|
DCWatch
1327 Girard Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009-4915
202-234-6982, fax 202-232-1215
http://www.dcwatch.com
November 17, 2003
Ms. Cecily Collier-Montgomery
Office of Campaign Finance
2000 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Dear Ms. Collier-Montgomery:
This letter supplements my formal complaint of November 7, 2009, on a
violation of District of Columbia laws and regulations regarding election
campaigns, lobbying, and conflict of interest by Mayor Anthony Williams
and attorney/lobbyist Vincent Mark Policy.
Supplementary Information
Attachment A: The complaint filed on June 25, 2002, in the District
of Columbia Superior Court in the case of Thomas Lindenfeld v. Anthony
Williams and the Committee to Re-Elect Tony Williams (CA No. 02-0005119)
Attachment B: Notice of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel dated
February 13, 2003. (This was also included as Attachment A in the
November 7, 2003, complaint, but this copy includes the Certificate of
Service page that includes the date of the Notice.)
Attachment C: Defendant Anthony Williams' Motion to Compel Discovery
and For An Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Anthony Williams' Motion to
Compel Discovery and For An Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses (see
paragraph 4 of motion).
Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Anthony
Williams' Motion to Compel Discovery (see paragraph 2 of motion).
Attachment D: Summary of Registered Lobbyists Information, Office of
Campaign Finance, DC Board of Elections and Ethics. (Two pages from this
summary were included in the complaint of November 7, 2003, as
Attachment C; this copy includes the information that identifies its
source; see pages 2 and 9.)
Attachment E: Examples of lobbying and legal activities by Vincent
Mark Policy and/or the law firm of Greenstein, Delorme and Luchs.
Attachment F: Office of Campaign Finance, Interpretative Opinion
00-06 (October 2, 2000).
Please let me know if there is any further information or assistance
that I can provide.
Sincerely yours,
Dorothy A. Brizill
cc: Mr. Benjamin Wilson, Chairman, D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics
Ms. Alice Miller, Executive Director, D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics
Mr. Kenneth McGhie, General Counsel, D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics
Back to top of page
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
THOMAS LINDENFELD, 6001 Nebraska Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015, Plaintiff,
v. ANTHONY WILLIAMS, 2475 Virginia Ave., N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20027 and COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT TONY WILLIAMS, 3233 Livingston
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015, Defendants
CA. No. 02-0005119
COMPLAINT
(Breach of Contract)
I. JURISDICTION
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is founded on D.C. Code
Annotated, Title 11, section 11-921.
II. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Thomas Lindenfeld ("Lindenfeld")
is, and at all relevant times has been an individual citizen and
resident of the District of Columbia.
3. Plaintiff Lindenfeld Communications, LLC (Lindenfeld
Communications") is a District
of Columbia Limited Liability Company of which plaintiff
Lindenfeld is, and at all relevant times has been, the sole member. At
all relevant times, Lindenfeld Communications was in the business of
providing political consulting services.
4. Defendant Anthony Williams ("Williams") is
the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
5. Defendant Committee to Re-Elect Tony Williams
("Re-election Committee") is the principal campaign committee
of defendant Williams, organized and existing pursuant to D.C. Code
Section 1-1412, for the campaign of Williams to seek the Democratic
nomination for Mayor of the District of Columbia in the primary election
to be held in 2002.
III. FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS
6. In or about December 1999, defendant Williams and his
then-Chief of Staff, Abdusalam Omer, acting as agent for and on behalf
of defendant Williams, orally offered to hire Lindenfeld as a political
consultant and advisor to defendant Williams.
7. The terms of the oral offer described in paragraph 6
were that plaintiff Lindenfeld, during a two-year term, consisting of
the calendar years 2000 and 2001, would be responsible for coordinating
communications and political strategy with the operations of the office
of the Mayor; for attending planning meetings with defendant Williams
and his senior staff; for advising and assisting defendant Williams in
responding to crisis situations, for providing defendant Williams and
his staff assistance in message formulation and speech writing; for undertaking political operations on behalf of defendant
Williams with respect to ballot initiatives and referenda, and for
planning and implementing activities of the re-election campaign,
including fundraising.
8. The terms of the oral offer described in paragraph 6
were further that, in consideration of services to be rendered by
plaintiff Lindenfeld to defendant Williams as set forth in paragraph 7,
plaintiff Lindenfeld would be paid one hundred fifty thousand dollars
($150,000) a year, in twelve equal monthly installments each year, of
$12,500 per month.
9. Plaintiff Lindenfeld orally accepted the offer
described in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 hereof, on the terms and conditions
set forth in said offer.
10. Subsequent to the offer and acceptance described in
paragraphs 6 through 9 hereof, plaintiff Lindenfeld and defendant
Williams agreed that plaintiff Lindenfeld would be paid for his services
by defendant Williams' re-election committee, which was not established
until approximately April 2000; and that payment would be deferred until
after such re-election committee had raised funds at its first
fundraising event scheduled for June 2000.
11. Defendant Re-election Committee was established in or
about April 2000. Defendant Williams delegated his obligations and
assigned his rights, under the agreement described in paragraphs 6
through 9 hereof, to defendant Re-election Committee.
12. During the months of January 2000 through June 2000,
inclusive, plaintiff Lindenfeld fully performed all of the services that
he was obligated to perform for defendant Williams under and in
accordance with the agreement described in paragraphs 6 through 9
hereof. During this period, defendant Williams, on behalf of himself and
the Re-election Committee, repeatedly and regularly requested plaintiff
Lindenfeld to perform such services for defendant Williams and defendant
Re-election Committee.
13. The first fundraising event for defendant Williams'
re-election campaign took place on or about June 15, 2000.
14. In accordance with the terms of the agreement between
plaintiff Lindenfeld and defendant Williams, plaintiff Lindenfeld
requested payment for the first six months of 2000, in the amount of
seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) following the June 2000
fundraiser.
15. Defendants Williams and Re-election Committee have
failed and refused to pay the amount due and owing to plaintiff
Lindenfeld under the agreement between plaintiff Lindenfeld and
defendant Williams.
16. Defendant Williams, his Chief of Staff and other
staff, acting as agents for and on behalf of defendant Williams, have
repeatedly admitted and acknowledged that defendants Williams and
Re-election Committee owe plaintiff Lindenfeld seventy-five thousand
dollars ($75,000) for services rendered by plaintiff Lindenfeld to
defendants.
17. Defendants Williams and Re-election Committee have
repeatedly failed and refused to pay the amount due and owing to
plaintiff Lindenfeld under the agreement between plaintiff Lindenfeld
and defendant Williams.
COUNT I
18. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 2 through 17 as if
fully set forth herein.
19. The agreement described in paragraphs 6 through 9
hereof was an express oral contract between plaintiff Lindenfeld and
defendant Williams, binding on defendant Williams and enforceable in
accordance with its terms.
20. Some or all of defendant Williams' obligations under
said contract may have been delegated to defendant Re-election
Committee.
21. Plaintiff Lindenfeld never agreed to such delegation.
Defendant Williams remains liable for all of his obligations under the
express oral contract.
22. By failing and refusing to pay the amounts due to
plaintiff Lindenfeld which they are obligated to pay under the express
oral contract, defendants have materially breached the contract.
23. As a result of such breach, plaintiff Lindenfeld has
been injured in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants
in the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, plus prejudgment interest,
costs, attorney's fees, and such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT II
24. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 2 through 17, and 20 and 21, as if
fully set forth herein.
25. By their conduct, plaintiff Lindenfeld and defendant Williams
entered into a contract implied in fact on the terms set forth and described in
paragraphs 6 through 9 hereof.
26. By refusing and failing to pay the amounts due to
plaintiff Lindenfeld for services rendered under and in accordance with the terms of such
contract, defendants have materially breached the contract.
27. As a result of such breach, plaintiff Lindenfeld has
been injured in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants
in the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, plus prejudgment interest,
costs, attorney's fees, and such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Sherri L. Wyatt
D.C. Bar No. 390314
Sherri L. Wyatt, PLLC
1825 I Street,
N. W. Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 429-2009
Back to top of page
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
THOMAS LINDENFELD, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 02CA005119
Judge Jeanette J. Clark
Calendar
14
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
TO THE CLERK:
Please take notice that counsel of record, Robert M.
Krasne and Margaret A. Keeley of Williams & Connolly LLP are hereby
withdrawing as counsel to defendant Anthony A. Williams
("Williams") in the above-captioned matter, and Vincent Mark
J. Policy of Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C. is entering his
appearance as counsel' of record for Anthony A. Williams. Please copy
Mr. Policy at 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, D.C., (202)
452-1400 with any pleadings, orders, or other documents issued by the
Court in the above-captioned case.
We also enclose a proposed Order for the Court permitting
this substitution of counsel.
Respectfully submitted,
GREENSTEIN DeLORME & LUCHS, P.C.
By:
Vincent Mark Policy
1620 L. Street, N.W. Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 452-1400 Fax: (202)
452-1410
WILLIAMS &
CONNOLLY LLP
By:
Robert M. Krasne
(375750)
Margaret A. Keeley (454962)
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone:
(202) 434-5000 Fax: (202) 434-5029
CLIENT:
Anthony A. Williams
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 13, 2003, I caused true and correct
copies of the foregoing Defendant Anthony A. Williams’ Notice of
Appearance and Substitution of Counsel to be served by first class mail
upon:
Sherri L. Wyatt
1825 I St., N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 429-2009
Douglas J. Patton
Holland & Knight LLP
2099 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Suite 100
Washington, D.C. 20006-6801
Phone: (202) 955-3000
Fax: (202) 955-5564
Vincent Mark J. Policy
Back to top of page
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division
Thomas Lindenfeld, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Williams, et al.,
Defendants
Civil Action No. 02CA005119
Judge
Jeanette J. Clark
Calendar 14
Next Event: Discovery Closed
October 15, 2003
DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
Defendant Anthony Williams, by counsel and pursuant to
Rule 37(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves
that this Court compel the Plaintiff, Thomas Lindenfeld, to comply with
the discovery requests specified in the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities attached hereto. The Plaintiff has failed for months to
produce requested documents, which are necessary for Defendant Williams
to commence depositions (including that of Plaintiff). With the
discovery deadline of October 15, 2003 it is critical that these
documents be produced now.
Because Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery is
not justified, the Court should also enter an award of attorneys' fees.
and expenses. In support of its Motion, Defendant Williams relies upon
the following points and authorities:
1. D.C.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 34;
2. D.C.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 37; and
3. The accompanying Memorandum of Points
and Authorities.
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SECURE DISCOVERY AND OBTAIN CONSENT
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that despite repeated good faith
attempts to obtain outstanding discovery responses from Plaintiff and
its counsel, Plaintiff has failed to produce documents responsive to
Williams' requests for production. These attempts are specifically set
forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I made diligent efforts to obtain
the discovery requested and to obtain consent pursuant to Super.Ct.Civ.R.
12-I(a). Despite these and other diligent efforts, the discovery has not
been provided and consent was not obtained.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND SERVICE OF COURTESY COPY TO CHAMBERS
I HEREBY CERTIFY that true copies of the foregoing
Defendant Anthony Williams' Motion to Compel and For An Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support thereof, and a Proposed Order were hand-delivered
this 5th day of September 2003 to:
Sherri L. Wyatt, Esq.
Sherri L. Wyatt, PLLC
1017 12th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D. C. 20005
Counsel for Plaintiff
Paul J. Kiernan, Esq.
Damien G. Stewart, Esq. Holland and Knight, LLP
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 100
Washington, D.C. 20006
Counsel for The Committee to Re-Elect Tony Williams
In addition, pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 5(e) and
5(I), counsel has caused a courtesy copy of this Motion to be placed in
the in-house mailbox to be delivered to the chambers of Judge Jeanette
J. Clark.
Vincent Mark J. Policy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division
Thomas Lindenfeld, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Williams, et al.,
Defendants
Civil Action No. 02CA005119
Judge
Jeanette J. Clark
Calendar 14
Next Event: Discovery Closed
October 15, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
Defendant Anthony Williams has moved to compel discovery
pursuant to D.C.Super.Ct.Civ.R.37
due to failure for months of the Plaintiff, Thomas Lindenfeld, to make
documents available for review and copying that are essential to the
taking of depositions and the defense of this case. Despite repeated
demands from Williams, Plaintiff has refused to comply with discovery.
In further support of its motion, Williams states as follows:
I. EFFORTS MADE TO OBTAIN THE
OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY
Defendants (including Williams) sent to Plaintiff
"Defendants' Request for Production of Documents" almost seven
months ago, on February 10, 2003. Despite repeated efforts on the part
of Williams, Plaintiff has yet to produce any documents.1 It
was not. until August 1, 2003 that Plaintiff finally responded to the document requests with "Plaintiff's Responses to
Defendants' Requests for Production of Documents". This document is
attached hereto as Exhibit A and sets forth both the document requests
and Plaintiff's responses. All responses are inadequate for the simple
fact that, as of the date of 'this Motion to Compel, Plaintiff has not
produced a single document.
By correspondence sent on August 27, 2003 (attached
hereto as Exhibit B) from Vincent Mark J. Policy (counsel for Defendant
Williams) to Sherri Wyatt (counsel for Plaintiff), Defendant Williams
made clear to Plaintiff the fact that Plaintiff had not produced any
documents, and asked Plaintiff to comply with the document requests. No
documents were produced.
Additionally, counsel for Defendant Williams has called
counsel for Plaintiff by telephone on two separate occasions in an
effort to have Plaintiff produce the requested documents. Those
telephone calls occurred on August 28, 2003, at which time Ms. Wyatt
informed Mr. Policy that Plaintiff would comply with discovery (which he
did not), and on September 2, 2003, at which time counsel for Defendant
left a voicemail with counsel for Plaintiff, again requesting documents.
To date, Plaintiff has yet to produce any documents.
II. ARGUMENT
All of the documents sought in this Motion are relevant
to the subject matter of this action under Rule 26 and its production
should be compelled under Rule 37. Information is discoverable if
"there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of this action."
Roberts-Douglas v. Meares, 624 A.2d 405, 415 (D.C. 1992). In fact, with
the exception of one Request and then only as to documents which may be
covered by the attorney-client privilege, Plaintiff agrees in
"Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Requests for Production of
Documents" to produce all other documents requested. Therefore,
there is no dispute whether the requested documents are relevant. Yet,
no documents have been produced.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons;-Defendant Williams requests
that this Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to produce the
documents requested in Defendants' Request for Production of Documents.
Williams also requests that this Court award Defendant Williams the
reasonable attorneys' fees that he has and will incur in pursuing this
Motion, given that Plaintiff has delayed production of concededly
relevant documents without any defense or justification. The Court
should also allow Williams to conduct follow-up discovery after receipt
of the additional discovery materials from the Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
GREENSTEIN DELORME & LUCHS,
P.C.
Dated: September 5, 2003
Vincent Mark J. Policy #204701
1620 L Street, N.W., Suite
900
Washington, D.C. 20036-5605
(202) 452-1400
Counsel for Defendant Anthony Williams
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Thomas Lindenfeld, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Williams, et al.,
Defendants
Civil Action No. 5119-02
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel and
hereby opposes Defendant Anthony Williams' Motion to Compel Discovery
and For an Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses. As grounds in support
of his opposition, Plaintiff states as follows:
1. On September 10, 2003 Plaintiff,
caused to be delivered to counsel for Defendant Williams, by messenger,
a box containing documents in response to his Request for Production of
Documents. Said documents represented the existence of a contract
between Plaintiff and Defendant Williams by exhibiting Plaintiffs
involvement with Defendant Williams' re-election campaign, Plaintiffs
personal notes taken at numerous meetings with Defendant Williams' and
other Committee-to Re-elect Tony Williams staff members, Plaintiffs
drafts of speeches he prepared for Defendant Williams and all other
documents in his possession relating to the existence of a contract for
services between himself and Defendant Williams (See Attachment A).
2. Plaintiff duly caused a copy of the
Certificate Regarding Discovery to be filed with this Honorable Court on
September 10, 2003 (See Attachment B).
3. Although Defendant Williams, by
letter from his counsel dated September 11, 2003 indicated that the
production is "clearly inadequate" because "none of the
documents regarding the alleged contract were produced", Plaintiff
contends that the documents produced are adequate and responsive to
Defendant's request, and that all other such documentation relating to
the existence of a contract and the authority under which he
participated in Defendant Williams' re-election campaign, the rationale
behind Plaintiff being placed on certain lists, and other correspondence
representing the instances where Plaintiff was called upon to render his
expert advice, and causing Plaintiff to be the recipient of clearly
privileged information regarding Defendant Williams, was made a part of
the initial Complaint in this matter. (See Attachment C).
4. Finally, Defendant Williams requests
attorney's fees and cost in this matter when there has been indication
to both Plaintiff and his counsel that all services are being provided
on a pro bono basis to Defendant Williams.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Plaintiff
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court consider Defendant's
Motion to Compel Discovery to be moot, and thus, deny said Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Sherri L. Wyatt #'390314
1017 12th Street, N. W.
Suite
300
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 216-9850
(202) 216-9360
(fax)
Dated: September 15, 2003
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Thomas Lindenfeld, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Williams, et al.,
Defendants
Civil Action No. 02CA005119
Judge
Jeanette J. Clark
Calendar 14
Next Event: Witness List Due,
October 8, 2003.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS, by undersigned counsel,
herein responds to one point in the September 15, 2003 Plaintiff's
Opposition to Defendant Anthony Williams' Motion to Compel Discovery and
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.
In paragraph 4 of the opposition, the Plaintiff opposes
the Defendant's request for attorneys' fees and costs on the Motion
because "... there has been indication to both Plaintiff and his
counsel that all services are being provided on a pro bono basis to
Defendant Williams". This statement was made by undersigned counsel
to Plaintiff and his counsel at the Mediation Session. As the Court well
knows, all statements made at the Mediation Session are to be held
confidential and are not to be used in court pleadings, and the Plaintiff
and its counsel signed a confidentiality agreement to that effect. The
statement quoted above in the Plaintiff's Opposition is a blatant and
self-serving breach of that confidentiality
agreement, which this Court should not condone. Otherwise, Mediation will
become useless because the free and frank exchange that occurs under the
cloak of confidentiality will be nullified.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Mark J. Policy
D.C. Bar No. 20 01
Greenstein Delorme & Luchs, P.C.
1620 L Street, N.W.
Suite 900 Washington, D.C. (202) 452-1400
Attorney for Defendant Anthony Williams
Dated: September 23, 2003
Back to top of page
OFFICE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
SUMMARY OF REGISTERED LOBBYISTS INFORMATION
The Director of Campaign Finance herewith publishes a
summary of registered lobbyists' information submitted to the Office of
Campaign Finance on or before August 15, 2003 by persons registered as
lobbyists with the Director, pursuant to the District of Columbia
Campaign Finance Reform and Conflict of Interest Act of 1974, as
amended, D.C. Official Code § 1-1105.04 (2001 Edition).
A person is required to register as a lobbyist with the
Director of Campaign Finance on or before January 15th each year, or not
later than 15 days after becoming a lobbyist, if such person receives
compensation or expends funds in an amount of $250 or more in any three
(3) consecutive calendar month period for communicating directly with
any official in the legislative or executive branch of the District of
Columbia government with the purpose of influencing any legislative
action or an administrative decision. D.C. Official Code §§ 1-1105.02
and 1-1105.04(a).
If information, pertaining to a lobbyist registered with
the Office of Campaign Finance, is not contained herein and/or if a
person requires additional information regarding District of Columbia
lobbying statutes, please contact the Office of Campaign Finance, at
2000-14th Street, N.W., Suite 420, Washington, D.C., 20009 or telephone
at (202) 671-0547.
[Table edited to relevant entries]
LOBBYIST ID
REGISTRANT NAME
PERM ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
|
LOBBYIST NAME
|
COMPENSATING REGISTRANT
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
NATURE OF LOBBYING
|
REGISTRANT DATE
JAN DATE
JULY DATE
TERM DATE
|
LB30001109
Greenstein, DeLorme & Luchs, P.C.
1620 L Street, N.W. Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036-56
|
Abraham J. Greenstein
Vincent Mark J. Policy
Richard W. Luchs
|
Washington DC Association of Realtors
1400 Eye Street, N. W., #400
Washington, DC 20005
Legislation: real estate, housing etc.
|
1/13/2003
1/13/2003
8/4/2003
|
LB3001038
Apartment and Office Building Assoc.
1050 17th Street, N.W. #300
Washington, DC 20036
|
W. Shaun Parr
Greenstein, DeLorme & Luchs, PC
Margaret O. Jeffers
|
Apartment and Office Building Assoc.
1050 17th Street, N.W. #300
Washington, , DC 20036
Matters regarding housing/taxes
|
1/10/2003
1/10/2003
7/11/2003
|
Back to top of page
Council of the District of Columbia
Committee on Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Witness List
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
REVISED
COUNCILMEMBER SHARON AMBROSE, CHAIRPERSON
COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC HEARING ON BILL 15-133, THE "RENTAL HOUSING CONVERSION AND SALE ACT OF 1982
AMENDMENT ACT OF 2003"
Thursday, October 9, 2003 - 10:00 am
Room 412
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Panel:
Steve Skalet, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
Rick Eisen,
Eisen & Rome
Aaron O'Toole, Klein & Horning - Harrison Institute
Mark Looney, Legislative Coordinator, TENAC
Panel:
Benoit Brookins
David Conn and Betty Sellers, TAN
Rosemarie Flynn, Grey Panthers of Metro Washington DC
Panel:
Thurmond Walker, President, Change All Souls
Development Corporation
Ann Rollins
Janet Brown, Washington Regional Network of Liveable
Communities
WISH Panel:
Melba Mosley
Dorothy Scott
Carne Doles
Capitol Park Tenants Association Panel:
Duane Smith, President, Capitol Park Tenant's
Association
Kevin Fitzgerald, Treasurer, Capitol Park Tenant's
Association
Andrew J. Critchfield, Secretary, New Capitol Park Twin
Towers Tenants Association
AOBA Panel:
W. Christopher Smith, President and CEO, William C.
Smith & Co.
G. Thomas Borger, President, Borger Management
Vincent Mark Policy, Esq., Greenstein DeLorme &
Luchs, P.C.
W. Shaun Pharr, Esq., AOBA Vice President, Government
Affairs - District of Columbia
D.C. Building Industry Association Panel:
Jeffrey H. Gelman, Chair, Housing Committee, DCBIA
Michael D. Huke, CIH Properties
John Wall, Mid-City Financial Corporation
WDCAR:
W. David Bevirt, Cassidy & Pinkard, President,
GWDCAR
CONTINUATION OF HEARING
Friday, October 10, 2003 - Room
412, 10:00 am
Panel:
Father Kevin Thompson, Sacred Heart WIN
Berta Hernandez, Sacred Heart WIN
Dominga McFadden, St. Matthews WIN
Panel:
Leroy Hubbard, Chairman, Metropolitan Washington
Planning & Housing Association
Pamela Jones, New Columbia
Community Land Trust
Karen Robinson
Julia Rota
Tenants Associations:
Joan Ellis Tillman, President, Rittenhouse Tenants
Association
Letisha Cormbrick, President, York Apartments Tenants
Association
Barry Weise, President, 1816 Kalorama Road Tenant's
Association
Campbell Johnson, Dorchester Tenant's Association
Panel:
Nina Dastur, Center for Community Change
Raul Rodriguez, Central American Resource Center
Anita
Ballentine, Housing Counseling Services
Manna, Inc.
Mario Cristaldo, Manna, Inc.
Martha Davis, Manna CDC
Panel:
Olivia Klaben
Karen Bower, Supervising Attorney, DC Law Students
Kenneth Rothchild, DC Coalition for Rent Control
Norman Batt, Tenants
Task Force for Rent Control
Coalition for Nonprofit Housing & Economic
Development:
Robert Pohlman, Coalition for Nonprofit Housing &
Economic Development
Tania Jackson, Coalition for Nonprofit Housing
& Economic Development
Panel:
Lester Cuffie, DC Coalition for Housing Justice Inc.
Mike Dinkin, University Legal Services
Pamela Jones, New Columbia Community Land Trust
Frances
Gemmil, President League of Women Voters
Panel:
Sheila Minor
Joan Hopkins
Victor H. Gonzalez
Antonia Fasanelli, Washington Legal Clinic for the
Homeless
D.C. Executive Agencies:
Office of Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
Development
David Clark, Director, Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs
Milton Bailey, Director, D.C. Housing Finance
Agency
D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue
Malcolm, Mary Lee, “When Is a Sale Not a Sale? Tenants Fight DCRA
Interpretation of Law,” The Common Denominator, November 3,
2003, http://www.thecommondenominator.com/110303_news1.html.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY MAYOR FOR PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, November 6, 2003 |
CONTACT:
Chris
Bender, (202) 727-4707
chris.bender@dc.gov |
MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS DESIGNATES
HINES/SMITH/GEORGETOWN TO TRANSFORM THE FORMER CONVENTION CENTER TEAM WILL CREATE DYNAMIC, URBAN SETTTNG; MAYOR CITES BENEFITS TO
DISTRICT
(Washington, D.C.) - Mayor Anthony Williams today
designated the team of Hines/Smith/Georgetown to redeveloper the
former Washington Convention Center at 900 9" St., NW.
"Development of the old Washington Convention
Center is a tremendous opportunity to build a dynamic new identity for
downtown's East End, while creating jobs for our citizens, revenue for
the District and boosting local businesses," Mayor Williams said.
"We will create a vibrant urban neighborhood with housing for all
income levels, as well as outdoor cafes, retail outlets and cultural
attractions."
The site at Eye and 10th Sts. in downtown's East End
will be transformed into a spectacular urban landmark with housing,
retail shops and parks. There are also plans for cultural and civic
attractions, which may include a library, museum or performing arts
center and would add to the infusion of pedestrian activity.
The development team consists of Hines Interests
Limited Partnership, one of the world's largest privately held mixed
use development firms with over 700 projects and over $13 billion in
real estate developments; Archstone - Smith Residential, one of the
nation's leading developers of urban apartments; and Georgetown
Development Corp., a renown developer of commercial and civic real
estate, specializing in creating "Main Street" retail
experiences. Sir Norman Foster, one the world's most highly touted
architects, is also a key part of the development team. The team also
includes Bundy Development Corporation and Neighborhood Development
Corporation, which are minority owned firms. These two companies are
certified as Local, Small, Disadvantaged, Business, Enterprises (LSBDE)
and are equity partners on the team.
"In July 2002, the City Council approved our
vision for creating this new destination downtown," Mayor
Williams said. "After nearly 100 hours of meetings, negotiations
and due diligence review, we are designating Hines/Smith/Georgetown as
the development team that shares our vision for creating this new
icon, and at the same time provides the best financial return for the
District."
Further, Mayor Williams said the project's value
extends far beyond the substantial revenue to the District. "We
have done more than designate a developer today; we have established a
partnership," he said. "This project defines public service
at its best. We are strategically deploying our public resources to
create vast benefits for our citizens. Today, with this designation,
we have created a public-private partnership that will make Washington
a better city, and improve the quality of life for our citizens."
William B. Alsup, III, senior vice president for Hines
Interests, said the development team is committed to bringing
Washington a new monument. "This is a unique opportunity to
create an urban neighborhood that will be a signature icon for one of
the greatest cities in the world," Mr. Alsup said. "We look
forward to working with District officials, community leaders, local
businesses and civic organizations to get their input in how we can
ensure that this project benefits everyone."
From a room in the old Washington Convention Center,
where the announcement ceremony was held, Mayor Williams talked about
the project's vast impact. "As we look out over the site this
morning, think about the lives that will be impacted by this
project," he said. "The unemployed, young father who will
get a construction job; the small business that will see their shop
flourish; the family that will make a weekend trip to the library,
museum or performing arts center; the tourist who will enjoy the new
restaurant."
These are among the people who will benefit, Mayor
Williams said, but there will also be many, many more.
"We have set the District on a course to create
economic growth for local businesses, and create construction and
permanent jobs for our residents," Mayor Williams said.
"This is truly a win-win scenario, one that will enrich the lives
of millions of people for generations to come."
Developer Selection Process for the Former Convention Center Site
Background: In the spring of 2000, Mayor Williams appointed a task
force to discuss future uses for the former Convention Center Site,
which recommended an 18-hour destination district with new
residential, retail, open space, commercial and civic uses. The
Administration proposed a Request for Proposals and in July
unanimously passed the RFP.
Evaluation Process: On September 9, 2002, the Administration released the
RFP and on December 9, seven development teams responded. The
Administration, with its real estate and design advisors, conducted
three-house interviews with each of the development teams, including
presentation of their proposals and question and answers from the
District. Based on review and the interviews, scoring was completed
and the list was narrowed to four development teams: Forest
City/Jarvis, Hines/Smith/Georgetown, Related Companies and Civic
Development.
As part of its due diligence efforts on the remaining
developers, the Administration requested additional information. After
reviewing the submissions, the Administration conducted in-depth
interviews with each of the short-listed development teams. In
addition, several staff members and consultants went on site visits to
projects recommended by the development teams. Staff consultants
followed up on the additional information and tours with a series of
telephone interviews held over several days. Based on this additional
information, the proposals were scored again and the list was narrowed
to the Forest City/Jarvis team and the Hines/Smith/Georgetown team.
To continue the due diligence, staff organized two
development charettes with each of the remaining teams. The charettes
focused on design, planning economics and finance. The District
requested that each of the teams submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to
the District outlining several critical planning, design and economic
issues. The LOI allowed the Administration to compare the development
teams' compensation methodologies and levels of risk tolerance.
Based on the original proposals and all of the
subsequent due diligence submissions, these proposals were scored and
the recommendation was submitted to the Deputy Mayor. The Deputy Mayor
submitted the recommendation to the Mayor. Based on this
recommendation, the Mayor made a selection of the final developer.
Next Steps: Now that a development team has been selected, the
District will negotiate an exclusive rights agreement (ERA) with the
developer. The ERA will outline the respective rights of the District
and the developer, as well as requirements and conditions for
proceeding with the development. The ERA will be negotiated in the
first quarter of 2004. Once completed, the ERA will be submitted to
the Council for review.
The Hines Smith Georgetown Team Profile
Principal Members
Hines ( Smith Georgetown is a collaboration among
national leaders in the field with over $24 billion in real estate
owned, developed and managed between the principal partners. Hines has
demonstrated international and national experience in managing
public/private partnerships with retail, office and residential
components. Archstone-Smith has substantial expertise in developing
large scale residential and retail complexes. Both core team members
have substantial real estate portfolios and demonstrated history in
the District of Columbia. The team has extensive urban place making
experience both abroad and domestically. The teams have formed a joint
venture to serve as the Master Developer for the development of the
former convention center site. The Hines Smith Georgetown team has
evidenced a strong commitment to working with the District as a full
partner.
Hines Interests Limited Partnership:
among the largest
privately held mixed-use real estate development firms, 700
projects, have developed over $13 billion in real estate assets. Hines
has developed signature projects in the District with great architects
including Columbia Square, Franklin Square, Postal Square and 600
Thirteenth Street.
Archstone-Smith:
is a leading publicly traded developer
of urban apartments, with over 93,000 units completed nationally, and market
cap in excess of $9.9 billion. Smith has been developing apartment buildings in the
Washington area for over five decades and has developed and acquired
over 14,000 units in the Metro area since its inception.
The Georgetown Company:
owner/developer of commercial
space: Main Street retail experience, development manager for
cultural institutions and City governments.
The Bundy Development Corporation:
local, privately
held full service real estate firm specializing in developing
high quality condominiums in the District of Columbia; LSDBE equity
partner.
The Neighborhood Development Company:
specializes in residential infill projects in emerging urban
neighborhoods with a focus on the revitalization of Washington, D.C.;
LSDBE equity partner.
The Hines Smith Georgetown Team Profile
Professional Associates
Foster and Partners
Lead master planners and architecture design.
Martha Schwartz, Inc.
Landscape and urban planning.
RTKL Associates
Local architectural firm for building design
collaboration and production with Foster and Partners.
Shalom Baranes Associates
Local architectural firm for building design
collaboration and production with Foster and Partners.
Harry Robinson, Jerold Kayden
Urban design collaboration.
Williams Jackson Ewing, Inc.
Retail leasing and merchandising expertise.
L.S. Caldwell & Associates
LSDBE program services and compliance.
The Mayhood Company
Residential condominium market analysis and consulting
expertise.
Venable LLP
Land use zoning counsel.
Latham Watkins
Transactional counsel.
Arent Fox
Public financing counsel.
Greenstein DeLorme
Residential for-sale counsel.
“Taking Note. . . ,” The Common Denominator, November 17,
2003, http://www.thecommondenominator.com/032403_taking.html.
About AOBA, Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan
Washington, http://www.aoba-metro.org/about.asp
The AOBA Advantage, Apartment and Office Building Association of
Metropolitan Washington, http://www.aoba-metro.org/about.asp
About AOBA Alliance, Inc., AOBA Alliance, Inc., http://www.aobaalliance.com/about.htm
Mission Statement, AOBA Alliance, Inc., http://www.aobaalliance.com/mission.htm
2001 Board of Directors, AOBA Alliance, Inc., http://www.aobaalliance.com/board.htm
Vincent Mark J. Policy, AOBA Alliance, Inc., http://www.aobaalliance.com/vincentm.htm
Project Overview, Horning Brothers, http://www.horningbrothers.com/tivoli/overview.htm
Development Team, Horning Brothers, http://www.horningbrothers.com/tivoli/team.htm
About DCBIA, District of Columbia Building Industry Association, http://www.dcbia.org/about.shtm
Counsel, District of Columbia Building Industry Association, http://www.dcbia.org/about/board/counsel.shtm
Home Page, Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C., http://www.gdllaw.com/index.htm
Firm Overview, Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C., http://www.gdllaw.com/index_files/page0001.htm
Practice Areas, D.C. Real Property Tax Liens & Collection,
Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C., http://ww.gdllaw.com/index_files/page0019.htm
Practice Areas, D.C. Real Property Tax Assessment Appeals, Greenstein
DeLorme & Luchs, P.C., http://www.gdllaw.com/index_files/page0022.htm
Practice Areas, Land Use, Planning, Zoning & Historic
Preservation & Municipal Affairs, Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs,
P.C., http://www.gdllaw.com/index_files/pages0024.htm
Practice Areas, Trade Organizations & Legislative Lobbying,
Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C., http://www.gdllaw.com/index_files/page0023.htm
Vincent M. Policy, Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C., http://www.gdllaw.com/index_files/page0044.htm
and http://www.gdllaw.com/index_files/page0051.
Back to top of page
District of Columbia:
Office of Campaign and Finance:
Interpretative Opinions
Opinion 00-06
October 2, 2000
Mr. Adrian Fenty
Committee To Elect Adrian Fenty
Ward 4 Council Member
7348 Georgia Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20012
Dear Mr. Fenty:
This responds to your request by letter dated September
27, 2000, for an interpretative opinion. You query as to whether you may
accept, as the Democratic Nominee to the Council of the District of
Columbia from Ward 4, two (2) tickets to a Washington Redskins football
game, transportation to and from the game, and food and beverages while
in attendance, from Washington Gas.
The District of Columbia Campaign Finance Reform and
Conflict of Interest Act (the Campaign Finance Act), 88 Stat. 447, Pub.
L. 93-376 (August 14, 1974), as codified in DC Code, Sections 1-1401 et
seq. (1999 Repl. Vol.), governs the disclosure of gifts by public
officials, and under certain circumstances prohibits the acceptance of
gifts. For your information, Section 1803.2 of the DC Personnel
Regulations also addresses the acceptance of gifts by District
Government employees, but does not include candidates for office.
First, DC Code Section 1-1462(a)(5) requires the
disclosure of all gifts received in an aggregate value of $100 during a
calendar year from any business doing business with the District
Government. As you are aware, pursuant to DC Code Section 1-1462(a), a
candidate for nomination for election, or election, to public office,
who at the time of candidacy, does not occupy such office, must file a
financial disclosure statement with the Office of Campaign Finance
within one month after becoming a candidate for office. Candidates for
Member of an Advisory Neighborhood Commission are excluded from this
requirement. Further, information disclosed under the Financial
Disclosure statute must be modified within thirty (30) days of any
changes.
Second, DC Code Section 1-1461( c), prohibits any person
from offering or giving, and a public official or a member of a public
official's household from soliciting or receiving "anything of
value... based on any understanding that such public official's official
actions or judgment or vote would be influenced thereby, or where it
could reasonably be inferred that the thing of value would influence the
public official in the discharge of his or her duties, or as a reward,
except for political contributions publicly reported pursuant to Section
1-1416 and transactions made in the ordinary course of business of the
person offering or giving the thing of value". The term
"public official" as used in this section means any person
required to file a financial disclosure statement under DC Code Section
1-1462. Hence, candidates for office must adhere to the prohibitions set
forth in the Conflict of Interest Statute.
Third, DC Code, Sections 1-1456(a) and (b) prohibit any
registered lobbyist or anyone acting on behalf of a lobbyist from
offering or giving to an official in the legislative or executive
branch, or a member of their staff, and the latter from soliciting or
receiving, a gift that exceeds $100 in value in the aggregate in any
calendar year. The term "an official in the legislative
branch" for purposes of the lobbying statute includes "any
candidate for Chairman or member of the Council in a primary, special,
or general election..." Washington Gas Company registered as a
lobbyist with the Office of Campaign Finance on May 10, 2000.
Based on the foregoing, as a candidate, you must disclose
all gifts where it can be reasonably be determined that such gifts are
valued at $100 or more, or in the aggregate, when received from any
business doing business with the District Government. Further, the
receipt of gifts where given by registered lobbyists in the District and
exceeding $100 in value, or to influence action, or where it can be
inferred that the thing of value would influence the public official in
the discharge of his or her duties, is prohibited.
Back to top of page
1. Although Plaintiff maintains in "Plaintiff's
Responses to Defendants' Requests for Production of Documents" that
some documents were attached to the complaint, no documents were
attached to the Complaint, and no documents have been produced by
Plaintiff in this litigation.
|
