are also employee credit unions that possibly could
use the business as could the one or two locally owned banks. Citi also
does unemployment debit cards in New York City without all these issues.
They will only do direct deposit for youths eighteen or over even though
there are many youths under eighteen with bank accounts. It is just sad
that DOES keeps repeating the same mistakes year after year.
###############
Taxi Drivers Call for Protests Ahead of
Council Vote
Pete Tucker,
pete10506@yahoo.com
On Tuesday, the DC council is scheduled to vote for a second and
likely final time on legislation that will overhaul DC’s taxicab
industry, potentially to the detriment of drivers, who continue to be an
afterthought in an industry that couldn’t exist without them. Ahead of
the vote, drivers are scheduled to hold protests on Monday and Tuesday
from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Freedom Plaza, directly across from the
DC council.
"This bill in its current form is going to make us 21st century
sharecroppers," said Haimanot Bizuayehu, a board member of The Small
Business Association of DC Taxicab Drivers, an organization that
represents three thousand drivers. "If this bill passes as it is, it is
going to put local taxicab companies out of business," Bizuayehu told me
and ANC Commissioner Tony Norman, who co-hosts The Small Business
Association’s radio program, The Taxi Link, with me. The Taxi Link airs
Saturdays on WUST 1120 AM. [Finished online at
http://thefightback.org/2012/07/taxi-drivers-call-for-protests-ahead-of-council-vote/]
###############
The other day I was in a corner grocery north of Florida Avenue when
a young woman bought K-2, which she said was synthetic marijuana. She
told me she'd bought it because she's on probation and her urine is
tested regularly. K-2, however, does not show up.
I have been told that K-2 is actually incense and is not good for
people. Can anyone tell me about this K-2 phenomenon?
###############
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.
