Public money, public image
By: Jonetta Rose Barras
Examiner Columnist
July 12, 2009
The D.C. Council should be applauded for starting an investigation into Marion Barry’s awarding of a contract to former paramour Donna Watts-Brighthaupt. Chairman Vincent C. Gray’s decision to tap Robert S. Bennett, a former federal prosecutor, to lead the probe gives it a patina of seriousness.
“We want the public to be as satisfied as they possibly can that this issue has been addressed,” Gray said during a news conference attended by several council members, including Barry, who shamelessly accused the U.S. Park Police of wrongdoing.
Notwithstanding the contract examination, Gray and his colleagues haven’t gone far enough. Moreover, some seem confused about what’s at stake:
Council members think the prime issue is Barry’s use of tax dollars for the Watts-Brighthaupt contract. The cycle of awarding and rescinding that agreement suggests the former mayor used it to both reward and punish his mistress.
Some legislators, including Gray, also think they shouldn’t try to “police” a member’s private affairs.
But the personal sins of public officials can and often do have a corrosive effect on citizens’ trust and confidence in their government. That’s why South Carolina Republicans censured Gov. Mark Sanford for conduct unbecoming an elected official, including an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina.
“You want to put steps three and four ahead of one and two. I think we’ve got to get the full picture,” Gray told me after the news conference. He said that on March 30, he directed the council’s Office of Policy Analysis to examine ethics procedures and practices used by other state and local legislatures. Draft findings of that report were supposed to have been ready Friday.
But, what part of the sordid Barry/Watts-Brighthaupt story isn’t clear and complete? It has been replayed in ugly detail in newspapers, in broadcast media and on the Internet.
Residents might embrace the chairman’s measured approach, if this were Barry’s first offense. But, last February, I wrote in this space that the council needed to establish an ethics committee.
That was when tax scofflaw Barry, who had escaped jail for failing to file returns in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, violated the terms of his 2006 probation; he failed to file his return for 2007.
Now, less than six months later — even as he remains on probation — there is yet another Barry drama, marked by unethical behavior.
The council, overly conscious of process, is fiddling with a precious commodity: the public’s trust. It should understand that citizens’ belief in their government isn’t just about dollars and cents. It’s also derived from residents’ assessment of elected officials’ behavior and character — and that’s priceless.
If it isn’t careful, residents soon will come to view the council, including the chairman, as part of the problem, enabling Barry in his unwavering determination to tarnish an important institution while further eroding — directly and indirectly — the city’s political and cultural standards.
Follow The Examiner
