Ignored Letter to Kojo Show

Your intro mentioned you are covering tax breaks for development deals. I don’t understand why no big media outlets are covering Jack Evans’ conflict of interest  in deals that adds up to bigger corruption than the rest of the Thomas, Brown, and Gray scandals combined. It’s certainly bigger in what it costs the taxpayers by more than a hundred-fold. It make me think of the phrase “steal a little and they throw you in jail; steal a lot and they make you king”.

Many of us wondered if CM Evans was working for us or his lobbying firm, Patton Boggs, on the stadium, the convention center, and all those Disney-like Gallery Place deals. Dupont resident John Hanrahan did the research that finally appears to implicate our Councilman in a massive conflict of interest scheme where developers get rich and the tax payers (his supposed constituents)  don’t get represented.

See below. I first read about it and listened to John here: http://thefightback.org/2010/12/jack-evans-in-violation-of-d-c-law/

All Council Members Required to Report Jack Evans

June 12, 2011

Dear Chairman Brown, Councilmember Evans, and other members
of the D.C. Council:

Chairman Brown, on March 27, 2011 you responded to my email
of the same date concerning Mr. Evans’ continuing violation of the District’s
conflict of interest laws and regulations. This violation, as I explain in
detail in the attached emails, was in connection with his June and July 2009
recusals from voting on five separate occasions on the Marriott convention
center $272 million public financing legislation. You informed me then that you
would “look into this matter.” (See your email response below.) Since
11 weeks have gone by and I have heard nothing further on this matter, I wanted
to recontact you and ask: What have you found out? And specifically: Is it
correct, as the Examiner newspaper reported on July 1, 2009, that Mr. Evans’
outside law firm employer, Patton Boggs, represents Marriott? If not, what was
the reason for his recusal?

Examiner Article on topic: D.C. tentatively OKs paying $72M more to finance convention center hotel.

As I said then, and as I repeat now:

“The law is clear: When a council member recuses himself or herself on a matter, D.C. laws (the D.C. Official Code, the D.C. Municipal Regulations and the Council’s own Rule 202) require that he explain in writing the nature of the conflict of interest (or appearance of a conflict) and the reasons for the recusal to the Council Chairman, the Board of Elections and Ethics and the Office of Campaign Finance. As all three offices have told me in answer to FOIA requests that I submitted, that you, Mr. Evans, have not
submitted a written explanation as required by law.” Continue reading