When the city’s attorney general, Irvin B. Nathan, testified earlier this week before the D.C. Council on the Comprehensive Ethics Reform Act of 2011, he was made to “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth.” That a legislature, with six of its 13 members currently or previously under investigation, including the chairman, would swear in the District’s top lawyer seemed ludicrous and suggested legislators a tad out of touch with the reality of their own tainted ethics. Nathan may have more credibility on ethics reform than the council at this moment in history.
After all, not one legislator has publicly suggested that Harry Thomas Jr. resign, following disclosure he allegedly diverted $300,000 meant for youth for his personal use. Not one legislator has chastised Michael A. Brown for his cozy relationship with key individuals in the gaming industry even as he persuaded his colleagues to approve Internet gambling in the city.
This absence of outrage from untarnished council members is as disturbing as the alleged unethical and corrupt actions by their colleagues.
“I think there is a need for serious ethics reform in the council and some vigilance in that branch of the government,” Nathan said last week as he announced his unprecedented $1 million civil complaint against Thomas.
Don’t think the ethics reform bill, introduced by Chairman Kwame R. Brown and Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh, is the ticket. That legislation is significantly flawed.
It would create an Office of Government Accountability and an advisory ethics committee. But those entities would be impotent while blurring the lines of authority and lacking sufficient punishment for violators. The bill would establish a ceiling on fines that currently doesn’t exist. And, while it would expand the kinds of information officials are required to disclose, the law would establish that “non-disclosure is justified if disclosure of information violates any law, rule or legally recognized privilege under D.C. law.”
That’s a Mack Truck-size loophole in legislation reportedly designed to close loopholes.
The most glaring problem with the Brown-Cheh proposal is that it doesn’t specifically address the issue that instigated its need: council members’ unethical behaviors.
The issue of ethics reform surfaced following discovery that Marion Barry hadn’t filed his federal or state income tax returns for eight years. Later, he gave a sole-source contract to a paramour. The public demanded the council establish an ethics committee. Then-Chairman Vincent C. Gray promised to provide comprehensive reform, with specified sanctions. That never happened.
The Brown-Cheh bill still doesn’t satisfy the public’s primary concern.
“The council should consider creating its own ethics committee,” Nathan suggested during his testimony. “The most egregious cases should automatically launch a recall [of violators].”
Now, that’s reform with teeth. Unfortunately, the council has shown a penchant for paper tigers.
Jonetta Rose Barras’ column appears on Monday and Wednesday. She can be reached at [email protected].
