Back to Reports and Orders on Mayor’s fundraising summary
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
ORDERStatement of the CaseThis 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 OIG 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 Thomas Tucker, former Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for External Affairs (hereinafter respondent) engaged in private or personal business activity on government time and with the use of government resources on behalf of the Church Association for Community Services (hereinafter CACS), the For The Kids Foundation (FTKF), the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast and the August 2000 Democratic National Convention in violation of § § 1800.1, 1803.1 (e) and (f), 1803.2(A), 1803.10, 1804.1(b), (d), (e) and (i), 1805.2, and 1806.1 of the District Personnel Manual (hereinafter DPM).l 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 seq. (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 August 26, 2002, OCF requested respondent to appear at a scheduled hearing on September 3, 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. Summary of EvidenceThe OIG has alleged that the respondent violated the above referenced provisions of the DPM as a result of his fundraising activities, solicitation of funds for private entities and his failure to deposit solicited funds into an appropriate government account. Consequently, the OIG has alleged that the respondent engaged in activity which was not compatible with the full and proper discharge of his responsibilities as a government employee and that this activity created the appearance of an impropriety. On September 3, 2002, the respondent appeared pro se before the OCF at a scheduled hearing conducted by William O. SanFord, Esq., Senior Staff Attorney. Sonya Brunson-Culp, Financial Reporting Examiner, was also present.Synopsis of ProceedingsThe respondent is a former Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for External Affairs in the Executive Office of the Mayor (hereinafter EOM). He was employed in that position from January through December 2000, when he was terminated. The government of the District of Columbia does not currently employ him. During examination by Mr. SanFord, the respondent testified that he had reviewed the allegations against him in the OIG Report. The respondent stated that he observed employees of the Millennium Washington Capitol Bicentennial Corporation (MWCBC) working out of District government offices but denied any involvement in matters connected to that entity. The respondent further stated that during his employment with the District government, Mark Jones, EOM Deputy Chief of Staff supervised him; and that he also reported to former Chief of Staff, Dr. Abdusalam Omer. Respondent continued that Jones terminated him in December 2000. Respondent testified that, although Jones started FTKF prior to his employment, he was assigned by Jones to incorporate and obtain a tax identification number for the organization. Respondent stated that Jones instructed him to ask Cloria Canty, who was also employed by the government, for permission to use her home address as a mailing address for FTKF. Respondent also conceded that he asked Canty to sign an application for tax exempt status on behalf of FTKF. Respondent further stated that he raised money for the Mayor's 2000 Holiday Party for foster kids, but denied raising the funds on government time. According to the respondent, he was on leave when he was soliciting funds for the Mayor's Holiday Party and a reception for D.C. Olympic Bronze Medallist Clarence Vinson. The respondent further stated that Mayor Williams was clearly aware of the fundraising because the mayor was briefed by Jones daily; Jones, in turn, discussed the briefings with him. Accordingly, the respondent stated that any telephone calls he made or fundraising activity in which he participated were pursuant to specific instructions from Jones. The respondent denied raising or managing funds for the Mayor's 2000 Prayer Breakfast, the Church Association for Community Services (hereinafter CACS) or for travel to the Democratic National Convention (hereinafter DNC) in August 2000. Moreover, the respondent emphatically stated that he was a subordinate who did not initiate any of the activity in question and engaged in a limited degree of fundraising as a result of being instructed to do so by his superiors. Findings of FactHaving reviewed the allegations and the record herein, I find:
Conclusions of Law
RecommendationHad Thomas Tucker remained an employee, it would have been my recommendation that the Director advise his supervisor to take disciplinary action against Thomas Tucker based upon his violation of the Standards of Conduct to include a change in his assigned duties, corrective or adverse action, his disqualification for a particular assignment, pursuant to DPM § 1801.2. It should be noted that prior to the issuance of the Report, the Mayor appointed an EOM Ethics Counselor and scheduled meetings and workshops to inform and clarify each staff member as to the provisions and prohibitions of the Standards of Conduct. Because Thomas Tucker is no longer a District government employee, and, because the Mayor of the District of Columbia has taken steps to definitively and thoroughly inform each EOM staff member as to provisions and prohibitions of the Standards of Conduct, I hereby recommend that the Director advise the Mayor to be always cognizant of this responsibility. 10/29/02Date Kathy S. Williams ORDER OF THE DIRECTORThe circumstances surrounding the instant misconduct involved an employee who believed that his conduct was within the parameters of his job description. But, Thomas Tucker is no longer a District government employee, and, the Mayor has taken appropriate measures, by appointing an EOM Ethics Counselor and conducting extensive workshops, to apprise and re-apprise his staff of the provisions and prohibitions of the Standards of Conduct. Thus, the Mayor has taken appropriate measures to ensure the integrity of government. I advise the Mayor to remain ever vigilant in this regard.This Order may be appealed to the Board of Elections and Ethics within 15 days from issuance. 10/29/02Date Cecily E. Collier-Montgomery Thomas Tucker Inspector General Office of the Inspector General 717 14th Street, N.W., 5th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 SERVICE OF ORDERThis is to certify that I have served a true copy of the foregoing order.S. Wesley Williams NOTICEPursuant 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 14"' Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20009._______________ 1. DPM § 1800.1 reads as follows:DPM § 1803.1 (e) and (f) read as follows: DPM § 1803.2(A) reads as follows: DPM § 1803.10 reads as follows: DPM § § 1804.1(b), (d), (e), and (i) read as follows: Gregory McCarthy (hereinafter McCarthy) is currently EOM Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Legislative Affairs. From January 1999 until August 2001, he was EOM Director of Policy Evaluation. The OIG also alleged that McCarthy violated the above referenced provisions of the DPM as a result of his role as a director for MWCBC. The OCF Director agreed and advised the Mayor, by Order, to admonish McCarthy his prohibitive conduct; and to ensure that McCarthy participates in scheduled meetings and workshops to become closely familiar with the provisions and prohibitions of the DPM Standards of Conduct. DPM § 1805.2 reads as follows:( i ) Engaging in any outside employment, private business activity, or other interest which is in violation of federal or District law. DPM § 1806.1 reads as follows: 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. |
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
