Tommy Wells will introduce ethics reform bills

Government

Tommy Wells will introduce ethics reform bills

by David Alpert • June 20, 2011 4:10 pm

Tomorrow, Councilmember Tommy Wells will introduce 3 bills to reform some of the ethical problems DC has recently faced around inappropriate use of official vehicles and campaign finance, his staff announced today.

Photo by stevendepolo on Flickr.

The bill on official vehicles will:

Prohibit DC from buying "luxury-class vehicles" and set other restrictions on vehicle types.
Freeze the size of the fleet at the current size and will push to reduce numbers of vehicles when possible.
Set more strict MPG requirements for all official vehicles.
Expand the use of fleet share.
Clarifies that DPW is in charge of all official vehicles.

The campaign finance bills will:

Set up reporting requirements for transition and inauguration committees, both a source of unreported contributions in the past for mayors and council chairs.
Ban bundling of corporate contributions, to avoid having companies use many subsidiary LLCs to get around contributions limits as Bryan Weaver explained. I've asked for more information on how banning bundling will address this specific problem.
Require any nonprofits that receive constituent service funds to have been around for 1 year, to avoid officials suddenly creating new ones that they control to either pay themselves or use the money as political favors.
Recalibrate reporting deadlines to account for the new, earlier primary date.

Are there other measures that ought to be in ethics legislation? What about Mitch Wander's 3 "quick fixes" proposals?

25 comments

Tags: campaign finance, DC, DC Council, ethics, official vehicles, Tommy Wells

Real ethics reform goes beyond rearranging the deck chairs (Jun 15, 2011)
Wells' lightning-fast SUV investigation finds violations (Feb 28, 2011)
Create an independent ethics commission for DC Council (Apr 26, 2011)
Fleet share can save DC more money (Apr 5, 2011)
Join Tommy Wells for reelection kickoff Saturday (Mar 25, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

The government vehicles parts sound much like what Carol Schwartz got passed into law a decade ago...and which was ignored.

And the nonprofit ban seems similar to what the Council put into place to prohibit earmarks in the wake of the Barry scandal.

Perhaps the issue isn't so much the lack of laws, as much as it's the lack of any meaningful enforcement and penalties for violations of the myriad of existing laws.

by Fritz on Jun 20, 2011 4:32 pm

I think Constituent Service Funds should be banned! I don't really understand what they are beyond simply a glorified slush fund.

I've even heard of ANC Commissioners stumping for donations to their Constituent Service Funds. I was an ANC Commissioner in Ward 1 and I never received guidance from OCF on how to set one up, what type of reporting was required, what type of limits were imposed on donations or expenditures.

Someone help me out here! How is it a good idea for our elected officials to be able to raise and spend money outside of their official duties?

by Phil Lepanto on Jun 20, 2011 4:44 pm

Will Tommy take the lead and ask HTj to resign? Now would be a good time... The proposed nonprofit ban would do nothing about what HTj did, how he steered money to a nonprofit (which was NEVER an actual 501c3 nonprofit) and subsequently stole for illegal uses. Someone needs to step up and actually lead on this issue.

by @SamuelMoore on Jun 20, 2011 4:53 pm

Agreed with Fritz: I'd like to see more teeth in existing regulations, rather than new regulations altogether.

by OctaviusIII on Jun 20, 2011 5:54 pm

If we funded a special prosecutor's office in the Office of the Attorney General whose whole job was to investigate and prosecute elected officials, appointees, city employees and city contractors for ethics violations, we'd get some institutional competency in the area of building strong cases against violators built up and put the fear of God into a city government used to laissez faire...

by Alan Page on Jun 20, 2011 6:17 pm

Agree with Fritz, OctaviusIII, and Alan Page

Enforcement is key, not new regulations.

by Adam L on Jun 20, 2011 6:51 pm

Tommy Wells can't lead on anything. Stick a finger in the air and there you have it. Poor guy can't make any stronger statements than "I'm upset about it" or "I'm concerned about it." Grow a pair.

by jimbo on Jun 20, 2011 8:31 pm

Meet the new regs...

by TGEoA on Jun 20, 2011 9:34 pm

I agree with Adam L, Fritz, OctaviusIII, and Alan Page
Enforcement is key, not new regulations.

And this is a recurring problem throughout District government, and not just with these ethics laws.

by Lance on Jun 20, 2011 10:34 pm

"And this is a recurring problem throughout District government, and not just with these ethics laws."

I'd say grandstanding politicians are even more of a recurring problem.

by charlie on Jun 20, 2011 11:00 pm

+1 charlie

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 8:17 am

It would be interesting to do a comparison of real accomplishments between those CMs that grandstand and those who don't. For example, you never see Catania or Evans grandstanding. Catania is even maybe to the point of being 'under the radar'. But I bet if you made up a list of his accomplishments and put them side by side with the grandstanding CMs' 'accomplishments', the comparison would be very telling.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 8:21 am

Lance and charlie: Just to make sure I'm reading your innuendo correctly, you're both accusing Tommy Wells of nothing but grandstanding here, right?

you never see...Evans grandstanding

Jack Evans said at the markup, "Nobody has done more for the Convention Center than me."

What's that? I mean, it sounds like puffery at bare minimum. Some might call that a form of grandstanding.

Look, if you don't like Wells' reform idea, just say so.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 8:46 am

@Geoffrey Hatchard ; puffery yes. Grandstanding is when you start introducing legislation to make sure people write nice things about you.

That being said, the vehicle stuff is a joke. Of all the problems in the district, what they are driving is #538. The campaign finance stuff looks pretty boilerplate. The "bundling" issue isn't well defined and probably has some 1st amendment issues. The only way to get around that is ban all corporate donations.

Clearly, however, the crop of current issues is about enforcement, not the lack of new laws.

by charlie on Jun 21, 2011 9:03 am

charlie: I'm sure the councilmember's office is happy about the positive words from outlets like GGW, but I'll wager that's not the reason they put this together.

As to whether we need new laws or enforcement of what's on the books - I'm not well-versed enough in what is on the books, so I'll defer to you on that.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 9:09 am

@Charlie

I haven't read the bill, but in light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding corporate donations, it would seem that trying to limit corporate expenditures even in the way the District does it now would have issues. An outright ban would be clearly problematic.

I agree with most on this thread that we have a greater problem with enforcement of existing laws than we have a need for new laws. I disagree with my good friend Bryan Weaver that corporate money should be banned from the political process. But I do agree there needs to be reform. We need to see more transparency in the way corporate donations are filed, but I think we also need to reform our current laws to take into account recent rulings.

by Phil Lepanto on Jun 21, 2011 9:38 am

@Lance, are you defining "real accomplishments" as "major accomplishments", or "things that Lance likes"? Because if it's the former, the bag bill certainly counts, and he gets at least part of the credit for the performance parking pilot programs and the Waterfront/Navy Yard development plans.

by cminus on Jun 21, 2011 9:43 am

Oh, please, do not start a Thomas v. Evans contest over who's more corrupt or who does more grandstanding. As the gamers say, "once you reach max level, you stop leveling."

by tom veil on Jun 21, 2011 9:49 am

@Phil Lepanto; yep. In weaver's linked article, he draws to drive a distinction between a corp and a sub making a donation (illegal) vs. two real estate properties owned by the same person (legal?). That is rather mealymouthed.

Disclosure, sunlight, etc. yes. Campaigns in DC should be pretty cheap to run -- more retail than TV -- but there is a lot of money floating around.

Personally, I'd propose a 5 cent tax on each mailing, poster, and sign a campaign has to buy. And a $5000 tax on each radio/tv ad.

by charlie on Jun 21, 2011 9:51 am

@jimbo Tommy Wells can't lead on anything.

Two words; "Bag tax"

by David C on Jun 21, 2011 9:54 am

Lance It would be interesting to do a comparison of real accomplishments between those CMs that grandstand and those who don't.

It would. Why don't you do it instead of just imply the outcome.

by David C on Jun 21, 2011 10:00 am

@David C: Here are some more words: "Limp d--- on Streetcars." and "DYRS is a fiasco."

by ahk on Jun 21, 2011 10:05 am

@ahk, even if true or his fault (two matters of debate), it doesn't disprove my point.

by David C on Jun 21, 2011 10:56 am

This is the same Tommy Wells who called for an investigation of the whole Navi-gate bruhaha only to find that the existing legislation that was passed in early 2000 (I believe) and never fully followed as far back as Williams. Was he a member of the council at the time?

If he was, then it might have made better sense to realize that voting for legislation that requires SUV's to average 22mph when very few american-made vehicles do, wasn't the best idea.

I agree w/those who say that the current laws on the books should be enforced as the law of the land. This postnavigate position he's taken does seem a bit selfpromoting and a political move geared towards receiving good write-ups among his natural consistencies.

But alas, in this city of mass confusion, ideology and partisanship....

by HogWash on Jun 21, 2011 11:28 am

There is a fleet of white Jeep Libertys at 300 M St NE. Can anyone clarify which agency they belong to? They have not moved for over a year.

by Rayful Edmond on Jun 21, 2011 2:59 pm