Home
Bibliography
Calendar
Columns
Dorothy Brizill
Bonnie Cain
Jim Dougherty
Gary Imhoff
Phil Mendelson
Mark David Richards
Sandra Seegars
DCPSWatch
DCWatch
Archives
Council Period 12
Council Period 13
Council Period 14
Election 1998
Election 2000
Election 2002
Elections
Election
2004
Election 2006
Government and People
ANC's
Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
Auditor
Boards and Com
BusRegRefCom
Campaign Finance
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Management Officer
City Council
Congress
Control Board
Corporation Counsel
Courts
DC2000
DC Agenda
Elections and Ethics
Fire Department
FOI Officers
Inspector General
Health
Housing and Community Dev.
Human Services
Legislation
Mayor's Office
Mental Health
Motor Vehicles
Neighborhood Action
National
Capital Revitalization Corp.
Planning and Econ. Dev.
Planning, Office of
Police Department
Property Management
Public Advocate
Public Libraries
Public Schools
Public Service Commission
Public Works
Regional Mobility Panel
Sports and Entertainment Com.
Taxi Commission
Telephone Directory
University of DC
Water and Sewer Administration
Youth Rehabilitation Services
Zoning Commission
Issues in DC Politics
Budget issues
DC Flag
DC General, PBC
Gun issues
Health issues
Housing initiatives
Mayor’s mansion
Public Benefit Corporation
Regional Mobility
Reservation 13
Tax Rev Comm
Term limits repeal
Voting rights, statehood
Williams’s Fundraising Scandals
Links
Organizations
Appleseed Center
Cardozo Shaw Neigh.Assoc.
Committee of 100
Fed of Citizens Assocs
League of Women Voters
Parents United
Shaw Coalition
Photos
Search
What Is DCWatch?
themail
archives
|
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
FRANK D. REEVES MUNICIPAL BUILDING
2000 14TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 420
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009
(202) 671-0550
IN THE MATTER OF
Darlene Taylor
(former) Director
Office of Intergovernmental
Relations
Executive Office of the Mayor |
DATE: October 29, 2002
DOCKET NO.: CF 2002-10 |
ORDER
Statement of the Case
This matter came before the Office of Campaign Finance (hereinafter OCF)
pursuant to a referral from the Office of the Inspector General for the
District of Columbia (hereinafter OIG) in a published report entitled
"Report of Investigation of the Fundraising Activities of the
Executive Office of the Mayor (EOM)" (hereinafter Report) (OIG
Control Number 2001-0188 (S)). In the Report, the Inspector General has
alleged that certain current and former employees engaged in behavior that
violated provisions of the District of Columbia Personnel Manual Standards
Of Conduct.
In the instant case, the Inspector General has alleged that Darlene
Taylor, former Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Relations,
Executive Office of the Mayor (hereinafter respondent), engaged in private
or personal business activity on government time and with the use of
government resources on behalf of events entitled the "Mayoral
Reception for the Congressional Black Caucus" (hereinafter the Black
Caucus Reception) and the "Clarence Vinson Reception"
(hereinafter the Vinson Reception), in violation of §§1800.1, 1803.1(f),
1803.2(a) and 1804.1 (b) of the District Personnel Manual (hereinafter DPM).1
Upon OCF's evaluation of the material amassed in this inquiry, it was
decided that the parameters of this inquiry extended solely to the DPM
employee conduct regulations. There was not any credible evidence that the
respondent committed any violations of the District of Columbia Campaign
Finance Reform and Conflict of Interest Act of 1974 (the Act), as amended,
D.C. Official Code §§1-1101.01 et se . (2001 Edition). Any alleged
violation of the Act by the respondent would be predicated upon the
premises that respondent realized personal gain through official conduct,
engaged in any activity subject to the reporting requirements and
contribution limitations of the Act, or used District government resources
for campaign related activities.2 See D.C.
Official Code §1-1106.01. Additionally, fines may be assessed for any
violation of the Act. OCF's review did not reveal any such activity.
Accordingly, where a violation of the DPM employee conduct regulations
has occurred, OCF is limited with respect to any action which otherwise
may be ordered. Inasmuch as the DPM consists of personnel regulations,
fines cannot be assessed. The Director may only recommend disciplinary
action to the person responsible for enforcing the provisions of the
employee conduct rules against the respondent.
By letter dated June 7, 2002, OCF requested respondent to appear at a
scheduled hearing on June 17, 2002. The purpose of the hearing was to show
cause why the respondent should not be found in violation of the Standards
of Conduct, which the respondent was alleged to have violated in the OIG
Report. On June 13, 2002, by letter, the respondent's counsel, A. Scott
Bolden, Esq., requested an extension for said hearing date, which was
approved. However, in lieu of hearing, on July 30, 2002, OCF submitted a
list of interrogatories to the respondent, to which she replied on August
26, 2002.
Summary of Evidence
The OIG has alleged that the respondent violated the above referenced
provisions of the DPM as a result of her use of government resources to
coordinate non-government events during government time. Consequently, the
OIG has alleged that the respondent engaged in activities which were not
compatible with the full and proper discharge of her responsibilities as a
government employee. The OIG relies exclusively upon its Report, which is
incorporated herein in its entirety.
The respondent avers that she did not violate the DPM's Standards of
Conduct and relies upon her responses to interrogatories submitted to OCF
on August 26, 2002. (hereinafter Responses).
Findings of Facts
Having reviewed the allegations and the record herein, I find:
- Respondent, Darlene Taylor, as a former Director of the Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs, was a public official required to file a
Financial Disclosure Statement (hereinafter FDS) with OCF. Response to
Question Number (hereinafter Q. No.) 3.
- From September 1999 through 2001, the respondent served as Director
of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs under the Deputy Chief of
Staff for External Affairs, a position held by Max Brown (1999-2000),
Mark Jones (2000-2001) and Joy Arnold (2001). Response to Q. No. 3.
- As an EOM employee, the respondent was generally directed by the
Mayor "to plan events on his behalf with the goal of promoting
the District before officials who are concerned with matters related
to the City." Response to Q. No. 22.
- "During the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia, Clarence
A. Vinson, a bantamweight boxer from the District of Columbia, won a
bronze medal for the United States[; and t]o celebrate this
accomplishment by a Washington, D.C. native, EOM hosted a reception
for Vinson on November 29, 2000, at the MCI Center's National Sports
Gallery." Report at 141.
- "On the evening of September 13, 2000, Mayor Anthony A.
Williams [hereinafter the Mayor] hosted a reception [at "BET on
Jazz"] to honor members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)
during their 30`h Annual Legislative Conference, and to acknowledge
Congressional leaders who have supported the revitalization of the
District of Columbia [and] invitees includedseveral United States
Congressmen, District of Columbia Council members, District employees,
and other prominent figures in the community." Report at 130.
- The Vinson Reception was an official District government event,
sponsored by the Mayor, and in which the respondent was not involved
in any regard.
- The Black Caucus Reception was an official District government
event, sponsored by the Mayor.
- Respondent sought funding for the Black Caucus Reception, said
official District government event, from, inter alia, businesses doing
business with the District of Columbia, on behalf of the District of
Columbia government, Report at 131 & 141.
- Respondent performed assignments, e.g., she planned and reviewed the
arrangements with regard only to the Black Caucus Reception, to
implement the event, because the Mayor, Deputy Chief of Staff for
External Affairs Mark Jones, or Omer, as her supervisors, instructed
her to do so.
Conclusions of Law
- Respondent is an employee of the District of Columbia government and
is subject to the enforcement provisions of the employee conduct
regulations at DPM § § 1800 et se.
- The Black Caucus Reception was funded through solicitations by
respondent from businesses doing business in the District of Columbia,
on behalf of the District of Columbia government. Contra In the Matter
of Mark Jones, Docket No. PI 2001-101 (November 7, 2001) (Mark Jones
violated the Standards of Conduct when he solicited funds from
businesses doing business in the District of Columbia, on behalf of
various private, non-profit organizations.)
- Solicitations by District government employees from businesses doing
business in the District of Columbia, on behalf of the District of
Columbia government, is not within the purview of the DPM Standards of
Conduct.3
- The Black Caucus Reception, notwithstanding that it was funded
through solicitations by respondent from businesses doing business in
the District of Columbia, but on behalf of the District of Columbia,
was an official District government event, sponsored by the Mayor, to
promote the District of Columbia.
- Respondent used District of Columbia government time and resources
to plan, organize, and solicit on behalf thereof, only the Black
Caucus Reception; and, respondent did not violate any employee conduct
regulations because the respondent was engaged in government business.
- Respondent used District of Columbia government time and resources
to plan, organize, and solicit on behalf thereof, only the Black
Caucus Reception and respondent did not violate any employee conduct
regulations because the respondent was directed in these tasks by her
supervisors, the Mayor, Omer, and Jones.
- The responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the employee
conduct regulations against the respondent rested with Mayor Anthony
A. Williams (hereinafter the Mayor).
Recommendation
I hereby recommend the Director to dismiss this matter.
Notwithstanding, had the respondent remained an employee, it would have
been my recommendation that the Director advise the Mayor of the District
of Columbia to warn the respondent that it would have been imperative that
she become closely familiar with the provisions and prohibitions of the
employee conduct regulations, and avail herself, if she had not already
done so, of any ethics seminars or workshops scheduled by the District
government.
10/29/02
Date
Kathy S. Williams
General Counsel
ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
IT IS ORDERED that this matter be dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that had the respondent remained an employee, I
would have advised the Mayor to warn the respondent that it was imperative
that she become closely familiar with the provisions and prohibitions of
the employee conduct regulations, and avail herself, if she had not
already done so, of any ethics seminars or workshops scheduled by the
District government.
This Order may be appealed to the Board of Elections and Ethics within
15 days from issuance.
10/29/02
Date
Cecily E. Collier-Montgomery
Director
Parties Served:
Darlene Taylor
1351 Rittenhouse Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20011
John F. Pressley, Jr., Esq.
7600 Georgia Avenue, N.W.
Suite 412
Washington, D.C. 20012
A. Scott Bolden, Esq.
Reed, Smith
1301 K Street, N.W.
East Tower -Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Charles Maddox, Esq.
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
717 14th Street, N.W., 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
SERVICE OF ORDER
This is to certify that I have served a true copy of the foregoing order.
S. Wesley Williams
Investigator
NOTICE
Pursuant to 3 DCMR § 3711.5 (1999), any fine imposed by the Director
shall become effective on the 16th day following the issuance of a
decision and order, if the respondent does not request an appeal of this
matter. If applicable, within 10 days of the effective date of this order,
please make a check or money order payable to the D.C. Treasurer, c/o
Office of Campaign Finance, Suite 420, 2000 14th Street, NW, Washington,
D.C. 20009.
_______________
1. DPM § 1800.1 reads as follows:
Employees of the District government shall at all times maintain a
high level of ethical conduct in connection with the performance of
official duties, and shall refrain from taking, ordering or
participating in any official action which would adversely affect the
confidence of the public in the integrity of the District government.
DPM § 1803.1 (t) reads as follows:
An employee shall avoid action, whether or not specifically
prohibited by this chapter, which might result in, or create the
appearance of the following:
(f) Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the
integrity of government.
DPM § 1803.2(A) reads as follows:
District employees shall not solicit or accept, either directly or
through the intercession of others, any gift, gratuity, favor, loan,
entertainment, or other like thing of value from a person who singularly
or in concert with others:
(a) Has, or is seeking to obtain, contractual business or financial
relations with the D.C. government;
(b) Conducts operations or activities that are subject to regulation
by the D.C. government; or
(c) Has an interest that may be favorably affected by the
performance or non-performance of the employee's official
responsibilities.
DPM § 1804.1(b) reads as follows:
An employee may not engage in any outside employment or other
activity, which is not compatible with the full and proper discharge of
his or her duties and responsibilities as a government employee.
Activities or actions which are not compatible with government
employment include but are not limited to, the following:
(b) Using government time and resources for other than official
business[.]
2. D.C. Law 14-36, "Campaign Finance Amendment Act
of 2001," effective October 13, 2001, prohibits the use of District
government resources for campaign related activities.
3. Whether or not this action violates the
"Anti-Deficiency Act" must be determined by the Office of the
Corporation Counsel or the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Report
at Specific Finding 29. |