Is the D.C. Council committed to an unimpeachable standard of integrity? What’s the power of its institutional mettle? The answers to those questions won’t come simply from its initial approval Monday of the Government Accountability Establishment and Ethics Reform Amendment Act of 2011. The most important testimony will be provided by its reaction to the FBI and Internal Revenue Service raid last week of Harry Thomas Jr.’s home
The raid came months after D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan accused the Ward 5 legislator, in a lengthy and detailed civil lawsuit, with diverting for his personal use $300,000 of taxpayer funds meant for disadvantaged youth. The lawsuit also said Thomas solicited illegally funds from companies doing business with the city, including Horning Brothers, Abdo Development, EYA, Comcast, Unity Health Care, and the Jair Lynch Company. Prohibited by law from prosecuting certain cases, the AG referred the Thomas matter for possible criminal action to U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr.
Thomas has subsequently agreed to repay the full $300,000 through six installments of $50,000 each. But the federal investigation has continued.
After Nathan filed his lawsuit, only three council members — David Catania, Mary Cheh and Tommy Wells — called for Thomas’ resignation. Other elected officials, including Mayor Vincent C. Gray and Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown, acted like ostriches.
Republican and Ward 5 resident Tim Day renewed his call for Thomas to step down. Day challenged Thomas in the 2010 election; it was during that campaign, he accused Thomas of maintaining a “slush fund” and asked then-AG Peter Nickles to investigate.
Last week, Nickles told me “[Thomas] has betrayed the trust of the community and is not fit to hold office.”
I agree.
The current AG has declined to comment about the raid or news that federal officials may have expanded their probe. Sources told me the feds are trying to determine if Thomas diverted other funds from their intended purpose, including helping to finance a 2009 inaugural ball sponsored by a political action committee. “If he did that, he’s definitely going to jail,” said one law enforcement source.
Regardless, Nathan has provided ample evidence of wrongdoing, including Thomas’ violation of the District’s Code of Conduct. It requires employees “maintain a high level of ethical conduct in connection with the performance of official duties” and “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.”
While the council’s ethics reform bill can’t be applied retroactively, there are other remedies at legislators’ disposal. They could deny Thomas membership in any committee. They could strip him of his staff. They also could censure him.
If the council has received the public’s strong unequivocal message about the need for ethics reform and restoring confidence in the government, at the very least, the legislature must do this week what it failed to do last summer: As an institution, it must demand Thomas resign, immediately.
Jonetta Rose Barras’s column appears on Monday and Wednesday. She can be reached at [email protected].
