A few folks in the legislative wing of the John A. Wilson Building called me last week, complaining about my characterization as a waste of taxpayers’ money the D.C. Council’s “investigation” into the effort by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty’s administration to donate an unused firetruck and ambulance to a small town in the Dominican Republic.
“You made us look silly, like kids,” one person said.
Image making is not my forte. But surely I’m not the only person beginning to see City Hall as a gigantic sandbox, filled with squabbling, oversized children.
Privilege, ambition and role confusion appear to be at the root of the scrimmages. The mayor is determined to protect the prerogatives of the executive. Some council members see their role as being more than that of policymaking and oversight. And then, there are those who covet Fenty’s job.
“I find fault on both sides. But I find more fault on some of my colleagues’ side,” council Chairman Pro Tempore Jack Evans told me, when I went checking others’ opinions.
“The [council members] act like mini-mayors. They are micromanaging the executive,” said one government official who requested anonymity.
“We have checks and balances on steroids,” said Gregory McCarthy, the director of intergovernmental relations in Mayor Anthony A. Williams’ administration. “Both branches are flexing muscles and challenging each other as equals; that’s the way the system was set up. And, it’s better than the time when one or both branches had no muscle.”
The Founding Fathers didn’t intend, however, for their carefully crafted, counterbalanced structure to halt important government activities and services. For example, several boards and commissions lack the quorum necessary to do business. The council, not pleased with some of the mayor’s nominations, hasn’t acted on them.
The Founding Fathers didn’t intend, however, for their carefully crafted, counterbalanced structure to halt important government activities and services. For example, several boards and commissions lack the quorum necessary to do business. The council, not pleased with some of the mayor’s nominations, hasn’t acted on them.
“That’s a fundamental issue plaguing the relationship. They should vote [nominees] up or down,” Attorney General Peter J. Nickles told me. “The nominating process is falling apart. It’s even worse than Congress.”
Meanwhile, qualified businesses worry about becoming involved with the government because the council and mayor continuously bicker over contracts. Last week, Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi asked the D.C. Superior Court to sort out the question of whether the executive needs to present for council review so-called option year contracts; these are multiyear agreements of $1 million or more for which the legislature provided initial approval.
“I’m very frustrated. The public counts on us to do our jobs. We cannot do our jobs unless we get cooperation from the executive,” said Ward 3’s Mary Cheh, adding that the mayor and Nickles often engage in activities designed to prevent the legislature from getting information it needs. “To what end” are they doing this, she asked.
Go to your rooms — all of you!
“We were sent here to serve our citizens and not our ambitions,” President Obama said during his State of the Union address.
He was speaking to congressional representatives. But that message also applies to elected officials in the District, who seem to think it’s all about them.
