IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
Good morning sweet readers! For a kid who grew up knowing the Dallas Mavericks as the worst team to ever play basketball, last night’s victory was awesome. And, oh yeah, the whole Miami losing thing was great, too. And with that, LL is taking his talents to news time:
Et Tu, Kwame?: Last week wouldn’t have been complete without a late Friday news dump calling into question a D.C. elected official’s ethics, no? Enter the Office of Campaign Friday, which announces that it has filed a complaint against Council Chairman Kwame “Fully Loaded” Brown over issues with his 2008 re-election campaign. Brown has blamed administrative errors for not reporting large amounts of donations and expenses, but hasn’t been as forthcoming on why there aren’t adequate records to support $175,000 his campaign paid to his brother using a third party pass-through. In any event, Brown’s office sent out a reminder yesterday that there will be a hearing today on his and Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh‘s new ethics bill, aka the Comprehensive Ethics Reform Act of 2011.”I made a promise in November during the start of my transition to have a bill for my colleagues to vote on before the end of the session. Over the last eight months, my staff and I have put together a bill that is moving the Council and District government in the right direction,” says Brown in a statement, as the District continues to slide in the wrong direction. If Brown was hoping this bill would provide a little political cover, he might have to look elsewhere, as people seem to be lining up to badmouth his proposal. “The bill is seriously flawed. It not only would fail to bring clarity to the city’s confusing code of conduct but also would create unnecessary bureaucracy,” says the Post editorial board. Says Gary Imhoff over at D.C. Watch: “Mary Cheh has argued that opposing this bill is a case of opposing the good because it is not perfect. But the bill is neither perfect nor good, and passing a bad ethics bill now means the council will consider its job done, and not pass a good bill later.”
AFTER THE JUMP: Criminal Charges for HTJ; Back to the 90s? …
Criminal Charges for Thomas?: If you missed the Kojo show on Friday, not only did you miss an awesome Sulaimania remix, but you also missed Attorney General Irv Nathan lay out his case against Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. in painful detail. NBC 4’s Tom Sherwood says that Nathan hinted at the fact that he would have pressed criminal charges against Thomas if he’d had the power to do so, and Nathan said he’ll be seeking the power to pursue criminal cases in the future. Currently, it’s up to the feds, who are already investigating Thomas, to determine if there will be a criminal case. But if Nathan’s allegations that Thomas stole $316,000 of District funds to spend on an Audi and golf trips are true, then it seems to LL that the feds won’t have a choice but to press charges. Related: The Georgetown Dish says the mayor needs to speak up on the Thomas affair: “The silence, to many ears, is deafening.” Meanwhile, the Times says Nathan’s “decisive action” suggests that he may be the new sheriff in town. And the Times also tries to link Thomas’ current problems with a lawsuit related to unpaid student loans.
Back to the 90s?: If you missed Postie Marc Fisher’s article last week about the District possibly returning to the “bad old days,” fear not. A similar version ran on the front of Sunday’s edition, but this time with different experts and some man on the street quotes. “‘My life really hasn’t been impacted at all,’ said James Lovely, 74, who lives in Thomas’s ward. But, he adds, ‘I’m disappointed. . . . It certainly doesn’t look good. It doesn’t feel good to see all of this happening. What’s so bad about it is that they are hurting the city, really hurting the city, not just hurting themselves.'”
In Other News: District having problems with federal sex offender rules. Jonetta says CFO Nat Gandhi is incompetent and is holding the city hostage. Will D.C. ever get Netflix schools? Kaya Henderson for permanent chancellor, as if there’s any doubt. Pride Parade slideshow.
Council sked: Noon hearing on aforementioned ethics bill. Creditor calling act at 1 p.m., Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs.
Gray sked: 9:35 a.m. interview with Gloria Minott on WPFW. Mary Cheh has argued that opposing this bill is a case of opposing the good because it is not perfect. But the bill is neither perfect nor good, and passing a bad ethics billl now means the council will consider its job done, and not pass a good bill later.