Monday, November 2, 2009

Four years ago: A contracts scandal and a similiar cast of characters

In 2005, the District of Columbia government was rocked by a procurement scandal. The Washington Post ran a series outlining vast abuses of the District's contracting processes. The Post found the city had spent over $425 million in 2004 through unauthorized backdoor deals and improper no-bid contracts.

The specifics of the 2005 scandal were a bit different than the current Parks and Recreation spending hubbub. However, there are a few disturbing parallels. On Friday, the Fenty administration sent City Administrator Neil Albert and District CFO Natwar Gandhi to testify before the Council. The Council also heard from some of the contractors involved. The picture that was painted was not a pretty one. The Fenty administration essentially relied on arguing that the ends justified the means. The claim is that things got done more efficiently through bypassing the Council and the normal DPR procurement process and handing money to preferred groups without transparency.

Four years ago, Gandhi was District CFO and was making similar arguments. Gandhi told the Washington Post that if he did everything by the book, a lot of work would not get done. The self-described bean counter said "I will be damned if a child is without textbooks or an AIDS patient is without medicine just because some bureaucrat did not file the paperwork right."

In 2005, the District's financial situation was vastly different. Overspending was often ignored, as the city ran record surpluses. Agencies could offer no-contract payments to preferred vendors without drawing scrutiny, and the use of no-bid contracts had proliferated. Back then, as now, lack of competition and transparency resulted in waste. It also resulted in political strife.

Also just like now, the scandal in 2005 arrived as an election year approached. The big players in the 2006 mayoral election all spoke of their outrage, and demanded investigations. Council Chairperson Linda Cropp (D), Kwame Brown (D-At Large), David Catania (I-At Large) and Vincent Orange (D-Ward 5) all promised to hold hearings and get to the bottom of the allegations. Gandhi promised more transparency and better methods of tracking funding. The Williams administration assured the public, and the Council that the problems would be resolved, and were not indicative of any ongoing trouble.

In 2009, we again have a procurement mess. The Fenty administration is claiming that they had to get creative with spending in order to get things done. They claim that DPR could not get the work done efficiently enough, so they went through DCHA. We'll ignore for now the fact that DPR is under the purview of the Mayor, and thus any problems there are also Fenty's responsibility. The D.C. Council is again outraged, holding hearings and demanding investigation and oversight. And again we have Natwar Gandhi overseeing the whole mess.

So what did then-Councilmember Adrian Fenty (D-Ward 4) have to say about the contracts scandal in 2005? He called the regulatory violations "completely intolerable," and said "the people involved need to be fired."

Photo of Anthony Williams by Bebeto Matthews/Associated Press

by Dave Stroup, filed under City Hall at 7:00AM   1 

---

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Parks and Recreation contracts bypassed Council, went to friends of Fenty

Last Friday, District Attorney General Peter Nickles made an unexpected statement. He said that the DC Housing Authority must send any contracts over $1 million to the D.C. Council for approval. This came on the heels of the news that Mayor Fenty had directed a dozen parks and recreation contracts, totaling $82 million, to DCHA. The Housing Authority then awarded these contracts to firms with connections to Fenty.

It was surprising to hear Nickles purposefully make a statement that was not in the best political interest of Fenty. Previously, Nickles had fallen into the role of de facto spokesman for the Fenty administration, though he often puts his foot in his own mouth. The initial speculation was that Nickles and Fenty were trying to pin the blame on DCHA, which is technically an independent agency. Recall that just last month, DCHA executive director Michael Kelly resigned his post. Rumor had it that Kelly felt the heat from Fenty, and that the DCHA board had been stacked with Fenty allies. A search is underway for Kelly's replacement, but odds are the spot will go to someone in the Fenty administration.

The contracts in question were for the construction of ball fields, parks, and recreation centers. Banneker Ventures, owned by Omar Karim was named the construction manager for all of the projects. Karim is a former fraternity brother of Mayor Fenty. RBK Landscaping and Construction was also among the firms awarded contracts. RBK is owned by Fenty's friend Keith Lomax. You might remember that name from earlier this year, Fenty was in hot water for allowing Lomax to drive his city-owned SUV.

The revelation that $82 million in parks and recreation contracts bypassed Council approval, along with the Ximena Hartsock saga proved to be a political tipping point. Since more than one Councilmember may be considering candidacy for mayor, it's no surprise the battle lines are being drawn. When Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) accused the Fenty administration of acting lawlessly, it's safe to assume she was talking about more than just the Harstock employment extension.

Coming back to his senses, or at least being reigned in by Fenty, Nickles began backpedaling. He changed his tune, and his legal opinion, stating that his comments on Friday were not meant to be applied retroactively. While it was technically against the law for these contracts to bypass the Council, his decision would only apply to future contracts.

The Council is now mulling their options, even contemplating a long-threatened lawsuit against the administration. A group of Councilmembers will be holding a meeting this Friday to discuss the matter, and have asked that the City Administrator Neil Albert and Chief Financial Officer Natwar Ghandi appear to discuss the procurement process, and how contracts were funneled through DCHA.

There aren't many good options on the table here, though the whole thing could prove to be a big mess for Fenty. It depends on how far the Council is willing to take this, and if the matter ends up in court. One possibility is that the contracts be rendered void, because they were drawn up in violation of the law. The other option is for the Council to approve the contracts retroactively. It seems unlikely that the Council would do so.

What will happen? Well, there are a lot of variables at play here. The Council is also pondering what to do about Ximena Hartsock. Council Chair Vincent Gray (D) held a closed-door meeting with other Councilmembers to discuss the matter. The outcome was a decision to send an "envoy" of sorts to Fenty to discuss the matter. Four Councilmembers, two in favor of Hartsock and two opposed, will meet with Fenty this week.

If Fenty and Nickles play hardball on the Hartsock matter, it's easy to see the contracts battle getting as drawn-out as humanly possible. In any event, the whole matter of Fenty cronies getting under-the-table contracts stinks. If Fenty is to face a serious opponent next year, this will be an issue. If that opponent currently serves on the Council, he will have to make a move soon.

It's completely possible that Fenty will compromise regarding Hartsock (perhaps naming a successor to take office very quickly), in exchange for the Council's retroactive approval of the the DCHA contracts. If this does happen, and there is no vocal protest, then I would not expect to see anyone on the Council run for mayor.

by Dave Stroup, filed under City Hall at 8:00AM   1 

---

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Six years later, the legacy of Walter E. Washington remains unmatched

Walter E. Washington, the first elected mayor of the District under home rule, died six years ago today. I wrote this piece following Washington's death in 2003, and given the perpetual political scandals that persist, I wanted to share it again. While the piece references then-Mayor Anthony Williams, in most cases the same can be said for Mayor Fenty.

Original column follows

J. Edgar Hoover was known as a man who did not take no for an answer. As a result, not many politicians had the courage to stand up to him. One D.C. politician did, however-Walter E. Washington. Washington, who died Monday, was the first elected mayor of the District and the first African-American to lead a major U.S. city. He leaves behind a legacy of integrity and respect and will be remembered as an example of what political leaders should be, although this city has not seen a leader of his caliber since.

In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Washington as mayor-commissioner of the District in 1974, making him the first African-American to lead a major U.S. city. When Congress approved home rule for the District, Washington became the city's first elected mayor.

Washington knew his politics. He was a man who could get things done for his city and he wasn't afraid to stand up for what he believed was right. During riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., then-FBI chief Hoover wanted Washington to order the shooting of looters. Washington refused, and walked out on Hoover.

Washington's legacy has been unmatched in the 25 years since he left office. The three mayors who have followed have been unremarkable, and many of the problems that troubled the city at the end of Washington's term remain.

Marion Barry, who defeated Washington in 1978, became dubbed "mayor for life." But he was too slick. Employing racial politics whenever possible and becoming embroiled in scandals which made the District the laughingstock of the nation, Barry was quite a contrast from the man who talked tough with J. Edgar Hoover, and who demanded respect from Congress and the president.

Anthony Williams, the current mayor, also falls short of the bar set by Washington. Yet another mayor plagued by scandal, Williams has failed to address many key issues. Williams refuses to discuss race in a city that is 70 percent black. While Washington was a uniting figure on the issue of race, Williams simply stays silent--perhaps an improvement from Barry, who discussed racial issues on a daily basis--but it is not an appropriate compromise.

Many District politicos and columnists believe that the continued cause for expanded home rule in the District died with Washington. "The era of home rule ended today with the passing of Walter Washington," remarked Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city's non-voting member of Congress, on Monday. While this point is debatable, it is clear that Washington was one of the major forces behind the home rule movement. Even in the years following his tenure as mayor, he continued to work behind-the-scenes to support causes he felt were important to the District.

Walter E. Washington loved his city and worked hard to accomplish what he felt was needed. Perhaps most of all, he was a man who commanded respect. He knew how to play politics, but he didn't get his hands dirty. It is unfortunate that his legacy of esteem remains an exception in D.C. politics, and not the rule.

First published October 30, 2003

by Dave Stroup, filed under City Hall at 9:00AM   0 

---

The confusing controversies involving Parks and Recreation

If you don't follow District politics closely, you might not be aware of an unfolding feud between Mayor Fenty and the D.C. Council. Animosity between the two branches of city government has been growing for some time, but has recently erupted over issues involving parks and recreation. The first issue was the Council's rejection of Ximena Hartsock as Director of the District Department of Parks and Recreation. The second issue is $82 million in Parks and Recreation contracts that went unapproved by the Council. For those who have been out of the loop, here's a summary of the whole Hartsock controversy. Tomorrow I'll discuss the contracts question.

To understand what's happening, let us rewind back to April of this year when Ximena Hartsock took over as Acting Director of DPR. Hartsock replaced Clark Ray, who had worked for President Clinton and D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams. Ray was confirmed 13-0 by the Council to serve as DPR Director. Ray's firing was unexpected, but came amid a controversy surrounding Fenty and his children. In February, the DPR Athletics Director was fired 10 days after he informed Ray of complaints about Fenty's sons. Michael Williams expressed concern that Fenty's children were playing in the wrong youth basketball league. Fenty's twin sons were enrolled in the Pee Wee league, for children aged 6-8. The boys turned 9 in March, and as such were supposed to be in Pony league. Williams believed Fenty's sons received special treatment in being allowed to remain in Pee Wee. Williams was fired citing budget concerns. In April, Williams sued the District for $5 million citing wrongful termination. Fenty and Ray were named in the lawsuit. A few weeks later, Ray was fired. It's unclear the specific circumstances around Ray's departure, but presently Ray is running for a D.C. at-large Council seat.



Interim DPR Director Ximena Hartsock

Hartsock had previously served as principal of Ross Elementary, as well as deputy chief of Technology and Learning with the D.C. Schools. In that role. Hartsock oversaw summer school, afternoon and weekend programs. Fenty said he wanted someone in DPR with an emphasis on programming. The mayor did not interview any other candidates for the position.

The Council's vote on Hartsock is increasingly looking like a referendum on Fenty's administration. During the Council hearings prior to the vote, things turned a bit nasty. Councilmember Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) asserted that Hartsock could not be an effective DPR Director because she couldn't understand the needs of minorities in the District, and as a woman she couldn't understand sports. When the Council voted 7-5 to reject Hartsock, the official reasons ranged from flouting of the law to Hartsock's lack of qualifications. The main controversy surrounded Fenty's privatization of childcare services, which resulted in 160 layoffs. The Council had repeatedly passed legislation to block the layoffs, which they said Hartsock ignored. It came down to a matter of Fenty versus the Council, and Hartsock was caught in the middle. The Washington Post published an editorial rebuking the Council's treatment of Hartsock during the hearings, but it was not enough to sway the vote. It would later come out that D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee advocated on behalf of Hartsock to the Post's editorial board.

In the wake of Hartsock's rejection, District AG Peter Nickles rebuked the Council for an "outrageous" vote. He urged the Latino community to consider Hartsock's treatment. It should be noted that Hartsock is Chilean-born and not a U.S. citizen. The vote also marked the first time in memory that the Council rejected a mayoral appointment. It was clearly a rebuke of Fenty.

Presently, Hartsock is still in charge at DPR. Fenty has changed her official title from Acting Director to Interim Director. The title change gives Hartsock another 180 days in her position, though after that her tenure is finished. In response to this title change, yet another controversy has erupted. Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) remarked the whole affair resembled "a lawless administration." AG Peter Nickles remarked that Cheh had "no idea what she's talking about," characterizing her comments as "stupid" and referring to her as "an angry woman."

In response to this, Councilmember Kwame Brown (D-At Large) demanded an apology from Nickles for his remarks. Brown made no such demand from his colleague Marion Barry for the sexist and racist remarks directed at Hartsock.

This has devolved into quite a mess with no one holding any sort of moral high ground. Members of the Council treated Hartsock with a lack of respect, and now the Council is feeling a backlash. Cheh certainly didn't deserve the sexist comments from Nickles, but is anyone surprised? This is D.C. politics and people play dirty. It's not an excuse, but let's not be shocked about any of this.

The real question is what's driving all of this? Does the $82 million in improper Parks and Recreation contracts have anything to do with this? Why is the Council deciding to stand it's ground now, and about DPR? And finally, how will all of this play into the 2010 elections? It's going to be an exciting (and also likely, depressing) ride into next year.
by Dave Stroup, filed under City Hall at 9:00AM   0 

---

Monday, October 19, 2009

The epidemic of ineffective government

On Sunday, the Washington Post published a heartbreaking piece looking at the District's HIV and AIDS support organizations. Debbie Cenziper's investigative reporting is damning to the District government, especially the city's HIV/AIDS Administration.

Make no mistake, this is a difficult article to get through. It tells a complex story that includes ghost payrolling, lack of oversight, inappropriate grant awards, and more. The 5,100+ word piece gets to the heart of why AIDS truly is DC's Katrina.

DC is a city with an AIDS infection rate greater than some West African nations. One out of every fifteen black males in the District of Columbia is HIV positive. We've heard these statistics before. We've also heard of government waste. The Post tells us about Renee Paige, who died on a bench just a mile from the HIV/AIDS Administration.

This tugs at the heartstrings. Again, we read about how the real DC lives. The story tries hard to leap off the page, to call us to action. Yet, I fear it will not. To those who can make a difference, to those who can influence elections, to those who vocally call for change--this story won't gain much traction.

We shake our head at out of control crime in the city, and we shake our head at poverty. We sit and wonder why teens turn to gangs, and to crime. We sit and wonder why the schools are failing as an epidemic of hopelessness and despair sweeps our city. Think about the image of Renee Paige dying on a bench. Think about the hundreds of thousands of dollars sent to ghost employees for non-profits that leave people out in the cold. Think of the government administrators who sent money to unlicensed, ineffective organizations.

This is but one more example of the District government failing it's population. How many more times will we read articles that include the terms "non-profit funding" and "FBI investigation." When will enough be enough? Or rather, will it ever be enough? How many more times will we hear of precious dollars being funneled away from people in need and into the pockets of those who cozy up to power.

2010 is an election year. Mayor Fenty and his iteration of the status quo are up for re-election. Will anyone challenge? Will that challenger offer anything new? Seems very unlikely. We've got an embattled Councilmember in Ward 1, Jim Graham, who will likely easily win re-election. In fact, it's likely he will face no challenger at all.

What kind of scandal do we need to get people to "vote the bums out?" Scores of talented and idealistic people have moved to DC in the past decade. These groups are still a minority in this city, but they could be much more vocal. Will they take up the cause? Will they organize?

It seems doubtful.

by Dave Stroup, filed under City Hall at 7:00AM   1 

---