Georgetown students head to the polls for Election Day in less than two weeks. And while those who have switched their registration to D.C. do not have a chance to make much of an impact on the presidential race, their votes could be crucial to determining the success of three major charter amendments that will be on this year’s ballot. While these amendments lay the groundwork for expelling public servants who have betrayed the public trust, their language is vague and unspecific, leaving the door open for potential misapplication and abuse. Students should vote no on Charter Amendments V-VII.
The Charter Amendments VI and VII would make D.C. Councilmembers and the Mayor ineligible to remain in office or ever hold office again if convicted of felonies while in office, respectively. The motivation behind this amendment is clear: the District has been plagued by financial scandals, including the 2012 case of former Councilman Harry Thomas Jr., who used his public position to steal over $350,000 in city funds. These amendments would ensure that corruption is met with the appropriate response: disqualification. Unfortunately, the term “felony” encompasses a wide range of crimes, beyond actions that explicitly violate the public trust.
Only crimes involving grievous breaching of the public trust, such as extortion, acceptance of bribes, or willful misuse of public funds, should result in automatic disqualification from office, especially when that disqualification is permanent. Because they avoid mentioning particular crimes, these amendments give Councilmembers undue power in deciding which crimes should be grounds for dismissal. For example, Councilmembers could oust an unpopular colleague to win political points.
Charter Amendment V is even less specific than VI and VII. The amendment would allow the Council to expel a member on a five-six vote upon demonstrating that Councilmember’s “gross failure to meet the highest standards of conduct.” What the highest standard of conduct is, and what could be deemed a failure, is not explicitly defined.
Councilmembers who use their elected office to commit a crime or receive unearned benefits should absolutely be ejected from the Council. But gross failure to meet the highest standards of conduct could be spun to facilitate a Councilmember’s crusade against a particular type of crime, furthering his or her moral or political agenda.
The residents of the District of Columbia have been tolerant of corrupt officials for too long, but these amendments invest Councilmembers with undue influence over the dismissal process, which should be left to the electorate.
The effort to force law breaking officials out of office is well-meaning, but it must specifically target abuses of the public office. Otherwise, talented and well-meaning officials could be disqualified from serving the District for a crime that does not relate to their public obligations. Students should do what they can to prevent this ambiguity. Vote no on Charter Amendments V-VII.
