Fenty Intensifies The Head Butting; Renominates Rejected Nominee

Mayor Fenty doesn't get the meaning of "no". He has reappointed his rejected nominee for head of Parks and Recreation, Ximena Hartsock. She must really like Fenty to be willing to take the heat for him or she drinks a lot of Kool-Aide. I can't figure out what she thinks is in it for her.


Feud between D.C. mayor, council intensifies
Board had recently rejected woman as unqualified for job

By Tim Craig and Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 25, 2009

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has escalated a bitter feud with council members by renaming an interim head of the Department of Parks and Recreation, three weeks after the council rejected the nominee as unsuitable for the position.

Fenty's decision sets up a confrontation between the mayor and the council, and the fighting represents a major test of Home Rule as council members accuse Fenty of ignoring their role in the legislating and governing processes.

Several council members said they want Ximena Hartsock, whom they rejected 7 to 5 on Oct. 6, to leave the position immediately. One plans to ask the chief financial officer to withhold her salary. But Fenty administration officials said Hartsock will remain in charge until they find a suitable replacement.

Fenty reappointed Hartsock as interim director Friday, a day after it was revealed that $82 million in contracts to build parks, ballfields and recreation centers were awarded illegally without council approval. Most of the work went to firms with political or personal ties to Fenty.

"It's almost becoming a lawless administration," said council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3). "They seem to have no limits or restraint on what they are willing to do."

Attorney General Peter Nickles, who often speaks on behalf of the administration, said Cheh "has no idea what she's talking about."

"For her to make comments like that, it's stupid," he said. "She's an angry woman."

The controversy comes in a year in which Fenty and the council have squabbled over who gets baseball tickets, appointments to boards and commissions, and whether administration officials have to abide by council subpoenas. Fenty also regularly refuses to send representatives to council hearings.

Ed Lazere, executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, has watched the relationship between the administration and council. "The mayor may think he needs to use his powers as aggressively as he can, but when you alienate people who pass legislation, it may not serve you well," he said.

Fenty and Hartsock did not respond to requests to comment through their spokesmen.

Hartsock has been serving as interim director of the agency since April, but the council voted not to confirm her, saying the former principal of Ross Elementary School was not qualified to lead the agency.

Members also accused Hartsock of violating the law by following through with Fenty's plans to privatize day-care services.

According to D.C. law, a mayoral appointee to lead an agency can serve up to 180 days while awaiting confirmation. With Hartsock's interim appointment expiring next week, Fenty's order Friday appoints her for up to six more months.

Nickles said Fenty decided to keep Hartsock in her position while he searches for another nominee to present to the council. Nickles said the law allows Fenty to reappoint Hartsock for "a reasonable time period to assure government continuity."

"The mayor and his colleagues will be seeking to name a new acting director as soon as we find someone," Nickles said.

But council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5), chairman of the Committee on Libraries, Parks and Recreation, accused Fenty of having a "blatant disrespect for the laws of the District of Columbia."

"This is truly government at its worse," Thomas said. "What would make the mayor believe his judgment is better than a whole body that reviewed this and decided [Hartsock] is incompetent?"

'Clearly it's legal'

Thomas led the fight against Hartsock's confirmation and said he will ask the chief financial officer to withhold Hartsock's pay. Thomas is also considering emergency legislation to remove Hartsock.

In battling over the legality of Fenty's decision, Nickles and Thomas appear to be leaning on different sections of the Confirmation Act of 1978.

Aides to Thomas note that the code says, "No person shall serve in an acting capacity in a position that is required by law to be filled by Mayoral appointment without the advice and consent of the Council."

However, another section of the code cited by Hartsock supporters suggests she can remain in a "holdover position" for up to 180 days after the expiration of her term.

"Clearly it's legal," Nickels said.

Housing Authority

Adding to the controversy, Thomas said Hartsock shares the blame in the decision to direct the park projects to the Housing Authority. By law, the council must approve contracts that exceed $1 million

Clark E. Ray, who was fired by Fenty and replaced with Hartsock, said he used the Housing Authority's Construction Services Administration to complete some projects before he left his post. But he said all of the expensive jobs went through the council. "We made sure we did everything by the book," he said. "Everything that went over $1 million went before the council."

On Friday, Nickles said the contracts in question must be submitted to the council. But he said the council should be wary of rejecting the contracts, which he said, were competitively bid. "If they reject them . . . they'll have to answer to the voters," said Nickles, noting that several projects have broken ground.

Fenty is up for reelection next year, and at least two council members are considering running against him. Few expect the tension to subside.

"We all need to find a way to repair this," said council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1). "The current course is not the route, but I am not sure what is. This is an ever escalating situation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/24/AR2009102402316.html

From the comments section for this article:

concernedaboutdc wrote:

Streff, I am not a fan of the Council, or any politician for that matter.

However, I do have a healthy respect for the law. I don't know if you were around, but the reason that the city's council, elected by the people, are now required to approve contracts in excess of 1 million dollar was to put an end to corrupt sole sourcing practices and to enforce procurement integrity. Contracts were granted based on personal and political closeness to the executive, as opposed to, in the best financial interest of the taxpayer.

If early on the Mayor had taken legal steps to change a slow procurement process to make it more efficient to get these types of contracts granted in the city, I think that the majority of the the residents would have stood behind him.

This is not what he did. He underhandedly violated the legal process that he and Peter Nickles, as barred attorney’s in the District, have sworn to uphold.

The council's outrage may be, as you termed it, "fake", but mine, as a local taxpayer is not. Even if these projects are needed in these communities, and as I understand it, the communities approved the design and budget per the existing agreements. That is all irrelevant. They agreed to agreements that are not legally valid or enforceable. They were spending money that wasn’t legally on the table to be spent. The outrage should not be pointed to the District Council who have a fiscal oversight responsibility on behalf of the people, irrespective of their motives in this instance.

It was the MAYOR with the complicity of the Deputy Mayor of Planning and Development, the Chief Financial Officer, Director of the Office of Contracts and Procurement and DCHA that CHOSE to violate District law by finding illegal ways around the checks and balances that are there to protect the integrity of the use of District taxpayer dollars.

The mayor didn’t decide overnight that he wanted to engage in any of these projects. This begs the question why he didn’t utilize his political capital to change the contracts and procurement process early on to make it easier to negotiate these types of deals legally within the government? Why, rather, did he attempt to sneak around the process, avoiding transparency, to get these contracts into the hands of those with close personal or political ties who are not the most qualified in the city to do the jobs. The Council auditor has had to go to the courts to force the city go give her construction contract paperwork that allegedly involve the Mayor's wife, who has zero construction expertise.

This government has been run like a Barnum and Bailey circus since Adrien Fenty was elected. There is no moral integrity to it.

Both the Mayor and the council are expected to be ethical stewards of government affairs. Breaking the law is not ethical. There in-lies my outrage.