.
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.
###############
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.
###############
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.
###############
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.