themail.gif (3487 bytes)

September 23, 2012

Eternal Life

Dear Eternalists:

One of Ronald Reagan’s most famous sayings was, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” This week, Mayor Gray made a small step toward proving that wrong. The Office of Boards and Commissions announced plans to abolish thirty-eight current DC government boards and commissions and to consider consolidating or abolishing twenty-nine more. Most of the boards proposed for elimination are inactive now, but the OBC is accepting public comments through October 19, in case you think either that some of the boards should be saved from the chopping block or that the mayor and OBC should be complimented on a good first step. The address for the OBC Request for Public Comment is http://www.obc.dc.gov/webform/request-public-comment.

#####

Former Councilmember Kathy Patterson, below, defends the city council’s history of dealing with District government contracting problems. I’d just ask you to read the Alan Suderman article that I cited in the last issue of themail, Suderman’s follow-up article (“CBE Problems: Where’s Lew?” http://tinyurl.com/d58hzpf), and future Suderman Loose Lips articles that will appear in the coming days on the contracting mess.

#####

It was a short life, however, for the latest panda cub at the National Zoo, who died unnamed on its sixth day, http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/GiantPandas/default.cfm#update, click on 2012 and go to September 23.

Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com

###############

OCF Audit of Michael Brown’s Campaign
Dorothy Brizill, dorothy@dcwatch.com

On Friday, September 21, the DC Office of Campaign Finance released its “Final Audit Report of Michael Brown’s 2012 Principal Campaign Committee, Report No. RAAD-09-21-2012,” http://www.ocf.dc.gov/faa/final_audit_reports.asp. The field audit was done by the Reports Analysis and Audit Division of OCF; it covers the period June 14, 2011, to June 29, 2012, and reviews the committee’s bank account as well as its reports of receipts and expenditures that were filed with OCF. The report concludes that the committee: 1) received contributions in excess of legal limits set in District law (approximately $1,175), 2) failed to properly report in OCF filings all campaign contributions/receipts received (e.g., nine contributions totaling $8,446.60), 3) understated the amount of a single contribution, 4) received contributions (totaling $350) that it did not negotiate through the committee’s bank account as required by District law, 5) made expenditures and disbursements that the committee did not report to OCF (including thirty-four expenditures to the committee’s former treasurer, Hakim Sutton, totaling $113,950), 6) made expenditures (totaling $5,300) that were not negotiated through the committee’s bank account as required by District law, and 7) misstated financial activity (including receipts, disbursements, and cash-on-hand balances) in its reports filed with OCF.

The audit report provides some insight into the issue of “the missing money” in Michael Brown’s campaign. The report indicates that from July 2011 to May 2012 there were thirty-four “unexplained expenditures” to former committee treasurer Hakim Sutton totaling $113,950, and that all the checks were made payable to Sutton and endorsed to him. It further notes that the committee failed to report these expenditures in its Report of Receipts and Expenditures filed with OCF. Auditors also conclude that the campaign committee failed to report other expenditures, including eleven that totaled $12,329.48, and $983.71 in bank charges. OCF auditors then state that, “The committee could not address whether the thirty-four expenditures to Hakim Sutton were authorized by the campaign and made for the purpose of financing, directly or indirectly, the election campaign of the candidate. . . .”

Finally, the audit concludes that the Michael Brown campaign may have deliberately misstated financial activity in its campaign account in the reports it filed with the Office of Campaign Finance. The report states that, “The audit staff compared the committee’s reported figures with its bank records and found that the committee had misstated its receipts, disbursements, and its cash on hand balance, as of June 29, 2012.” The report includes a chart detailing the discrepancies found in the committee’s disclosure reports filed with OCF compared with bank records. For example, in its OCF filing, the Brown campaign reported disbursements of $32,165.43; bank statement records, however, document disbursements of $153,723.92, for a discrepancy of $121,558.49.

After noting numerous violations of the District’s campaign finance laws throughout the report, it concludes with the recommendation that the audit report be, “referred to the OCF general counsel for whatever action deemed appropriate.”

###############

Council and Contracts
Kathy Patterson, kpattdc3@aol.com

Taking exception to two of Gary’s comments on contracting [themail, September 19]: the legislation Jack Evans introduced does not propose “eliminating council oversight over contracting.” It proposes ending the requirement that the council vote to approve big-dollar contracts. Big difference. Today the council has the approval role and does little with it — most contracts sail through without much consideration, while in other cases councilmembers meddle on behalf of cronies. I advocated for the council to get out of the contract approval business for the length of my tenure, and testified on that point in ethics testimony last fall. Removing the approval function lessens the potential for conflicts of interest when councilmembers advocate for one potential vendor over another. Lodging the responsibility for contracts solely with the Executive means clear lines of accountability. Removing the approval function does not, however, diminish the council’s role and responsibility in reviewing contracts to see how tax dollars are spent and with what return. Committee chairs should be looking at contracts let by agencies under their purview as part of annual budget hearings. Specific oversight hearings on particularly troublesome purchases should be part of the legislative process. And the Government Operations Committee retains its responsibility to oversee the procurement function, staff, budget, and laws.

I’d also challenge Gary’s statement that “the council never moved effectively to pursue contracting problems.” I’ve been off the council for nearly six years now and my information may be dated, but my own hearings showed the failure of DC contractors to adhere to the Service Contract Act, a federal law that applies certain benchmarks to all District contracts, including paid holidays for employees. A direct result: a particular contractor was precluded from work for the District for several years. Another inappropriate process was curbed after a 2000 investigation surfaced overpayments resulting from excessive use of a federal agency as a purchasing third party. In that same period the council created an independent chief procurement officer, pushed creation of supply schedules to allow purchase of commonly-used items at lower cost, required cost-benefit analysis of privatization contracts before the fact, and a look-back at outsourcing to check whether savings actually occurred. Implementation has been less than perfect, and that reflects the need for ongoing oversight. The council can, and should, be asking tough questions about District purchases — before, during, and after it enacts the Evans legislation.

###############

Speed Cameras and Speed Limits
Jack McKay, jack.mckay@verizon.net

Why the concern about speed cameras? What do we law-abiding residents have to worry about? Here’s the problem: “Speed limits in many urban areas correspond to the 30th percentile speed in the speed distribution” (cited in “Managing Speed, a Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits,” Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1998). That is, 70 percent of drivers will exceed the posted speed limit in free-flowing traffic. That’s no doubt true in the District, where, congestion permitting, average traffic speeds exceed the posted limits, e.g., Connecticut Avenue between the District line and Nebraska Avenue, posted limit 30 mph, average speed 33 mph (and 85th-percentile speed 41 mph). Try driving 25 mph on Beach Drive (average speed 30 mph), where passing is impossible, and the other drivers will make it very clear to you that you are an idiotic old slowpoke.

Why this widespread policy of tolerating a discrepancy between actual traffic speeds and posted limits? Presumably it’s to make speeding tickets easier to support in court. If charged with driving 37 mph in a 35 zone, a driver can challenge the accuracy or validity of the measurement. But if charged with driving 37 in a 25 zone, there’s little room for dispute.

The MPD refuses to admit to such a policy, though internally they distinguish between mere “speeding” (exceeding the posted limit by less than 10 mph), and “aggressive speeding” (exceeding the posted limit by 10 mph or more). They don’t want to encourage any speeding, whatever the reality on the road. So they let the ambiguity remain: will that speed camera result in tickets if one drives just a few mph above the posted limit? Or will it produce tickets only for 10 mph or more above the limit? The MPD isn’t saying, and drivers who merely match the average speed of traffic have to worry that they’ll be speed camera victims.

As a reference on speed camera effectiveness writes, “Many drivers believe, or know from experience, that police do not enforce the exact posted limit but, instead, allow upward deviations in speed to account for inaccurate speedometers, momentary inattention, etc. That tolerance level is often 10 percent or thereabouts. . . . If these same tolerance levels do not apply to enforcement by speed cameras, the public needs to be so informed.” Indeed, if speed cameras are explicitly employed only to penalize “aggressive speeding” (as appears in fact to be MPD policy), then there will be little complaint. Even most drivers, though technically speeding themselves, dislike the aggressive speedsters rushing on by. The public worry is that speed cameras will be employed for “zero tolerance” speed limit enforcement, as some residents want. Then the threat is not just to the fifteen percent or so who choose to drive at 10 mph or more above the posted limit, but to the fifty percent or more — the majority of drivers — who drive just a few mph above the posted limit.

###############

Can DC Claim Credit
Michael Overturf, mike.overturf@gmail.com

In response to Jack McKay [themail, September 16]. Mr. McKay, you clearly understand the figures cited, augment your own. However, while I certainly would not venture to link data with causality in this case — I never asserted that the reduction of deaths was linked to cameras — you exhibit no similar hesitance.

Case in point: you illuminate the discussion with data about survivability, then infer superior vehicle quality. Your assertion is that survivability numbers have been improving since 1922, and are now improved by as much as 1000 percent since then, and show the widening spread between collisions and survival. While you cite no source of data, I was able to confirm the conclusion using census bureau measurements. Against this backdrop you interpret the precipitous, and sudden, drop in DC deaths per million VMT to vehicular safety, although you offer no further relationship but for the phase “almost entirely correlated” or “most likely.”

Using this same inferential technique, I could correlate the reduction in traffic deaths inversely proportional to the amount of space junk in earth orbit. Or, more on topic, to speeds traveled because of cameras. I’m not claiming this, I’m just using your inferential method.

###############

Speed Limits
Michael Overturf, mike.overturf@gmail.com

In response to James Treworgy [themail, September 16]. Mr. Treworgy, you cite my conclusions as flawed, but then display a lack of understanding of the information presented. The data is expressed in deaths per million miles traveled, eliminating any effect of individual travel frequency. As far as the time span was concerned — you imply that I picked 2005 to skew data, but this is the time range offered by the government report. In other words, the choice was arbitrary.

The sample is statistically valid in its units, and I don’t want to bore you with an arcane proof of this. Your comments on their validity are, well, I hesitate to write this, revealing of your lack of rigor.

Look, the bottom line is you dislike traffic cameras, and feel it is an unwarranted tax levied in a non-legislated manner. And I agree with you. So what are you going to do about it? As a driver on public roads you have no rights, and therefore your complaint has no standing. A person moving four thousand pounds of metal, glass, and plastic around, insisting on doing so at speeds of their choosing, is a potential public nuisance and subject to regulation. This just isn’t going to change. There is so much broken in DC, surely you can find something else much more worthy of your ire.

###############

Taxi Smart Meter System
Ron Linton, rmlch@verizon.net

Mr. Forman [themail, September 14] asks a host of interwoven questions that requires some sorting out in order to respond to coherently. Unfortunately the media’s habit is to label matters by using the simplest common identification. Thus, the Taxi Smart Meter System (TSMS) has been tagged simply as “new meters.” It is in fact a system that accomplishes much more than just credit card service. First, let me address the underlying public policy. When I became Chairman of the DCTC on August 1, 2011, I found a Public Vehicle-for-Hire industry in disarray reviled by much of the community and a Commission that lacked the respect of the community, particularly among the political leadership. Sections of the city were vastly underserved, people of color were routinely denied rides, meters were gamed, women riders mistreated were just a few of the unacceptable activities. Vehicles were aging and driver attitudes reflected the low level of fares allowed when the industry switched from zone to meter charging fares four years earlier. The Commission itself had been resource starved for years, unable to compete for city funds against higher budget priorities.

In light of this the Commission recommended and the mayor proposed to the city council that the costs associated with regulating and overseeing the city’s Public Vehicle-for-Hire Industry, a $250,000,000 a year contributor to the city’s economy, be funded on a user fee basis. The council accepted this and Councilwoman Cheh and her transportation Committee passed legislation providing for sweeping changes in the industry. Beginning October 1, the Commission will no longer receive any general taxation funding. The rider surcharge and the fees drivers and owners pay for licenses and renewals will be the only funding received. This means only people using taxis are paying for the governance of taxis. It also means that non residents using DC taxis will now be paying for this governance.

In return, passengers are to receive a substantially greater quality of service. This brings us to the TSMS. Looking at the experience in New York, Boston, and other cities and considering the experience in Washington of the variation of meters, the Commission decided that the passengers were best served with a single designated product. Requiring the drivers to pay for this would mean as much as a $4,000 individual outlay, clearly a financial hardship. It would have left unanswered how to provide a host of required services that could not be handled by individual purchase, such as the safety devices, driver verification, and data collection. The $35 million dollar figure is the five-year cost and is paid for from the Commission’s revenue derived from the surcharge and drivers’ fees. The surcharge also will be used for the Commission’s administrative costs, enforcement program, driver education programs, incentives for modernizing the fleet, and discount programs for the elderly and other programs of value to the community. Further the TSMS will for the first time provide the Commission with the data necessary to address and correct the issue of underserved areas as well as a basis for rational fare setting. It will provide both drivers and passenger a safety mechanism that will produce rapid response by the MPD, hack inspectors and medical personnel to calls for assistance. It provides for a noncash payment method and GPS guidance for locating destinations.

We are making other changes as well. We will require a common dome light to make it easier to determine the availability of an oncoming taxi and more difficult for a taxi to refuse to haul. We are requiring a modernization program that will remove older vehicles and incentivize their replacement with fuel efficient, wheelchair accessible green cabs. We also are encouraging the introduction of electronic reservation operations to improve availability and quick response to a request for service.The Commission also will establish a new Sedan Class public vehicle-for-hire category that uses a luxury vehicle to provide electronic reservation service. All of this the Commission hopes will result within a year two with a world-class public vehicle for hire service in the District of Columbia.

###############

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.

 


Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)