D.C. Council Chairman Kwame Brown wants to get a couple things straight: he’s all about openness and transparency. My colleague, Freeman Klopott, has reported that Brown’s campaigns are under audit by the Office of Campaign Finance; two that should have been closed are still open, and his 2010 campaign is in hock for $14,000, the office says. “There is no debt,” Brown tells me. “This is normal when you close out a campaign.” Brown’s council colleagues say they normally close out and reconcile campaigns within six months, not six years. Full audits from the campaign office are on their way.
Then there’s the report in The Washington Times that Brown listed $45,000 in outside income on last year’s financial disclosure statements, but he didn’t disclose the source of those funds. Under current law, Brown could be within bounds by not listing the source of his income. Council members are required to list the source of outside earnings only if they exceed $5,000 and the company does business with D.C.
Talk about the foxes writing laws to guard their own henhouse! We have to trust our esteemed council members to disclose their cash cows that have city contracts?
Not to worry, Brown tells me. He earned the $45,000 as a consultant for Brown Technology Group (no relation) and FUSE Advertising, out of St. Louis.
“Neither of those companies has done any work for the District of Columbia,” he tells me. “Ever. Both work for the federal government.”
Well, not exactly. Brown Technology, a Virginia-based information technology firm co-founded by broadcaster and local hero James “JB” Brown, lists the D.C. government as one of its “customers.”
Upon checking, Kwame Brown finds out the company does have a piece of a small contract with D.C. But, he says, the contract was inked in September, long after he stopped doing work for Brown Technology. He sees no problem here.
But herein lies the problem. By giving council members the discretion to list sources of outside income, we are putting our elected officials on a slippery slope toward conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
“I have no problem with full disclosure,” he says. “That’s fair. That’s what we should do.”
The new chairman talked about ethics often during his campaign. Now that he’s in office, he intends to create a “special committee on ethics and investigations.” He plans to take up such a committee with his colleagues during their one-day retreat later this month.
Should the council change disclosure rules for outside income, so that lawyers on the council must list all of their clients, regardless of whether they do business with the city?
“They should be fully disclosed,” the chairman tells me.
That might be a hard sell for lawyers and lobbyists on the council: Jim Graham, Jack Evans, David Catania, Mary Cheh and Michael Brown.
This council is barely a month into its first session. It’s still a time of hope. Let’s hold Brown to his word and his goals, starting with full disclosure of his own records. Seems fair.
Harry Jaffe’s column appears on Tuesday and Friday. He can be contacted at [email protected].
