On March 28, D.C. Inspector General Charles Maddox released a 514-page report detailing a series of fundraising inproprieties in the office of Mayor Anthony Williams. According to the report, mayoral aides tapped the accounts of local nonprofits for events and programs that were often politically beneficial for Williams and vigorously solicited donations from organizations with a business interest in the District government.
In one instance, Deputy Chief of Staff Mark Jones had Frank Tucker, leader of the Church Association for Community Services, sign over blank checks to be used for mayoral expenses. Jones also instructed donors to make out their checks to CACS, though their contributions were unrelated to the charity. Tucker told Maddox that his group was relying on the Mayor’s support in getting a $14 million federal housing rehabilitation contract and feared that not cooperating might jeopardize the project. Though Williams has repeatedly asserted that he made no specific promises to CACS, as mayor he helped the association win its contract and gave it a leading role in D.C. faith-based initiatives.
Furthermore, in December 2000, contributions meant to fund a Christmas party for foster care children went to other events, such as a holiday reception for Williams’ supporters. The Williams administration leaned on influential citizens such as Virginia Governor Mark Warner to raise $1.9 million for what was supposed to be a year-long millennium celebration, but the effort resulted in only two events and $130,000 in debt.
Though Williams has publicly apologized several times and accepted responsibility for his staff misdeeds, he still claims to have had little knowledge of his top aides’ daily fundraising activities. This sort of extreme naivet? on the Mayor’s part is unacceptable, especially considering his background. Williams served as the District’s chief financial officer under former Mayor Marion Barry and won the mayoral election based more on his reputation as a strong manager than his limited political experience.
If large contributions are coming into his office, he should be examining them. Moreover, given his background, it seems unlikely that he would be ignorant of common sense federal and District regulations. Williams himself convinced city contractor Lockheed Martin IMS to give $29,000 for mayoral receptions and then failed to report the donation, a violation of city gift rules. According to the Post, Williams thought he had done nothing wrong because it was clear to everyone present who sponsored the event and he “thanked [Lockheed] 10 times or more.” Surely Williams knows better than to think a handshake is sufficient documentation of a $29,000 donation.
Perhaps even more disturbing is that this is not the first time Mayor Williams has been criticized for his fundraising ethics?or lack thereof. In June 1999, while campaigning for mayor, he was fined $1,000 for failing to report to the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance that he had accepted $40,000 in consulting fees from two D.C. contractors.
Mayor Williams has made an admirable effort to turn the city around in his first term, and he has in many cases been successful. Despite the Investigator General’s report, the Mayor still remains popular; no one has publicly challenged him in the upcoming mayoral race. Most likely, though, citizens will have a choice this coming November, and voters should remember both what’s good and what’s bad about the Mayor.
