Get to know D.C. with our daily newsletter
We dive deep on the day’s biggest story and share links to everything you need to know.
This missive just went off to Ward 1 e-mail groups:
Far too many times we’ve seen news outlets pry into the personal lives of public servants. Rummaging through dirty laundry and printing “he said, she said” allegations is a sure-fire method for constructing a poor image of anyone’s character.
At times, we all make mistakes and exercise poor judgment. When loved ones, friends or colleagues make mistakes I don’t turn my back to them. I do my best to help with support, healing and learning. As to the abortion that Ted and his friend chose to have done, I loaned Ted the money (via authorized use of my credit card) which he promptly paid back. As anyone can imagine, this was an extraordinarily difficult time for them and the financial burden would have only compounded their challenges. I was in a position to help.
I have always supported a woman’s right to choice.
Bests, CM Jim Graham
Dear CM Graham,
LL understands the compassion you showed toward your friend and closest employee in loaning him your credit card for his companion’s abortion. LL has no problem with that, even if the other ex-employees he spoke with saw little “support, healing and learning” during their time in your employ.
But the issue here is, as you say, that “we all make mistakes and exercise poor judgment.” The question is, when do mistakes and poor judgment make someone unfit for public service?
Did you inquire about the circumstances of this abortion? Did you meet the woman? Did the fact that $3,200 would present a “financial burden” give you any pause? When the sister of the woman e-mailed you a month prior to the abortion, alerting you to “VERY SERIOUS ACTIONS, CONDUCT AND ISSUES THAT ARE OCCURRING WITH ONE KEY MEMBER OF YOUR STAFF,” did you take heed?
Oh, and by the way, the “dirty laundry” that this news outlet aired isn’t so easily dismissed as a “he said, she said” situation. Certainly, the woman involved here alleged a pattern of abuse by Loza, and Loza has denied it. Except, last July, a Superior Court judge found “by a preponderance of the evidence” that Loza twice “assaulted and threatened” the woman. This January, the same judge found that Loza “has show little or no interest” in the child he sought custody of.
So it’s more of a “he said, judge said” situation.