Fire Peter Nickles
Dear Personnel Department:
So that I don’t bury the lede, let me start by saying that late
last week Attorney General Peter Nickles stepped well over the line, and
did something that requires that he be fired for malfeasance in office
and also possibly disbarred. He said that he would use his power as
Attorney General to retaliate personally, illegitimately, against
Council Chairman Vincent Gray because he was angry that Gray criticized
his negotiation of a settlement agreement with Fenty’s frat cronies at
Banneker Ventures. Here’s how Tim Craig reported his interview with
Nickles in Friday’s Washington Post (http://tinyurl.com/25zvefd):
“He also said he plans to investigate Gray for possible cronyism
because of alleged ties to the winner of the city’s
multimillion-dollar lottery contract. ‘He should have picked on
someone else, because I am not going to stand by and have these
outrageous assertions be made,’ Nickles said of Gray.” Nickles made
it clear that he will use his power as the city’s top law enforcement
official to conduct a personal vendetta against an elected official,
that he will launch a legal investigation punitively because of his
personal pique, and that makes him unfit to remain in his position.
Banneker Ventures’s contracts with the city were highly irregular,
were disapproved by the city council, and are still being investigated
by a joint committee of the city council and by Robert Trout, that joint
committee’s special counsel. In a move obviously made to protect
Banneker and its officials from the consequences of whatever illegal
acts that investigation may disclose, Nickles negotiated a settlement
agreement with Banneker (http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/parks100701.htm)
that not only paid it an additional $550,000 after the contract had been
disapproved, and on top of the “Christmas Eve gift” that the
District paid it without the knowledge or assent of the council, but
also gave Banneker and its officers a complete release from any
liability that may result from that investigation. Nickles denies that
the settlement agreement immunizes Banneker, both in his interview with
Craig and in the letter to councilmembers (http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/parks100709.htm)
in which he refused to appear at the council roundtable that was held
last Friday to investigate the settlement agreement. But Nickles’
misleading denial is completely contradicted by paragraph 7 of the
settlement agreement, which says, “. . . the District hereby remises,
releases and forever discharges Banneker and Regan, each of their
successors and assigns, administrators, executors, and any other person
claiming by, through, or under Banneker or Regan, of and from all
agreements, actions, cases, causes of action, claims, compromises,
controversies, costs, damages, debts, demands, disputes, expenses,
judgments, liabilities, payments, promises, and suits of any nature
whatsoever, including attorneys’ fees, whether or not known, relating
to, arising under, or in connection with Banneker’s or Regan’s
provision, under the Contract, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. . . .” The guarantee
that the council’s investigation will not lead to any legal
consequences for Banneker and its president, Omar Karim, is worth more
to them than the $550,000 Nickles gave them in the agreement.
At the roundtable held on Friday, even though Nickles refused to
appear, representatives of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
discussed how settlement agreements are negotiated. They said that
Nickles, or any city agency or department, had the authority to
negotiate settlements up to a half million dollars, but that any
settlement over a half million dollars had to be signed off on by the
mayor, or the mayor had to explicitly delegate his authority. But
Nickles, both in his letter to the council and his interview with Craig,
denied that the mayor had any knowledge of or involvement in his
negotiations with Banneker, and thereby inadvertently admitted that he
didn’t have the legal authority to negotiate a settlement of the size
that he made. The OCF representatives also revealed that the Chief
Financial Officer had issued an order putting a hold on payments on the
settlement agreement from any agency or department over which he had
authority, but they didn’t inform the councilmembers that in fact an
attempt had already been made by the Attorney General’s office to get
the Department of Parks and Recreation to cut a check to Banneker.
Because of the questionable agreement, and the questionable way that
it was negotiated, City Council Chairman Vince Gray issued a press
release headlined “Attorney General Has Betrayed the Public Trust,”
which said that, “Unfortunately, it’s become increasingly clear that
Peter Nickles not only sees himself as the mayor’s lawyer, but also as
the mayor’s political hatchet man, and enabler of the mayor’s
cronyism. His politicization of the office is inappropriate at best, and
illegal at worst. And by protecting the mayor’s cronies, he has put
the interest of the mayor squarely ahead of the interest of his actual
client. He has betrayed the public trust too many times to be an
effective public advocate. Mayor Fenty should relieve him of his duties
immediately” (http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/parks100708.htm).
It was Gray’s outrage at Nickles’ manipulation of the settlement
process that led to his press release, and it was Gray’s press release
that led to Nickles’ promise to abuse his power and misuse his office
to satisfy his own personal revenge.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Bowser’s Folly, Part 2
Dorothy Brizill, dorothy@dcwatch.com
In the last issue of themail [July 7], I wrote that Ward 4
Councilmember Muriel Bowser failed to give adequate public notice of the
confirmation hearing her Committee on Public Services and Consumer
Affairs held on Wednesday, July 7, on the reappointment of Betty Ann
Kane as Chair of the Public Service Commission. Despite the lack of
public notice and input, Bowser scheduled a meeting of her five-member
committee at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 8, to mark up and approve Kane’s
nomination, so that it could be placed on the council’s legislative
agenda this coming Tuesday.
In a highly unusual act, Kane, the nominee, was the first person to
arrive at the markup. In addition to being upbeat and confident
regarding her reappointment, Kane noted that she had interrupted her
Maine vacation in order to attend the confirmation hearing on Wednesday
and markup on Thursday. She also boasted about the celebratory party her
PSC staff had held for her after the confirmation hearing. However, as
the hours ticked by and the 1:30 p.m. committee meeting had not been
convened, Kane and Bowser’s upbeat demeanor changed dramatically. In
order to vote and conduct any business, Bowser’s committee needed a
quorum of three of the five members. But only two members of the
committee, Bowser and Graham, agreed to attend the markup. The other
three members — Cheh, Barry, and Michael Brown — refused to attend
the meeting, not because of any personal objections to Kane, but because
of widespread objections from citizens and utility rate payers that
Bowser had failed to give citizens adequate notice of the confirmation
hearing on Kane’s nomination, and failed to give them an opportunity
to testify. While Bowser continued to walk the halls of the Wilson
Building throughout the afternoon in search of an additional committee
member, Mary Cheh convened a scheduled 4:00 p.m. Meeting of her
Committee on Government Operations and the Environment with the five
members of her committee (Cheh, Catania, Kwame Brown, Thomas, and Wells)
in attendance. However, shortly after the meeting began, David Catania
indicated he wanted to make a statement. His remarks, which can be seen
at http://octt.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/July2010/07_08_10_GOVOPS.asx,
turned out to be a bitter, mean-spirited, and off-topic rant against
Cheh for not attending Bowser’s meeting and “for refusing to make
herself available to vote on a nominee to the Public Service Commission.”
Catania, acting on Bowser’s behalf, went on to chastise Cheh for “failing
to discharge her committee duties and obligations” as a member of
Bower’s committee. Even after Cheh’s markup meeting was over, the
drama continued. Catania and Kane, both angry and agitated, paced up and
down the corridor outside Cheh’s office for an extended period of
time.
In the end, Bowser wasn’t able to muster a quorum of her committee
on Thursday or Friday. As a result, Kane’s nomination to the PSC will
not be on the Council’s legislative agenda on Tuesday. Under District
law, although her term expired June 30, Kane will be able to continue to
service on the PSC for an additional 180 days. Hopefully, in the fall,
when the council returns from its summer recess, Bowser will decide to
respect citizens with an open, public nomination process.
###############
93,773 Registered Voters Deleted from DC’s
Electoral Roll
Pam Johnson, dcwethepeople@gmail.com
The Washington Post recently reported the District government
revoked 93,773 registered voters of their voting privilege. The article
stated that DC Board of Elections and Ethics (BOEE) removed 93,773
registered voters because they haven’t voted since, at least 2002.
According to a news release from the BOEE, the decision to revoke voting
privileges from registered voters was based on a “comprehensive review
of the voter registration database” and, “none of these voters has
cast a ballot in the District in at least eight years, nor responded to
repeated notices from our office.” Herein lies the paradox of timing.
By its admission of negligence, the BOEE knew its database included
individuals that haven’t voted since 2002, and in some cases, as far
back as 1988. That’s 22 years of maintaining inaccurate records and
not taking proactive measures to correct the problem.
On June 14, three months before the 2010 election, the BOEE reviewed
its database; classified 93,773 registered voters as inactive and, in
one foul swoop, excommunicated them from the electoral roll. Based on
the BOEE’s news release and justification for the purge, one can
conclude that the voter’s registration database needed to be audited,
but the questionable timing is prone to raise doubts about the motive.
Election dates are set in stone! The BOEE and voters know a mayor will
be elected every four years. The BOEE also has an obligation to fulfill
its mission to “assure integrity of the electoral process” and not
obfuscate it. To be knowledgeable of a problem for decades and wait
until three months prior to a mayoral election to implement an untested
solution is indicative of poor planning and can be perceived as
politically motivated and taint the 2010 election. This unmethodical
purge of 93,773 registered voters is bound to have errors and alienate
legitimate, active voters.
In our brief review of BOEE’s list of purged voters, we noticed
several individuals that had reregistered to vote as recently as 2009,
but haven’t actually voted since 2002. They were classified as
inactive and purged from the list of eligible voters. What if these
individuals, that haven’t voted in years, reregistered for the sole
purpose of voting in 2010, and are denied the right to cast their
official ballot on Election Day? In one of the most highly anticipated
mayoral elections since 1974, that has the potential for a historic
voter turnout, the purging of 93,773 registered voters doesn’t augur
well for a climate of trust and confidence in the District’s Board of
Elections and Ethics. You can check the list of purged voters at http://dcboee.org/pdf_files/nr_377.pdf.
If you want to voice your concerns or have your name removed from the
list, please call the Board of Elections and Ethics at 727-2525.
###############
School Crossing Guards Multiplying This Summer
Pat Taylor, ptaylor.dc@verizon.net
What’s going on with school crossing guards? Summer school has
started and school crossing guards are multiplying. The nearby
elementary school in my Capitol Hill neighborhood has more than double
the number of crossing guards for summer school as it had during the
regular school year. A quiet intersection with little traffic close to
my house had no crossing guards during the school year and now has two.
It really needs none. Another, busier intersection had one crossing
guard in the school year and now has three! Why this increase? Is this
part of the Mayor’s Summer Jobs Program? Is this a “make work”
operation? Which DC agency is using taxpayer money to pay these surplus
school crossing guards?
###############
Thinking About Metro Fare Increases
Phil Shapiro, pshapiro@his.com
I was taking the Verizon Metro Red Line into town today when I
started wondering whether there were anything that could be done to
reduce fare increases. Sorry, can’t think of anything myself.
###############
Monitoring the Best Tweets About Interns
Phil Shapiro, pshapiro@his.com
In order to better serve the Washington, DC, community, the Washington
Post is monitoring the most hilarious, amusing, cute or shocking
tweets about internships and interns at http://tinyurl.com/2aj3jkj
###############
The InTowner
July
2010 Issue Now Available
P.L. Wolff, intowner@intowner.com
This is to advise that the PDF of the July 2010 issue (which includes
100 percent of all content, including the popular Scenes from the Past
feature, this month titled “Restaurants Remembered” plus photos and
other images), has now been posted on our web site, http://www.intowner.com,
and may be opened by clicking the front page graphic on the home page.
This month’s lead stories include the following: 1) “Surplus
Property Designation and Disposition Plans Continue to be Controversial;
Council Yet to Act”; 2) “Long-Awaited New Library in Shaw to Open
August 2; New Building Design Hailed”; and 3) “Logan Circle’s
Kingman Boys and Girls Club Faces Concerns for its Future.” The
Selected Street Crimes feature, which is separately posted on the web
site, will be updated later on, at which time we will provide
notification.
The next issue PDF will publish around midnight of August 13 (the
second Friday of the month as usual). For more information, either send
an E-mail to newsroom@intowner.com
or call 234-1717.
###############
Whew — All We Have Is SB 1070
Star Lawrence, jkellaw@aol.com
Schadenfreude! All we have out here in Phoenix is SB 1070 and the
cartels pasting people’s faces on soccer balls and tossing them
around. You have Rhee.
###############
Interesting that Turque would go to Nickles for an opinion on Hatch
Act violations (http://tinyurl.com/2fgldj6),
since it is not enforced by his office but the federal Office of Special
Counsel, http://www.ocs.gov.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
Liz Lerman Dance Exchange Dances Garages, July
16-17
Johanna Weber, jweber@nbm.org
July 16 and 17, 8:00-9:00 p.m., garage/dances. Parking garages
combine form with function. In this specially commissioned performance,
Liz Lerman Dance Exchange brings out the motion and emotion inherent in
an actual parking garage. Free; registration required. This program
takes place at 1711 Florida Avenue, NW. Register for Friday, July 16 at http://go.nbm.org/site/Calendar/40965629?view=Detail&id=109521;
register for Saturday, July 17 at http://go.nbm.org/site/Calendar/40965629?view=Detail&id=109522.
###############
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.