A heretofore mystery man in the fishy fire truck affair has spoken: Vladimir Céspedes, mayor of the Dominican Republic city of Sosúa, told reporters today about the caper that has generated a great deal of political heat in this town.

Turns out it's not just this town. Céspedes, through a translator, tells LL that he has his own political problems: His own city council wants to know what happened to the $11,000 in city money he paid expecting a fire truck and ambulance in return---not a small amount in a city of 50,000 that has a municipal budget totaling $100,000 per month. There was no written contract, he says, just a receipt from the shipper.

"Not only they, but I want the money back," Céspedes says.

That money, he says, was paid in cash to Sinclair Skinner, friend and political associate of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, in the expectation that the funds would finance transport of the rigs to Sosúa. Skinner, Céspedes explained, has presented himself as being very close to Fenty.

Skinner and David Jannarone, the mayoral director of development, Céspedes says, visited him in Sosúa "three or four times." He'd welcome them at city hall, he says.

The trucks made it as far as Miami before political pressure led the Fenty administration to halt the transfer. Céspedes said he felt "very bad" when he heard that the deal blew up. "We need that equipment to save lives in our poor country," he said.

What Céspedes explains jibes with testimony from Ronald Moten of Peaceoholics, the group serving as a middle man between D.C. and Sosúa. Moten testified in June that Skinner had handed him an $11,000 check drawn on Liberty Industries, a concern owned by Skinner, then had turned around and used those funds to pay for the trucks' transport. But it was not clear from Moten's testimony whether the funds were paid by the Dominicans or by the D.C. folks.

His account also aligns with that of William Walker, head of a local nonprofit who has presented himself as the mastermind of the donation. He appeared at the press conference today (on left in photo), saying that he remained hopeful that the transfer could be completed and that cultural exchange between the cities could continue.

Céspedes yesterday evening told his story to D.C. councilmembers investigating the equipment transfer. He is scheduled to speak to an investigator from the Office of the Inspector General this afternoon. Yesterday, Céspedes and Walker visited the city's property yard in Northeast to view the trucks.

The revelations came after a press conference in the lobby of the Westin hotel off Thomas Circle, which had been organized by good-government advocate Dorothy Brizill. Brizill says she arranged the trip for Céspedes and his translator and counsel, Jorge Espaillat, going so far as working with Eleanor Holmes Norton's office to secure visas and soliciting donations for hotel and airfare. Brizill says she paid for their lodging but hopes to be reimbursed from D.C. Council funds meant for witness expenses.

Céspedes wasn't the only player in this saga to be deposed by councilmembers yesterday. Jannarone sat for questioning, as did Walker.

Skinner has yet to be questioned. Council staff are still negotiating with his attorney, A. Scott Bolden, to set a date and terms.

The dispute is rooted in last Thursday's 'open deposition' of Peaceoholics co-founder Ronald Moten---an unorthodox proceeding, to be sure. As a deposition, Councilmembers Mary Cheh and Phil Mendelson requested that the television recording not be aired on Channel 13.

Long story short, the proceeding has been aired repeatedly since. That led the D.C. Council today to take up emergency legislation saying that it has exclusive control over the content of Channel 13.

In brief comments prior to the vote, both Cheh and Mendelson said that the executive branch had exerted influence on the Office of Cable Television, and its director, Eric Richardson. Mendelson, in fact, said that Richardson "was specifically directed by the highest member of the executive branch to run this tape and run it again."

"We are a separate branch of government," Cheh said. "We must maintain our own integrity."

The measure was approved by acclamation.

Afterward, Attorney General Peter Nickles handed LL a memo he'd written outlining objections to the council bill. "I am concerned that this new legislation (and its resulting affects) will hurt the cable-related interests of the District and its residents, rather than...advance these important interests." Further, he points out that the law "would enable the Council to censor or withhold critical information from the public" and "will likely result is less-open access to Council hearings."

In an interview, Nickles said the legislation is "very troublesome in terms of the latitude it gives the council and what it portends."

"They can conduct investigations pursuant to their own rules, but they ought not use cable TV," he says. "I don't think the executive or the council should be able to use public airwaves and control what goes on those public airwaves."

Nickles' argument to LL is essentially that the council can do what it want regarding investigations, as long as it doesn't involve cable TV. Asked if the council had requested OCT to not record the testimony ahead of time, Nickles says that "would be improper."

It's an odd argument, seeing as the council, until recently, held hearings and meetings in rooms without video recording equipment---and considering that the dissemination and control of information is an integral part of conducting investigations. In any case, the effects may be overstated, seeing as this is the first time in over 20 years of government-run public access television that a separation-of-powers argument has arisen, at least to anyone's memory. (That, of course, is a fact that cuts both ways: Why do you need legislation for just one incident? Or why not clarify an informal relationship that's worked well until now?)

But Nickles may have a point here, considering the council's fumbling attempt to rebottle the Moten genie: "I think if the council or executive wants to have a secret process, there are lots of ways to do it," he says. "Particularly, you don't do it after the fact."

Nickles says his next step is to look at the District's cable contracts, to see if the council action interferes with any provisions therein.