This morning, Examiner's Michael Neibauer broke off another scoop from the fishy fire truck story that he broke last spring. On the heels of a D.C. Council investigative report, he describes how Dennis Rubin, the city's fire and EMS chief, testified on April 1 last year that he knew very little about the shady donation of emergency equipment, when it fact he knew quite a bit about it—as e-mails produced in the course of the council probe reveal.

Talk about explosive charges: Rubin was under oath at the time, so did a top city official engage, you know, in the P-word? After all, he swore that day, under penalty of law to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

That's a charge serious enough that LL decided to go to the tape (forward to 1:50:45) to see if Rubin made any statements directly contradicted by his e-mails. And from what LL sees, there's nothing that would indicate the Rubin ever intentionally lied to Phil Mendelson's public safety and judiciary committee.

According to the e-mail obtained by the council, Rubin at the time of his April testimony knew that (a) a scheme was underway to donate a used fire truck, (b) acted to help identify a suitable fire truck, (c) knew the fire truck was going to the Dominican Republic, and (d) knew that David Jannarone, a top aide in Fenty's economic development office, was a prime mover in the transaction.

Did he contradict any of that on April 1?

First thing to point out is that at that point, when so little was publicly known about the transaction, most of the questions jumped off from what little was known—including that a deputy fire chief, Ronald Gill Jr., had traveled to the Dominican Republic in order to facilitate the transaction.

So most of Mendelson's questioning dealt with that issue—what did he know about Gill's travel? There is nothing in the e-mail to suggest he was notified that Gill would be heading to the Dominican Republic last January, so he was credible when denying that he knew anything about it.

The second thing to point out is that Rubin clearly did not want to answer questions on the matter, referring many times to the Office of the Attorney General and how it would produce a "much more detailed report." (That report, of course, ended up being three pages long, did not answer many pertinent questions, and ended up emboldening the council to embark on its 10-month probe.) So Neibauer is right to point out the discrepancy between the e-mails and Rubin's performance on April 1.

Asked about the fire truck itself, Rubin said at the hearing that he knew "very little about that" as well, describing a "1996 or 7" Seagrave pumper with about 197,000 miles. That's fairly close to the equipment in question—a '98 Segrave—although the mileage figure was way off, a discrepancy accounted for in a later report.

Rubin also acknowledged that he was aware of a fire truck donation taking place: "If you went back when I first arrived," he said, "there was discussion of a donation of a vehicle. I knew it was somewhere in South America." Mendelson informed him that the D.R. is not is South America. "Central America, sorry," Rubin said. Whatever, close enough.

Then Mendelson asked, "Who's in charge of this?"

Rubin replied, "Who's in charge of the department or the donation? I'm gonna say one more time, there's things that happen in the department I'm not aware of up to the second. I'll take full responsibility, hold me fully accountable, but, was I aware in any way, shape, or form? No sir." There he appears to be answering as though Mendelson asked about Gill's travel, not the donation writ large. Mendelson doesn't follow up, he moves on to ask Rubin whether he reviewed the travel request.

Then the "clueless" line comes up—again, in the context of Gill's travel, not the donation as a whole. Mendelson asks Rubin if his position is that he was "clueless" about the travel arrangements. "Yessir, I was clueless," he replied.

Later on, Rubin again discusses his knowledge of the donation, saying "it was obvious to us that the truck was being donated by someone in the city government." Mendelson did not directly follow up to ask if he knew who that someone was. Rubin did discuss a little more about what he knew two years ago, describing discussion about whether there would in fact be a donation. He added: "I was unaware it was a tourist destination or an oceanfront town....I wasn't even sure what country it was going to."

That is about as close to dissembling as Rubin comes; one e-mail in the committee record shows that on Dec. 26, 2007, he recommended a FEMS official advise on the transaction because he "can speak some Spanish and has been to the D R before." Is it plausible that he would forget the precise country more than 15 months later? Plausible it is.

The closest Mendelson gets to finding out the most important thing Rubin should know—the involvement of a top Wilson Building aide—comes with this question: "So who's in charge of this program?"

Answers Rubin, "I have no idea, sir....I'm not even sure it's a program." Which it wasn't; it was, as a council report notes, "merely the pet project...of a senior District official [Jannarone] and a well-connected nongovernment individual [Sinclair Skinner]."

Again, Mendelson did not follow up to ask who he'd had contact with.

Mendelson, reached today, makes the good point that the best questions weren't obvious at the time: "Nobody knew much at that time....In hindsight, it's obvious what questions should have been asked."

The at-large councilmember passed on the question of whether Rubin lied under oath, calling it "not clear-cut." Mendelson said he'd reviewed the tape in the course of his committee's investigation but did so some time ago.

"I've thought about this quite a bit, and I don't have an answer," he says. "It is a good question."

UPDATED, 4:03 P.M.

Shocker: The D.C. Council did not take Peter Nickles' advice and ditch their investigation into the mysterious donation of a city fire truck and ambulance to a little-known Dominican town. In fact, after months of anticipation, they've finally released their reports.

Read both of them: From Mary Cheh's government operations committee [4MB PDF] and from Phil Mendelson's public safety committee [PDF].

The Cheh report finds "no direct evidence of questionable motives" on the part of members of the Fenty administration or outside persons who sought to influence them; the Mendelson reports notes that "there does not appear to have been any criminal wrongdoing." What the reports did find is that such persons were able to take advantage of vague surplus property rules, using "inside connections and access unknown to those of the general public" to obtain valuable city property.

Here's a key paragraph from the Cheh report: "What makes the transaction so incredible is the fact that so much effort—at the highest levels of District government—was expended to facilitate a transfer of surplus personal property without even a hint of potential benefit for the District government. Rather, the entire affair was merely the pet project—even if well‐intentioned—of a senior District official and a well‐connected nongovernment individual."

Furthermore: "Though no direct evidence of questionable motives on the part of the principals involved in the transaction was found, the mere possibility that influence can be exercised to pursue private aims requires the District to promptly and responsibly implement clear, understandable rules and policies. As seen with this particular donation, inside connections and access unknown to those of the general public resulted in the loss of value to the District government."

The Cheh report also notes that the Fenty administration "repeatedly attempted to frustrate efforts to gain information into how the donation was handled" and that key witnesses "repeatedly denied having knowledge of basic facts and events."

How basic? Take the testimony of Sinclair Skinner, the Fenty friend at the center of this deal. The Cheh report says that Skinner, "despite being the principal owner of several businesses...had no knowledge about basic functions of his businesses. For example, Mr. Skinner had difficulty recalling whether his businesses had contracts with the District and whether his businesses performed work beyond consulting on development projects. Mr. Skinner was also unable to divulge any specific projects that his companies had worked on, with whom he had worked with in the past, or the salary of employees or any dividends paid by his companies." And David Jannarone, a top Fenty development aide, "claimed to have no recall about significant conversations that he had with individuals both in the District and in Sosua" even though he "could vividly recall minor details about the transaction."

The Cheh report also addresses the issue of why the donation was never publicized:

During this time, [Skinner friend David Anderson] sent an email to the group that traveled to Sosua suggesting that “[w]e need to get the DC media machine rolling delivering the fire truck and ambulance to DR is a great opportunity to get some good media attention.” Chief Gill “agree[d] completely” and Mr. Jannarone offered that Sean Madigan, an employee in the Deputy Mayor’s office, could “let us know how the mayor wants to handle it.” Mr. Skinner, though, stated that “[t]he media is a bad idea.” And apparently the idea was then abandoned.

Then there's the issue of Peaceoholics. When Michael Neibauer first broke the story in the Examiner, last spring, the well-connected nonprofit found itself under great scrutiny because it was named as recipient of the emergency equipment in a terse emergency rulemaking notice that served as the only publicity the deal ever got. The reports confirm that the nonprofit served merely as a pass-through in a scheme concocted by Jannarone and Skinner. However, that's not to say that the group is beyond reproach in this affair. The Cheh report notes a document prepared by the nonprofit's co-founder, Ron Moten, which "suggested that the donation was conceived by Peaceoholics, which all of the evidence, including testimony from Mr. Moten himself, suggests to be untrue." Rather, Skinner "handled all aspects of the transaction, including identifying the shipping company and providing Peaceoholics with the funds needed to pay for shipping," meaning the group operated "essentially as a front."

The Cheh report recommends strengthening the city's surplus-property laws, improving asset-management procedures in the city procurement office, and providing more information in emergency rulemaking notices. The city's inspector general is also investigating the matter and expects to issue a report soon.

Nickles already issued his report, calling the transaction "legal and totally proper" and "in the service of important and legitimate public purposes." But was his report totally proper? The council reports note that two city lawyers, mayoral general counsel Chip Richardson and ethics counsel Thorn Pozen, were "tasked with the conduct" of Nickles' report. But both also had key roles in the fire truck affair itself.

In February, Skinner contacted both Pozen and Richardson, who proceeded to hammer out the legal niceties of the transaction. Richardson, the Cheh report says, in fact wrote to the procurement official in charge of surplus property, Wilbur Giles, apparently a fellow member (like Skinner and Fenty) of the Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity: "Nupe," he e-mailed, "hopefully there is a streamlined way to get it done quickly."

UPDATE, 2:50 P.M.: LL reached Nickles, who retorted long and hard. His main point: His investigation didn't find that any laws were broken, nor did the council's—and "I did it in about 10,000 hours less than the Cheh-Mendelson committee."

As for the rest of the reports' findings—that "so much effort—at the highest levels of District government—was expended to facilitate a transfer of surplus personal property without even a hint of potential benefit for the District government"—Nickles says, "I don't hear any legitimate concerns."

His other talking point: "This report has no credibility," he says, noting the council's " open deposition," secret executive sessions, and its recently disclosed audiotaping failure. "It's a political act" precipitated by a "worthless 12-year-old fire truck sitting on a back lot."

As to the reports' criticism of his supposed obstructionist tactics: "Baloney!" he says.

In fact, when LL detailed a specific charge of the Cheh report—that Fenty legislative aide Bridget Davis ordered key witness Giles not to testify, he went straight for the old barnyard epithet: "That's just bullshit," he said, noting that Giles later testified.

LL also asked Nickles if he knew that Richardson had once represented Skinner in private practice. "So what?" he said "I don't know if I was aware of that or not. I don't know if it's relevant."

Nickles puts great faith in the forthcoming IG report. "We tried from the outset to be cooperative even though I said to the council, 'What the hell are you doing here? Why can't you let the inspector general do their job?"....I have faith in Charlie Willoughby and the independent folks at the OIG."

UPDATE, 3:25 P.M.: Moten, the ex-Peaceoholics honco, says: "I'm no flunky."

Instead of acting as "essentially a front" for Skinner, Moten says he was aware of the whole operation and was happy to assist in a good deed. Like Nickles, he attacked the "lost tapes" and criticized the council for launching its probe when the IG was already investigating.

"If the fire truck was there right now, it would be helping the people of Haiti. But it got caught up in a political process," he says. "What is the process to finish the good deed we set out to do?"

UPDATE, 4:03 P.M.: Due to a misunderstanding on LL's part, he did not realize that there are actually two reports—one from Cheh's committee and one from Mendelson's. References above have been changed appropriately.

The Mendelson report shares much of the factual findings of the Cheh report; however, it focuses its findings and recommendations on the involved agencies under the committee's purview: Fire & EMS and the attorney general's office.

With regard to FEMS, the report finds a "lack of oversight on the part of leadership" —that, essentially, no one asked any questions about the giveaway—in addition to finding that employee travel rules weren't followed. With regard to OAG, the report is scathing, saying that Nickles' office "repeatedly attempted to frustrate if not outright obstruct efforts to gain information about this incident."

"Every effort was made to prevent access to information — from initial attempts to get answers to the most basic of questions, and throughout the investigation," the report says. "This lack of transparency not only provoked speculation, but also fostered a perception by the public of corruption and diminished faith in the government and its elected leaders."

The report goes on to slam Nickles' own report on the incident as "remarkable for its lack of detail" and further accuses the AG of interfering in the IG investigation he so anticipates.

"In sum, the Attorney General’s behavior has been antithetical to principles of open government and public accountability. Fundamental to this investigation was the Executive’s unwillingness and sometimes outright refusal to cooperate," says the report. "The Committee believes this ill-conceived obfuscation of the Council’s oversight role is a misplaced Executive priority that is in need of revision."

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

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.