If you polled the 13 D.C. Council members on who they liked the least — Mayor Adrian Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee or Attorney General Peter Nickles — I suspect Fenty and Nickles would vie for most reviled.
Fenty treats the council members as a necessary nuisance. He pats them on the head in public; in private he plots ways to neuter them. During Fenty’s six years on the council, he got along with no one. He was elected mayor without one legislative ally.
Nickles, on the other hand, doesn’t bother with many niceties. His disdain for the city council shines through his eyeglasses with every glance. When he chooses to testify before the council, his face is screwed up as if he were sitting on tacks.
Though Nickles, as attorney general, is supposed to serve as the city’s lawyer, he has come off on many occasions as Fenty’s personal attorney, at least in the eyes of the city council members. I’m sure he would dispute this characterization and say he was serving the best interests of the city. This dispute will live on.
One question, however, needs an answer: To whom does the city’s attorney general answer, the mayor or the citizens?
Under current law, it’s the mayor. He or she appoints the attorney general, who serves at his or her pleasure.
Under a bill scheduled to be marked up in Wednesday’s judiciary committee meeting, future attorneys general will be elected. Is this a good idea? Will it fly? How soon could we vote on the AG?
Personally, I like Peter Nickles and believe he’s the right attorney general for this mayor. A veteran litigator, he strikes fear into people who were used to laughing at D.C. as they stole from its coffers and abused its laws.
Nickles’ lawyers have spanked slumlords, brought city agencies back from federal court control, stared down major banks. But he has also come off as a steadfast protector of Fenty’s executive privileges.
“As an appointee of the mayor,” the council bill states, “the attorney general is part of the executive branch. This creates tension with regard to the duty of chief legal officer.”
Making the office an elected position will make clear “in the law that he or she is the lawyer for the District of Columbia and is thus to act as the public interest requires.”
The bill, crafted by Judiciary Chairman Phil Mendelson, would allow for a four-year term. It is likely to pass the council early next year. It will be veto-proof. There’s little chance Congress will strike it down. It’s possible we could even vote for an attorney general in 2010. This would be a boon for D.C. and for democracy.
“This legislation will not prevent the current attorney general from continuing to serve in that role,” the bill states. Somehow, I can’t see Nickles running for office.
E-mail Harry Jaffe at [email protected]
