District elected officials may be expressing a new commitment to high ethical standards. But most appear baffled by what, in practical reality, that really means. Consider as evidence D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s continued push of Elizabeth Noel’s confirmation to the Public Service Commission — despite an indisputable conflict-of-interest that could create problems for the city. For nearly 30 years, Noel was the legal representative for residents in cases against utility and telecommunications companies regulated by the PSC. Some people have argued appointing her to rule on disputes where she previously represented one side would be unethical, could invite costly litigation and impede the commission’s work.
But those arguments have fallen on Gray’s deaf ears. He has, apparently, been listening to unions, who contributed more than $1 million to help get him elected. They, said government and business sources, are “pushing Noel.”
Joslyn Williams, president of the Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO, has denied that allegation. But in news reports he has made clear unions support Noel.
That message may be what is spurring Gray’s clear determination to push Noel through despite the risks to the interests of the city. His administration has gone so far as to create an unprecedented special committee — which was pitched as being an objective panel of experts — that would examine conflict-of-interest concerns related to Noel’s appointment.
But was it truly objective? Not so much.
Patricia Worthy was named chairwoman of the committee. Her selection raised its own ethics issues. After all, in October, she provided written testimony to the D.C. Council’s Committee on Public Service and Consumer Affairs in response to questions raised by Ward 3’s Mary Cheh — a Noel advocate. Worthy’s comments were perceived as supporting the nominee.
“I am surprised that you are suggesting any “bias” on my part,” Worthy told me. “The law is the law, and that is what I hopefully reflected in my submission.”
Mayoral spokesman Pedro Ribeiro said Worthy was chosen because of her previous tenure as PSC chairperson. “There wasn’t any pre-ordained destination for how this was going to come out.”
Unsurprisingly, Worthy and her team — Agnes Alexander Yates and Thomas Morgan — issued a report last week that came out on the administration’s side, concluding nothing prevented Noel from serving effectively on the PSC. Sections of that report echoed Worthy’s council testimony.
Noel’s nomination was expected to die Tuesday. But Gray pulled then, resubmitted it, giving it a second life.
Meanwhile, PEPCO released a report raising concerns about Noel’s appointment written by Michael S. Frisch, an ethics counsel at Georgetown University Law Center, and retired U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin.
Both sides agreed Noel must recuse herself from all open cases before the PSC in which she or anyone in her office participated when she was people’s counsel. That excludes her from 41 of the current 71 cases, according to the Worthy report.
Noel also “would be subject to motions to disqualify her from participation in any matters where she has demonstrated a predisposition or bias,” wrote Frisch and Sporkin. Noel once declared PEPCO her chief nemesis.
“Nothing has changed. I have the same concerns,” Committee Chairwoman Yvette Alexander told me. “[Noel] would not be functioning 60 percent of the time. [But] the mayor is set on bringing this nomination to a vote.”
So, Gray has decided to ignore legitimate ethics issues. And, he doesn’t seem bothered that taxpayers would be forced to fork over a $147,000 salary to Noel for warming the bench.
Jonetta Rose Barras’s column appears on Monday and Wednesday. She can be reached at [email protected].
