Political Corruption
Dear Political Observers:
Dorothy asks a number of good questions about the Michael Brown case
below, especially about the timing of the indictment. Why was Brown
allowed to stay involved in DC local politics for nearly a year after
the FBI had evidence that he was corruptly soliciting and accepting
bribes? I’ll raise an issue that shows I am even more cynical than
Dorothy. We know that indictments of political officials have to be
cleared at the highest level of the Department of Justice. But last
summer and fall Michael Brown was acting as a naational spokesman for
the Obama political campaign. He attended the Democratic National
Convention as a guest of the party, even though he was elected to the DC
council as an independent. He appeared on several national news programs
speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign. Could the delay in bringing
his indictment be attributed to a desire not to embarrass Obama and the
Democratic party?
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Corruption and Michael A. Brown
Dorothy Brizill,
dorothy@dcwatch.com
In the latest case of corruption by a public official in the District
of Columbia, former at-large councilmember Michael A. Brown will appear
at 3:30 p.m. this afternoon before Judge Robert L. Wilkins in US
District Court, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Courtroom 27A. He will
plead guilty to having solicited and accepted a bribe while a member of
the city council. In a charging document filed by the US Attorney’s
Office, it is alleged that "beginning on or about July 11, 2012, through
on or about March 14, 2013," Brown "directly and indirectly, corruptly
demanded, sought, received, accepted, and agreed to receive and accept
things of value personally, to wit, fifty-five thousand dollars
($55,000) in cash" from "undercover employees of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in return for being influenced in the performance of an
official act." Brown faces a jail term of up to fifteen years and a fine
of up to $250,000.
On April 3, after Brown suddenly withdrew from the April 23 special
election citing "family matters, I wrote an article in themail titled
"Unraveling the Michael Brown Debacle,"
http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/2013/13-04-03.htm.
At that time, I suggested that there was more to Brown’s withdrawal,
just weeks before the election, than his need to take care of his ailing
mother. I wrote that, "perhaps the biggest issue that must also be
considered with regard to Michael Brown’s sudden departure from the
at-large council race is the extent to which problems in his personal
life and finances may have been a contributing factor in his withdrawal.
In recent years, it has been widely reported that he owes federal income
taxes, his house in Chevy Chase has had at least five foreclosure
notices since 1996, and he has been unable on occasion to pay his
apartment rent at the Rittenhouse on 16th Street. Moreover, despite the
salary he received as a councilmember and payment for his work as a
lobbyist at the firm of Edwards, Angell, Palmer, and Dodge, Brown has
been borrowing very large sums of money from acquaintances, lobbyists,
and businesses in the District for the last few years. While Brown
blames Hakim Sutton for the funds missing from his 2012 campaign funds,
Sutton’s lawyer has publicly put the blame on Brown. The full story of
Brown’s withdrawal has not come out yet; District residents can only
hope that all will be revealed in the fullness of time."
At today’s court proceeding, the US Attorney’s Office will file
additional charging documents that will detail Brown’s role in the
bribery scheme. At that point, DC residents will need to ask some very
serious questions of Mr. Brown as well as of the US Attorney’s Office
and the FBI. Why, for example was Brown allowed to remain a candidate in
the November 2012 general election after he had already begun soliciting
and accepting bribes from the FBI in July? What would federal
authorities have done if Brown had won the November election? Why did
the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office then allow Brown to become a
candidate in the April 23, 2013, special election, knowing that they
could indict him for corruption at any time? As the then-chair of the
council’s Economic Development and Housing Committee, what did Brown
promise in exchange for the bribe? Are the current problems in the
District’s CBE (certified business enterprise) program at the Department
of Small and Local Business Development (that have been written about in
a series of articles over the past year by Alan Suderman in the
Washington City Paper) attributable to corruption by the District’s
public officials and government employees? Why is Brown facing only one
count of "bribery of a public official" when there were numerous other
charges that could have been brought? Since it is both a crime to accept
and to offer a bribe to a public official, are there other District
businessmen and companies that may be implicated in the course of the
official investigation? Should concerns be raised about Amy Bellanca,
who was Brown’s chief of staff and close friend, and who is now the lead
general counsel at the DC Auditor’s Office, which is charged with
monitoring and auditing the District’s CBE program?
Finally, to what extent will Michael Brown’s prosecution and plea
agreement assist the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office with their
investigation of Mayor Gray’s 2010 campaign, Jeffrey Thompson, the
lottery contract, the CBE program, and corruption by other public
officials and government employees?
###############
Yesterday, themail@dcwatch posted an article ("Bowser Plays
Politics") in which Dorothy Brizill writes that by questioning the
mayor’s nominees to the important Housing Production Trust Fund Board I
was somehow playing political hardball. She writes that instead of
evaluating the nominees against the statutory qualifications, I asked
inappropriate questions and used my position as Chair of the Committee
on Economic Development to advance my candidacy for mayor. While the
questionnaire is thorough, the writer’s conclusion is simply not borne
out by the facts.
First, we did ask each nominee questions about his or her statutory
qualifications, as I have done when reviewing dozens of nominees over
the years. Second, all of the questions are designed to identify the
nominee and any conflicts of interest he or she might have. It is
information that the Committee believes is useful for evaluating each
nominee’s fitness for a board that will help spend $100 million on
affordable housing. Lastly, I have repeatedly asked these same questions
of nominees to other boards — the first instance of which was in October
2011; long before I announced my candidacy for mayor.
As I travel around the District of Columbia meeting residents and
asking what they want from a new mayor, the most common answer is an
open and transparent government. The fact of the matter is that boards
and commissions make big decisions, decide issues of contention, hear
appeals, and in this case oversee hundreds of millions of dollars. I
would be remiss if I didn’t conduct a thorough review of each nominee.
If I am accused of erring on the side of transparency — so be it.
###############
Four Strikes and Huron Is Still at the Plate!
Samuel Jordan,
Samuel.Jordan@msn.com
Huron Consulting from Chicago, an Enron spin-off, was awarded a $12.7
million contract to downsize and "turnaround" the United Medical Center
(UMC), the only hospital east of the Anacostia River in Washington, DC,
After four strikes, maybe we should conclude that Huron and the District
are playing a game of their own creation.
Strike one: Huron did not submit its initial bid for the UMC
"turnaround" with a certified business enterprise (CBE) subcontractor as
required by DC statutes and stated explicitly in the solicitation.
Instead, it was given more time to resubmit its bid. It returned for its
second chance with a CBE, and a bid amount $2.7 million over the
contract budget. Huron got the contract anyway. Competitors, hoping to
do future business with the District, did not complain. Strike two:
Huron’s "Contract Item Number One" was to develop a strategic plan to
prepare the hospital for sale to the private sector. However, Mayor
Gray, on March 28, just over a month after the contract was awarded,
announced that the hospital will be rebuilt, owned by the city, and
managed by a private firm. If the hospital is not to be sold to the
private sector, shouldn’t such a significant change in Huron’s duties
require the posting of a modified solicitation? Strike Three: "In
consonance with McGladrey Option #2," released in November, 2011, Huron
was to initiate a process that would downsize the hospital from its
current capacity (210-220 patient beds in use daily) to an ambulatory
care facility of sixty beds or fewer. Yet Mayor Gray and the majority of
the DC council, including its Health Committee Chair, Councilmember
Yvette Alexander, have stated in no uncertain terms that the hospital
"will never become an ambulatory care clinic" of sixty beds or fewer.
This task has also been deleted from Huron’s contractual obligations,
although the contract has not been renegotiated. What are Huron’s new
duties? Strike Four: Huron is responsible for conducting a community
health care needs assessment that will help in deciding the
configuration of capacity and services at UMC, but "in consonance with
McGladrey Option #2," the downsize option. The assessment so far
constitutes outreach to about one hundred "stakeholders" and a public
meeting attended by about thirty community members, after accounting for
hospital and council staff. One hundred "stakeholders" for the only
hospital serving approximately 190,000 east of the river in Wards 7 and
8 and nearby Prince Georges County, Maryland?
The public meeting did not determine community health care needs.
Instead, most speakers recounted negative UMC experiences and
expectations and displeasure with the lack of reliable information about
the hospital from its new administrators. Only a comprehensive,
authoritative assessment that includes a two-thousand-plus survey of
actual residents in UMC’s service area and the opportunity for
meaningful decision-making input for community members will be
representative and credible.
As chair of the United Medical Center Foundation, I conferred
directly with the Huron subcontractor responsible for the assessment to
register my own perspectives as a stakeholder. The firm, located in
Houston, in spite of its promises, has not responded as agreed. A
principal observation that I wanted on the record is that the assessment
should not be conducted by the contractor or its subcontractor that is
also charged to downsize the hospital and prepare it for sale to the
private sector, a case of blatant self-dealing. Furthermore, the
assessment’s policy advisories have been predetermined and thus
compromised, and they should be disregarded.
###############
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.
|