Fenty Frat Bros Get Happy; Oh What A Scam!

Hmmmmm... if you don't get it, you don't get it... so says the Post's ad.....

So let's see - when is a fee charged by a contractor to a subcontractor a kick back? Apparently not in Fentyland. I hire you to do some work for me and I can charge you a fee? That is a kick back.

And the Council says blah blah blah - when if they didn't know about these shenanigans, they were asleep on the job. Can we spell c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n? Catania and K. Brown act shocked, surprised, etc, but they have merrily gone down many of the Fenty scam paths. There is a rat in the kitchen.

And Sinclair Skinner? Before Fenty became mayor, Skinner was running a dry cleaner on Georgia Ave. NW and carrying on with basically homo-phobic and "anti-white" public ranting and ravings. He sponsored a pamphlet (The Georgia Avenue Defender) and neighborhood posters attacking Councilmember Jim Graham as "Gramzilla" that included some pretty strange cartoon depictions of Graham. Now Skinner has a design and engineering firm and DC government contract. Oh the things that can happen when your friend becomes Mayor.



The above is one of the cartoon posters Mr. Skinner had posted throughout my community in 2006. See City Paper article: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/cover/2006/cover0811.html?navCenterTopImg


Contractor chose Fenty-linked firms
Council fired up at hearing; Catania says deals must be reviewed.

By Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 31, 2009

A firm owned by a friend of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's that was selected in a controversial arrangement with the D.C. Housing Authority to oversee a dozen recreation construction projects gave work to other companies with ties to the mayor, according to testimony and documents revealed at a D.C. Council hearing Friday.

Council members, still angry at their discovery last week that at least $82 million in contracts were funneled through the Housing Authority to build the facilities -- a process that circumvented the council's authority to approve contracts worth more than $1 million -- were combative at times with members of the Fenty administration who testified at the day-long hearing.

Banneker Ventures, owned by Omar Karim, a fraternity brother of the mayor's, was chosen to oversee all the projects in partnership with Regan Associates of Herndon, whose principals are major donors to Fenty's reelection campaign.

Records show that subcontracts went to RBK Landscaping and Construction, owned by Fenty's longtime friend Keith Lomax, and to Liberty Engineering and Design, owned by fraternity brother and friend Sinclair Skinner.

Several council members, including David A. Catania (I-At Large), who has often supported the mayor's initiatives, called the contracts illegal and insisted that they go before the council for review.

"The worst thing you can do is dig in your heels," Catania told city administrator Neil O. Albert. "Your office will be well-counseled to bring them back to us as expeditiously as possible. . . . This is not a water-under-the-dam moment."

Attorney General Peter Nickles has said that the contracts are "legal and binding." Some members have said the council could turn to the courts to resolve the dispute.

Albert said he would consult the city's legal team to see what is possible. He said there are 12 to 19 projects worth between $82 million and $86 million, all overseen by Banneker, which he said won a competitive bid to be the program manager of the projects. He said no contracts, other than one with Banneker, have been signed.

Albert and others from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer who testified before the council explained how the projects were built by transferring money from the Department of Parks and Recreation to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development to the Housing Authority to the D.C. Housing Enterprise, a subsidiary of the Housing Authority.

Albert said the process was used to get projects done faster, to save money and to utilize the Housing Authority's capacity to oversee the projects.

Rachna Butani, director of HRGM Corp., a D.C. construction firm, said the process was not transparent. She and her father testified that HRGM bid on the subcontracts that Banneker oversaw.

Butani said the firm's representatives gave her little information when she was offering her proposal to renovate Park View Community Park. She said they told her to use $250,000 to $500,000 as a guide to come up with her proposal. Her bid was rejected, and she later discovered that the project cost $1.2 million.

"There's no evidence to me that that project should be $1.2 million," she said.

Council members also were concerned to learn that Banneker collected a nine percent fee from contractors. It was unclear whether the fees were standard, but council members said they were troubled over the layers of fees that were being applied in the process. The city government also paid a management fee to the Housing Authority.

The contract between the Housing Enterprise and Banneker to manage the recreation projects gives Banneker a fixed fee of $4.2 million and bonuses ranging from $150,000 to $200,000, depending on timely completion. Banneker uses the money to pay its partner, Regan Associates, as a consultant. Banneker also has the right to charge the subcontractors that the firm selects to design and build the projects a nine percent fee.

Albert testified that Banneker also managed the $50 million construction of the Walker Jones Education Complex, which opened in August, and the $33 million project at the Deanwood Community Center, which is to be completed next year.

Albert said that those contracts were also awarded through the Housing Authority and that he believed they also did not receive council approval.

Albert praised Banneker for completing projects "on budget and on time."

The commendation irked council member Kwame R. Brown (D-At Large), who questioned why Banneker is also a subcontractor of Jones Lang Lasalle, a real estate management firm. As the subcontractor, Karim is a consultant to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development on various projects.

He also questioned whether an employee in the deputy mayor's office who was working on the recreation projects is a former employee of Banneker.

During their back-and-forth, Albert giggled at one point. "It's funny. Isn't it funny?" Brown asked, clearly upset. "This is serious."

"If you don't have a small sense of humor, I apologize," Albert said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103003607.html?hpid=moreheadlines

RheeFenty Appears At City Council Hearing

Ms. Rhee appears at the City Council meeting and acknowledges that yes the those fired are older than the average age of DCPS teachers and the average age of the 900 new hires is considerably younger when she has been selling her line that both groups accurately reflected DCPS' teachers' demographic. In addition to age descrimination, Ms. Rhee acknowledges illegally shifting monies from one program (regular teachers) to another program (summer school), a maneuver that requires Council approval. And she basically says - "screw you Council, I did it, I challenge you to do something about it".

Her logic that she made a decision between the interests of adults and the interests of students is ludicrous. The adults teach the students. It is not some simplistic one against the other.



Rhee ignored instructions about cuts, council says



By Bill Turque

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 30, 2009

D.C. Council members angrily accused Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee on Thursday of skirting the law by deciding unilaterally to lay off teachers and staff -- instead of trimming summer school operations -- to save $9 million in the school system's budget.

The decision, which Rhee defended on legal and policy grounds, was one of a series of disclosures during a contentious day-long oversight hearing that shed new light on the layoffs. The dismissals have sparked vociferous street protests, a union lawsuit and the most intense public debate of Rhee's 28-month tenure.

For some council members, the revelations confirmed suspicions that Rhee ignored a council directive to trim the summer school program and manipulated this year's budget process to further her goal of replacing a large portion of the city's 4,000 teachers. They vowed to press their investigation of the dismissals.

The hearing also laid bare festering tensions between Rhee and D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), a possible mayoral candidate next year, who has for months criticized the school leader for a lack of communication and transparency. He said her decision, which he called "incredibly cavalier," violated legal requirements that she submit a "reprogramming" request to the council when shifting funds.

"I'm talking about the law," Gray said. "Why bother to have a legislative body if the people in the executive branch do whatever they choose because they don't like the decision of the legislative body?"

Others took issue with Gray's analysis, but even some of Rhee's most steadfast supporters on the council rebuked her for the bitter state of relations between the school system and elected officials.

"We cannot continue to have this kind of craziness," said Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), who noted encouraging signs of progress in the schools but lamented that "we are sitting in a chamber where tensions couldn't be higher." Under Rhee, test scores have risen recently, and enrollment appears to have stabilized after a long decline.

'Change is hard'

Testifying under oath, Rhee said she was open to improving communications but added: "Change is hard. Some of the decisions we are making are going to cause some opposition and push-back. We can't shy away from those decisions because we don't want to hear the noise."

Rhee said the Oct. 2 layoffs of 266 teachers and other educators were needed to help close a $43.9 million shortfall in the 2010 budget. Union leaders have denounced the action as an illegal mass firing designed to purge older educators. They have gone to court to have the teachers reinstated.

Rhee also revealed new information about the teachers who were fired and the 934 she hired during the spring and summer. In written testimony delivered Wednesday night, she told Gray that the average age of the District's teachers is 42 and that the average age of those who were laid off is 48. The average age of the 934 new hires is 32.

Rhee had deflected claims of age discrimination in interviews this month, saying that the average age of the laid-off educators was consistent with the age of the school workforce.

Thursday's hearing centered on $20.7 million the council cut from the school budget July 31, part of a citywide belt-tightening because of declining tax revenue. About $9 million of the cut came in the form of a reduction in 2010 summer school operations.

Rhee said that summer school has become a critical component in helping high school students catch up academically, recover course credits and stay on a path toward graduation. Given a choice between protecting the interests of adults and students, she said, she chose to protect students. The $9 million represents a little more than 100 of the 266 teacher layoffs.

A visibly exasperated Gray was not swayed, citing what he called Rhee's violation of city regulations.

"You think that's inconsequential?" he asked. "You think that's okay?"

Rhee responded: "I think that at times you are making difficult decisions, and things don't always happen in the ideal manner," adding that Attorney General Peter Nickles and James Sandman, the school system's general counsel, advised her that she was on firm legal ground. She added that she will submit the reprogramming request next year before the beginning of summer school.

Mixed phone signals

Gray asked why the council had to wait until Thursday to learn that rerouting summer school funds was part of her strategy for meeting the shortfall. Rhee, in turn, accused Gray of being unwilling to pick up the phone.

"There have been multiple occasions in the last few months where I have tried to get on the phone to talk to you about these issues," she said, describing one particular day in which two scheduled conference calls fell through because he was not available.

Council members also denounced Rhee's chief financial deputy, Noah Wepman, who acknowledged that he was aware in mid-July that as the school system was hiring hundreds of new teachers it faced a deficit of between $12 million and 13 million in its 2009 budget. Wepman said he briefed Rhee on the deficit, which eventually grew to $20 million, and said she would need to adjust the 2010 budget to close the gap. One of the options discussed, Wepman said, was layoffs.

Wepman also acknowledged that he never shared information about the deficit with his superior, the District's chief financial officer, Natwar M. Gandhi, who certified the 2010 budget without knowing of the potential shortfall. Wepman conceded that he should have been more communicative.

Joyce E. Smithey, an employment lawyer with Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, said in an interview that "if the evidence shows that the chancellor hired employees in bad faith, then the question is whether she did so with the goal of forcing a layoff of older employees. If that's the case, then any admission about advanced knowledge of budget troubles could be damaging."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102901889_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines

DC Police Operational Orders And Directives

From themail@DCWatch, information on how the DC police are supposed to do it (by their own orders and directives):

Police Documents Released in Response to PCJF Lawsuit
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, mvh@justiceonline.org

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund has just obtained a massive disclosure of previously withheld documents governing police operations. The PCJF forced the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC (MPD) to disclose nearly all of its General Orders and Special Orders and related directives that dictate how officers are to exercise their authority. Most of this information has been withheld by the police from the public. Those orders, released in response to a PCJF lawsuit, are being posted and made publicly available on the PCJF’s web site at http://www.justiceonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=DCMPDIndexOfDirectives or by visiting DCMPD.org.

The PCJF filed a lawsuit on February 5 to force the DC Metropolitan Police Department’s operations out of the shadows through disclosure of its orders and policies. The DC MPD was in violation of its legal obligations, as mandated by the DC Council in 2001, to make this information public and had further refused to make such information public upon written request under the DC Freedom of Information Act. The PCJF’s lawsuit followed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for these documents. The public can now review what the MPD internal policy dictates regarding police-resident contacts, stops and frisks, restrictions on MPD high speed vehicular pursuits, use of closed circuit television cameras, handling of property, obligations to release persons through the citation release program, electronic recording of interrogations, use of canines, traffic safety compliance checkpoints, and a range of other issues that span the full scope of police authority. Advocacy organizations now have access to orders pertaining to processing of deaf or hearing impaired citizens, juveniles, transgendered persons and other groups requiring special care.

The MPD has long refused efforts from civil rights and civil liberties and community based organizations for this disclosure, but the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund went to court to get the documents. The MPD is still withholding a smaller number of orders claiming they are “law enforcement sensitive” and the MPD has yet to release, as demanded, copies of its staff manuals. These matters remain pending before the Court. The PCJF has also sued to force the MPD to publish these materials on the Internet, and to maintain them as current, so that citizens and the public can access these materials on demand without even having to file a request. Internet publication is required by the DC Freedom of Information statute, but the MPD has refused to comply with the law. In response to the PCJF lawsuit, the MPD posted some “selected” Orders on its web site. However the materials obtained by the PCJF and now being made available on the PCJF web site are a vastly larger trove of records and resources.

Last month, DC Superior Court Judge Judith N. Macaluso ruled in favor of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund that it could proceed with its suit to compel the MPD to comply with those Internet publication directives. “Public disclosure of the operational policies and practices, orders and staff instructions of the police department is essential for policing in a democratic society and to establish accountability,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, cofounder and attorney with the PCJF. “Disclosure is essential to ensure that the police department does not operate above the law and does not constitute the law, but performs those functions and exercises only that authority which the citizenry has deemed appropriate,” she continued.

http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/2009/09-10-28.htm

The Unresponsive Mayor

Considering the unquestioning support the Washington Post gives Mr. Fenty, the following cartoon was a little bit of a surprise to me.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/tomtoles/?name=Toles&date=10272009&type=c

Mr. Nickles Flip Flops On What Is Legal - Parks Contracts Now Legal He Says

Mr. Nickles knows best as he has said at a community meeting I once attended...... but even he has to backtrack sometimes - will anyone on the council besides Mr. Thomas have a spine to stand up to Fenty arrogance? Mr. Gray and Mr. K. Brown say some appropriate things but let us see their actions. For the Fenty believers all I can say is Mr. Fenty's Kool-Aide must be stronger than anything Mr. Barry (Mayor-For-Life) was ever able to brew!



D.C. parks contracts are legal, official says
Nickles had said housing group broke law in approval process

By Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles said Monday that any past and current contracts awarded without the approval of the D.C. Council are "legal and binding," three days after he had said the D.C. Housing Authority broke city law by awarding $82 million worth of such contracts, most of them to firms with personal and political ties to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D).

The apparent reversal enraged council members already angered by what they see as the Fenty administration's continued disregard for the council's role in legislating and overseeing city agencies. Council members also criticized Nickles's judgment as the city's top legal official.

"That's classic Peter Nickles. This is just bad government 101," said council member Kwame R. Brown (D-At Large), who said the council could be forced to sue the Fenty administration to block the contracts.

Nickles's latest opinion came in a letter to the interim executive director of the D.C. Housing Authority, the agency that recently awarded a dozen contracts for the construction of parks, recreation centers and ballfields. The Fenty administration used the housing agency as a development vehicle for the projects.

City law requires that any contract in excess of $1 million be approved by the council. Officials with the housing authority, which is independent of the city government, did not think that law applied to its procurement process. The attorney general told housing authority officials Friday that the law did apply and that they should submit the contracts to the council.

But in an interview Monday, Nickles said his opinion should apply to "future contracts." He cited legal problems with nullifying past and current agreements and said the authority had a long-standing practice of awarding contracts without council approval. "They did not understand until the law was made clear to them," he said Monday.

Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5), chairman of the Committee on Libraries, Parks and Recreation, dismissed Nickles's explanation.

"What he's doing is backpedaling on his opinion Friday. They're trying to protect the people who have already received the contracts," Thomas said. "I guess we're just going to have to go to court."

Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), who consulted the council's general counsel, said he was "perplexed" and "puzzled" by Nickles's opinion. "For the attorney general to give a carte blanche green light to these questionable contracts, even before council hearings or any legislative action, is inappropriate and not in compliance with my reading of the law. If they are required to be submitted, we make no distinction between the past and the future. We expect to receive these contracts," he said.

Nickles said his opinion Monday "clarified" his opinion Friday. "They're perfectly consistent," he said. "The mayor's not happy. The council's not happy, but I'm following the law. This is not an easy job. I call them how I see them."

Four council members, including Brown and Thomas, are holding a public meeting Friday and have requested that City Administrator Neil O. Albert, Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi and other members of the administration appear to explain how the contracts were awarded.

Banneker Ventures, owned by Omar Karim, Fenty's fraternity brother, was named construction manager on all 12 projects. His firm partnered with Regan Associates, a major contributor to the mayor's reelection campaign.

Nickles and officials at the Housing Authority said the contracts were competitively bid.

Privately, Fenty supporters questioned whether Nickles hastily issued his opinion Friday and erred in his statements about the contracts.

The city could have a major legal problem on its hands, said experts in procurement law. They said the contracts can be considered "void ab initio," meaning they are voided because they violated city law.

The city has faced the issue previously, said Keith D. Coleman, a former legal adviser in the city's Office of Contracting and Procurement. He said the city could void the contracts and pay vendors for services rendered. The vendors "didn't know the District government didn't follow procedure," Coleman said. "They're innocent bystanders, so to speak."

Coleman, a lawyer at Reed Smith, said he recommends ratification, a process in which the contracts get approval after they were already awarded.

Gray said he was aware of the practice, which he said quashes Nickles's opinion that the Housing Authority contracts do not have to go before the council.

The controversy over the contracts comes as Fenty has clashed with local lawmakers by reappointing acting parks director Ximena Hartsock, whom the council rejected in a 7 to 5 vote Oct. 6. Fenty signed an executive order Friday that will keep Hartsock in place for 180 days while he looks for a replacement. Nickles upheld the mayor's order, although some council members said it was illegal.

The council is asking Gandhi to withhold Hartsock's salary. Thomas said he will probably ask Gandhi to also withhold money from the Housing Authority to pay the awarded contracts.

In his first public appearance with Hartsock since he signed the executive order, Fenty took questions from reporters Monday after an announcement about a city program to open recreation centers to public school students who will be out of school Thursday and Friday.

"It's going to be tough to find someone who has her energy, her skill set and her ability to get things done," Fenty said in an interview, hours before Nickles issued his second opinion on the contracts.

The mayor declined to discuss the "ins and outs" of the contracts. When asked about the tension with his colleagues in the legislative branch, Fenty, a former Ward 4 council member said, "This is the best council we've ever had."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603280.html

Water Leak In the Street - How Long Does It Take To Fix?

I am wondering a few things about a water leak in our street. The picture below shows a water leak in the middle of the street on the 1100 block of Fairmont St. NW. I took the photo on September 24, 2009. At that date, the leak had already been going for at least a few weeks.



Soon after I took this picture, emergency no parking signs went up and on one day a crew was out looking like they were doing preparation work to fix the leak. I asked them about the leak and they said it was going to be fixed. Since then the no parking signs came down and the water continues to come up out of the middle of the road.

Today I called the Water And Sewer Authority DC to see if I can find out any info about the leak. While the woman I spoke with was very nice, I was unable to get any info beyond that the leak has been reported and she would "send a message to the foreman for the area" that the leak continues (and has gotten bigger).

A variety of concerns / questions come to my mind about this leak. With freezing temperatures coming sooner than later, this is an ice patch and potential accident waiting to happen. Doe sthis result in contamination to our drinking water? I don't drink it or cook with it, but I would like to know... Historically, this area of the water pipe has had a number of breaks in the past 20 years - at least 4 times the pipe has broken within 20 feet of where the leak is now. How efficient is it to keep fixing a pipe that keeps breaking? Is there ever any consideration of a bigger problem than a one time leaking pipe? I know that if a pipe kept breaking in my house every 3 to 4 years, I would conclude that previous fixes were just band-aids.

I also wonder how WASA-DC prioritizes fixing pipe leaks. Is two months plus standard time to expect a repair?

___________________________________________________________

Update - Monday, November 2, 2009 - According to a man I spoke with in the DC-WASA Public Affairs office this morning, work on the leak is supposed to begin this week.

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.