City leaders disappoint on ethics reform

In recent months, D.C.’s government has come under fire for corruption and shady relationships with lobbyists. Now, more than ever, the D.C. City Council needs ethics reform.

Last month, a committee formed by the Council published a report that delivered a sharp rebuke to Mayor Vincent Gray’s administration. It concluded that the administration’s hiring practices reflected “nepotism and cronyism” and violated local and federal law. Furthermore, Sulaimon Brown, a former political opponent of Gray’s, claims he was paid by the Gray campaign to disparage Adrian Fenty in the primaries. Even more reprehensible is the fact that Brown was hired immediately after the mayor’s election to work as an assistant in the Department of Health Care Finance with an exorbitant $110,000 salary. Although he was quickly fired when the scandal broke, the sordid affair is the latest in a long string of corruption scandals for the Council.

Another longstanding problem at City Hall has been council members’ use of lobbyists as legal representatives. Both council members and lobbyists have been coy about whether fair market rates are being charged, an ambiguity that raises even more doubts about the relationships.

Council members have been facing questions about a broad range of issues, from campaign finance to constituent service funds and car payments. As the public continues to lose faith in its elected officials, it’s unfortunate that the Council is just offering more of the same. The plethora of ethics-reform measures that council members have loudly unveiled in the last month seems geared more toward salvaging their public images than actually reforming governance. Rather than working together toward a common proposal that addresses actual problems, council members have been too busy scheduling press conferences to suggest reforms that are, in fact, already law. Now is not the time for useless grandstanding.

Although we can hope that the Council can actually institute meaningful reforms, past experience makes many pessimistic. Terry Lynch, a veteran of an unsuccessful attempt at ethics reform in 1992 and executive director of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations, told the Washington City Paper that hoping for the Council to hold itself accountable is “like telling a tiger don’t eat meat.”

As D.C. faces tremendous challenges across all aspects of government, it’s unfortunate that our elected officials bring such dishonor to their offices and blithely sweep aside ethical concerns unless showing concern wins them elections. It’s no surprise that City Paper’s Alan Suderman mused, “Maybe what D.C. needs isn’t just better laws—it’s better councilmembers.”