The archdiocese's issue seems to come down to two issues: adoptions to same-sex couples (which are already legal, as it happens), and mandated employee benefits for same-sex spouses of archdiocese employees.

As WaPo's Tim Craig reports, neither of the bill main sponsors, Phil Mendelson or David Catania, are budging on the issue. Said Mendo: "The way this issue has been approached by the archdiocese in the past week was tantamount to drawing a line in the sand and it may be hard for them to show some flexibility." Catania went on to ask how the archdiocese could give employee benefits to "fornicators and adulterers" but not gay couples.

LL's quick thought: Isn't this yet another argument for abandoning the already problematic employer-based health insurance model? Why should the institutional policies of an employer, subject to religious/moral/political dealings, affect the well-being of employees and their families?

Discuss.

In late July, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan called for an investigation into the discovery abuses in the Pershing Park case. Sullivan suggested that the D.C. Council should get to the bottom of how evidence went missing or got botched.

Councilmember Mary Cheh called for AG Peter Nickles to resign. Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who heads the Judiciary Committee, stated that he "definitely" would be considering an investigation into the matter.

Now, a D.C. Council investigation appears unlikely.

Mendelson tells City Desk that he hasn't ruled out holding hearings on the mass arrests and troubling OAG response. But considering Nickles' relationship to the council, he says it might be a waste of time.

"The difficulty with holding a hearing is Nickles may not show," Mendelson says. "He might even claim privilege....I'm not sure what I could get out of a hearing."

Mendelson counters that the bulk of any investigation into the disappearing evidence is already coming from the plaintiffs attorneys. He's just not sure what more he could discover from holding a public hearing on the case. "I just don't know how we could have an effective hearing given Nickles' obstructionism," he explains.

Mendo says he's still trying to get police documents related to the DeOnte Rawlings case. Pershing Park could be another never ending document chase.

Still, Mendo assures: "Pershing Park is not off my radar screen in terms of Nickles' bad behavior. I'm not sure how I'm going to follow up on it....In some way, and I don't know how right now, all that's going to come back to haunt him."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

"The City Council uses only rhetoric to denounce the pairs' actions; remember when Vincent Gray caved and restored the school funding he originally cut? The Washington Teachers Union has been utterly useless in the struggle between 825 and teachers' rights; George Parker continues to cancel meetings and overall, has not been proactive in addressing the layoffs. With the Mayor's reelection looming within a year, there are no candidates that pose a serious threat to him. And while the protests and sit-ins are a start, I seriously doubt Chancellor Rhee or Mayor....o until someone with a better vision and a stronger hand comes along, I think Chancellor Rhee is here to stay, despite what you think of her."

In Bloom wonders what's going on with Baraki: "After an flurry of construction activity earlier this spring—including the appearance of an outdoor seating area—Baraki has since sat quiet. Its highly visible location at the intersection of First Street NW and T Street NW meant that many folks in Bloomingdale and beyond went past it every day wondering what was (or wasn't) going on."

Life In Mount Vernon Square wonders if pepper spray is illegal: "I am told on the one hand you can have it and it needs to be registered;  then I was told you cannot own it.  Which is the case?"

Frozen Tropics posts about a recent shooting on 10th Street.

Time to get involved! There's a meeting today about the new dog park at 17th-and-S. On Wednesday, there's a meeting for ANC 6C (see draft of the agenda). And finally...the Downtown Neighborhood Association is meeting tonight---guests reportedly includ AG Peter Nickles and Councilmember Phil Mendelson!

Catania made the announcement in front of more than 200 members of the GLBT community gathered at the True Reformer

"We are going to do it now," he said. Catania will introduce the bill with nine co-sponsors. Also in attendance are Michael Brown, Phil Mendelson, and Tommy Wells.

It wasn't much, really, the first candidates' face-off of the 2010 election cycle. But LL's still excited to have a campaign to cover.

The two declared Democratic at-large D.C. Council candidates, incumbent Phil Mendelson and challenger Clark Ray, took turns answering questions for a little more than an hour last night in the basement of a Southwest apartment building. They did so in front of about a dozen members of the New Capitol Park Towers Tenant Association.

Given the early date and the small crowd, LL hesitates to read too much into this candidate pairing. But there's a few points to be made here:

• No surprise on Mendo's talking points: He held himself out as a "fierce watchdog" who is devoted to "accountability and transparency" with a "record of being independent." He also went out of his way on a couple of occasions to note his clashes with Attorney General Peter Nickles.
• If you're wondering how Ray is going to handle the fact he was fired as parks and recreation director, he just isn't. In his opening statement, he went into a long description of his career. He mentioned his service at DPR and simply said, 'I have left that post.'
• Expect to hear a lot about Ray's service as a reserve police officer, though---how he knows what it's like to "walk a beat with the men and women in blue." He brought it up on at least three occasions, any time a public safety issue was broached. He's also find of touting his executive experience---his "time in the director's chair."
• Ray did drop a juicy nugget from his DPR days: When asked about budgeting, Ray mentioned that the city lost revenue when he was asked to waive permit fees as director by folks "on both the executive and legislative sides." Asked after the meeting for details, Ray declined to name names. (Unfortunately, a no-exceptions approach to fee collections seemed to be the whole of his budget-gap-closing strategy.)
• You could tell Mendo was trying to keep his wonk thing in check---keeping his opening statement short and sharp, for instance---but it didn't always work. When asked a question on Metro security, he of course had to preface the answer with a disclaimer about how the Council doesn't control Metro before arguing that Metro needs to look at a "broken windows" approach to policing the system. Then again, his command of debt service statistics and rent control laws can be impressive.
• Both were asked if they'd support a higher top-bracket income tax rate (as proposed by Jim Graham and the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute). Mendo said yes; Ray said he was "not prepared today to say." Both gave weaselly answers on whether employee furloughs are a good idea.
• Neither candidate seemed to be particularly strong when responding to a juvenile justice question. Ray couldn't immediately remember the name of the District's juvenile facility, leaving Mendelson to prompt him: "New Beginnings." Then Mendo rambled about how research indicates this-and-that before noting that he's trying to do something about the veil of confidentiality over the entire system.
• Both candidates brought entourages: Mendelson had three members of his council staff in tow; Ray was accompanied by activist Laurie Collins.

In the end, this was a Mendo crowd---his mastery of their housing concerns (the building is entangled in a landlord-tenant battle) certainly helped his cause, and he got the only applause line of the night when he mentioned that he voted against financing a baseball stadium. The two issues where Ray is trying to distinguish himself from Mendelson---school reform and crimefighting strategy---never really came up in the questioning, and he didn't do much to turn the questions that were asked toward those topics. But Ray is a personable guy who's going to have a hell of a lot more of these candidate forums to polish his presentation.

Nickles' statement in which he was ordered to explain numerous discovery problems including a missing police document and faulty radio dispatches has come under heavy fire from Councilmember Mary Cheh, Councilmember Phil Mendelson, and former Councilmember Kathy Patterson. Last week, plaintiffs lawyers in the other Pershing Park case submitted their own critical take on Nickles' testimony. They have called for an independent investigation into the missing evidence.

Now comes the plaintiffs lawyers in the Barham class-action case. They too believe Nickles fell well short of an honest explanation of the case's numerous OAG-related problems. In its 32-page rebuttal, they focus particularly on Nickles' claim that he is only now just learning about the missing and/or tampered police evidence.

In fact, they argue Nickles was quite familiar with the Pershing Park case since Jan. 2007. You can read the entirety of their statement [PDF].

Plaintiffs lawyers quote from Nickles' statement where he writes: "I have had only two weeks since the status conference to undertake the investigation."

The plaintiffs' lawyers' response:

"Mr. Nickles implies that he did not know of the intractable and prominent discovery abuses in this case prior to the July 29, 2009 hearing date ('Immediately after the status hearing on July 29, 2009, having then been informed of the Court's concerns and recently produced documents...'). However, Mr. Nickles never states under oath that he had no knowledge of the plaintiffs' discovery concerns or filings on the subject. He does not explain why no investigation was initiated despite plaintiffs having raised these significant issues of document loss, destruction and withholding over and over again years ago, including to the attorney that he has now appointed to take charge of the case, Ellen Efros. As further discussed below, Ms. Efros has long been involved in this matter and directly apprised of the discovery abuses.

Mr. Nickles' claim of surprise and/or lack of opportunity is neither credible nor viable at this late date. These have been prominent issues in a prominent case."

Plaintiffs then quote from Sullivan at the July 29 hearing: "All these discovery shortcomings have been appropriately documented in previously filed motions by Plaintiffs, so it comes as no surprise. None of this is any surprise to the City."

Plaintiffs argue that Nickles had at least half a year from their filing for sanctions to investigate the evidence problems. They write: "Notwithstanding his claims of surprise and protestations of a lack of opportunity to educate himself and investigate the discovery violations, Peter J. Nickles has been personally involved in this litigation since his very first week in his official position as General Counsel to Mayor Fenty, way back in January, 2007."

Plaintiffs lawyers then go on to provide a bit of news concerning Nickles' involvement in the Pershing Park mess. They state that on January 8, 2007, Nickles "personally met" with mediators in the case:

"One would presume that in order to represent the District's (or the Mayor's) interest in settlement, Mr. Nickles became quite familiar with the case and the major issues that could impact its advance and defense and inform settlement posture."

Plaintiffs lawyers also state that Nickles met with the appointed mediator during a second session in 2008. They write:

"It is a matter of record that at that time, discovery had closed, the destruction of the J.O.C.C. running resume had been established, missing periods of time of the recorded police channel communications had been established and acknowledged by the District in the deposition of Inspector James Crane, the materially inaccurate Declaration of Denise Alexander had been submitted to this Court, the former Director of the Office of Internal Affairs Stanley Wigenton had admitted in deposition that that Office has a practice and unwritten policy of not investigating allegations of police misconduct if a victim files a lawsuit...the withholding by the OAG of the field arrest forms had been established, and the OAG certainly was aware of its belated production of nearly 3,000 documents on the last day of discovery and the next day after. The plaintiffs had advised the Court that a major motion for sanctions against the District was forthcoming, and a briefing schedule had been set and then suspended when the case was stayed for mediation. No doubt, Mr. Nickles informed himself of all relevant issues in order to properly represent the defendants' interests in settlement."

We will be posting more on the plaintiffs rebuttal later today and tomorrow. There's more news concerning the alleged OAG resource problems and the missing evidence.

Soon, the letter made its way to the press. Nickles does not approve of this leak. He may have a point. But it seems a little petty in light of the AG's promises of a full investigation into the case's numerous evidence problems. Also, Patterson corrects several errors that she believes were made in Nickles' sworn statement. Is this really the moment Nickles should go back to playing the bulldog lawyer?

Nickles suggests he wanted time to oppose the public release of Patterson's letter. In a filing yesterday, Nickles raises the issue with Sullivan:

"Since Ms. Patterson is not a party to this case, the purpose of the Court's August, Order was to make Ms.Patterson's correspondence available to all parties and also to inform the parties of the Court's inclination to post the correspondence on the public docket and to provide the parties with an opportunity to respond publicly. The Court's Order, however also provided that any objections to the posting of the Patterson Correspondence on the public docket be filed by no later than August 26 and that the Patterson Correspondence would not be made a matter of public record until the Court so ruled."

Nickles suggests he really wanted to raise objections to Patterson's letter before it made its way to the press:

"Defendants fully appreciate the Court's effort to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to give the parties a chance to object to the public disclosure of non-party, unsoliticed comments before making them a matter of public record. It appears, however, that events beyond the control of the parties hereto have overtaken this judicial process. Almost simultaneously with the Court's receipt of the Patterson Correspondence, it was released to the press and has been widely circulated by the media. Thus, that portion of the Court's Order concerning the filing of objections to the public posting of the Patterson Correspondence now essentially is moot, and accordingly, any concerns or objections that a party may have lodged with the Court as to such public disclosure would be to no avail."

Nickles states that he intends to respond to Patterson's critique "by no later than September 4, 2009."

On August 12, AG Peter Nickles submitted his sworn statement to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. By now, the statement has been read by several Pershing Park experts. Their verdict: Nickles' statement needs a re-write! Councilmember Phil Mendelson and Former Councilmember Kathy Patterson caught several possible errors.

Mendelson took issue with Nickles' claims that the D.C. Council had prevented him from instituting reforms at OAG and had cut OAG's budget. Patterson found fault with Nickles' assertion that his attorneys had been blocked from getting materials discovered in the council's Pershing Park investigation. Patterson says the majority of those materials were made available to the public along with her detailed  final report.

Today, City Desk reached Councilmember Mary Cheh. Cheh had helped lead the D.C. Council's investigation into the mass arrests at Pershing Park.

Her take on Nickles' statement: "This is an attempt to exonerate himself from any liability," she says. "From what I can tell, he has misled the court....This is just an erroneous, unreliable self-serving statement on his part."

Cheh also found fault with Nickles' claim that the OAG was denied access to the council's Pershing Park materials (page 10 of his statement). She also took issue with Nickles' claims that the council had received the running resume---a major piece of evidence in the case that has gone missing. The council did not get a copy of the running resume despite requesting one from the D.C. Police Department.

And Cheh backs up Mendelson's complaint that Nickles shouldn't blame the council for OAG's file mismanagement. "To lay things back on the council is actually laughable," she says. "There was money in the OCTO budget for document management. Nickles and the executive office never came forward with a plan, never sought that money to reform their office. This is a guy who can't run his own office. It's a mess... and he ought to own up to it."

Nickles' statement did nothing to shake Cheh from her recent statement calling for the attorney general to go. "The man should resign," she says.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan had ordered the city's attorney general to submit a sworn statement explaining the evidentiary problems in a Pershing Park case. Nickles and OAG attorney Tom Koger submitted their statements on August 12 [read their statements in full].

This week, Patterson sent a letter to Sullivan outlining the various factual problems she had with Nickles' statement. Now comes Mendelson writing to Nickles. Mendo points out several mistakes in Nickles' statement to Sullivan.

All of the errors are both obvious and unnecessary. The take away:  Does Nickles really care about the Pershing Park case? Should he be the one leading an investigation into the missing and botched police evidence?

Mendelson tells City Desk that he is undecided on whether to open an investigation. But he says there will be oversight hearings on the controversy.

"What troubles me besides the hot water the city is in with Judge Sullivan, what troubles me is we repeatedly have these problems with getting accurate information," Mendelson says, citing the DeOnte Rawlings shooting case and the Fire Truck dustup.

Mendelson says the council will be looking into the missing evidence in the Pershing Park case.

Now on to the letter.

Nickles had claimed to Sullivan that the D.C. Council had rebuffed efforts by the Fenty Administration to allocate money for a "District-wide document management system that also would have addressed OAG document management needs."

In his letter, Mendo points out that his Judiciary Committee oversees the OAG and, well, the need for a new document system has never been brought to his attention during oversight hearings.

Mendo goes on to quote Nickles' own statements during oversight hearings from April 4, 2008 and March 26, 2009. In the March testimony, the AG concluded his statement with this: "We are grateful that the Mayor, the Committee, and the Council support our important work and that this budget allows us to continue our operations."

Mendo points out that on page "A-162 of the FY 2009 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan for the Office of the Attorney General," there is a one-line entry for an electronic management system costing $400,000. He writes that the proposed $400,000 managment system was left in tact by the Council. "It is funded in the current fiscal year," Mendelson states.

Another graph in Nickles' statement stumped Mendelson. Nickles wrote to Sullivan:

"I am disappointed to report that for Fiscal Year 2009 the Council reduced the OAG budget by over two million dollars, and for Fiscal Year 2010, the Council reduced the OAG budget further by almost three million dollars, which certainly will result in a reduction in force of present staff."

Mendo's response: "These statements are also incorrect." He points out that the council adopted Fenty's FY2009 budget request for the OAG "without reducing it one cent." Even the revised budget did not reduce Nickles' budget. He goes on to detail the FY2010 numbers:

"The Council's actions regarding the FY2010 budget are more complicated, but the total OAG budget will be about 3.5% greater than FY2009. This increase includes $315,000 which the Council added---above the Mayor's request---to fund non-personal expenses related to litigation support."

Mendelson goes further. But the conclusion is this: Nickles' claims that OAG's budget got cut or will get cut are false. "The bottom line is that the Council did not cut $3 million from the OAG's FY2010 budget, the OAG's budget will grow in FY2010, and the OAG's litigation support budget will grow," Mendelson wrote.

Mendelson writes:

"Contrary to your public statements, the District does have a choice. The matter of corporate filings could have been handled with a phone call, and ordinarily that would have been the process. The District is not required to evict the Recreation Wish List Committee. Now that the problem has been rectified, the District should choose to drop the eviction."

Mendelson makes several arguments in his letter as to why Barry should remain in the tennis center.

Mendelson writes:

"First, the eviction notice violates the lease because it fails to state the basis for the eviction. Second, the eviction notice violates the lease be-cause notice of default was never given.  The lease includes standard language requiring that prior to a default (i.e., the basis for an eviction) the District must provide notice of the default. Nothing in the lease specifies that notice is waived even if the default is pre-existing. Third, the default in this matter is readily curable – and has been. Press reports indicate failure to maintain corporate filings is the reason. I’m told that the filings have been made, and that yesterday the Recreation Wish List Committee’s corporate status was reinstated."

Mendelson goes on to state that his council office has never received any complaints about the tennis center's operations and that the programs are popular. Why shut down something that works?

Mendelson concludes his letter by telling Nickles that the eviction is not only a waste of time but is also a waste of city resources. Eventually, if the eviction goes forward, Mendelson suggests that the city will surely face some kind of costly court showdown.

"I urge you to reconsider the legal sufficiency of the proposed eviction and, in light of the facts, recommend that the eviction be rescinded. Not doing this will subject the District to defensive litigation, which is at best unnecessary, but more likely embarrassing and costly. I am available to discuss this if you wish."

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT---"Councilmember Barry: What Did Sharon Bowen Actually Do?"

Morning all. First, local legendary singer Eddie Daye passed away late last week. Our own music blog has posted a sweet tribute to the man and his talents. He was 78. Key graph: "While those online and crate-digging fans may cherish copies of his obscure singles (some of which have been reissued on cd), I will just keep my memories of those fun late nights out seeing him sing bluesy soul and my conversations with him about his musical career and his take on 50 plus years of r’n’b history."

SUMMER FINALLY COMES TO D.C.: The heat is upon us; today, temps are expected to climb into the triple digits. WTOP reports that the District is opening up several cooling centers and extending hours at area pools. WJLA and NBC4 also has a story on the heat wave. AP has another story, this one one the opening up of a new aquatic center in Tenleytown.

A MUST READ FROM COLBY KING: On Saturday, Colbert King published an eye-opening column on disorderly conduct arrests by D.C. Police officers. Citing records from the Office of Police Complaints, King produces a few stunning accounts of police abusing "disorderly conduct" charges against District residents. One of the many key graphs: "Residents are arrested in D.C. for disorderly conduct in large numbers: nearly 5,000 in 2007, more than 4,200 in 2008 and 4,469 this year as of Aug. 5. Many are probably arrested for good reasons: noise violations, blocking public spaces, etc. But, as in the Gates arrest, some busts never make it to court."

FENTY'S DRIVING RECORD: WaPo cites several sources critical of Mayor Fenty's insistence on driving himself to various ribbon cuttings, press conferences, etc. Nikita Stewart notes in her lengthy piece that no other big city mayor drives themselves around. Key quote: "I think it's curious that he's driving himself," said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. "Why not have the security detail . . . when you have an accident like this past week?" Outside experts from other cities say security should be a top priority, and we're not paying Fenty to drive around, we're paying him to make decisions and think critically about the city's needs---we don't want him spending his time worrying about getting across town.

AFTER THE JUMP: More revelations on the Metro front, Jonetta sticks up for AG Peter Nickles, and much, much more.

HAWK ONE: The ubiquitous private security firm is trying to save its District contracts, the Examiner's Michael Neibauer reports. Expect some kind of media blitz by Hawk One managers to save their contracts. A bit of news in this story: "Ward 6 D.C. Councilman Tommy Wells, a former school board member, said he wanted to consider hiring security officers as employees of the city government, rather than as private contractors."

METRO PROBLEMS: Here's some quick links. WaPo continues to be all over this story. The crash system failed in June during a near crash: "The crash-avoidance system suspected of failing in the recent deadly accident on Metro's Red Line malfunctioned three months earlier, when a rush-hour train on Capitol Hill came 'dangerously close' to another train and halted only after the operator hit the emergency brake, newly obtained records show." AP follows up. Metro's oversight panel has little sway, WaPo reports. Key graph: "The committee has no direct regulatory authority over safety and cannot order Metro to make changes. It has no employees of its own and no dedicated office, phone or Web site. It borrows space for its monthly meetings, which officials said no member of the public has ever attended." WaPo also reports that a Metro worker died Sunday after being struck by a piece of track equipment.

Jonetta Rose Barras stands up for AG Peter Nickles. This is one of the more phoned-in columns I've seen in a while. Key graph: "He has aggressively defended the city against lawsuits, saving taxpayers tons of money. He has protected citizens against corporations and individuals who have attempted to rip them off or deny them their rights. His office battled CareFirst over its alleged failure to invest profits in the health care of low-income people. He jacked up slum landlords and private companies scamming black churches. He pushed for improvements in Child and Family Services and, with the council, defended the city’s gun control laws." Nickles may or may not have pushed for improvements with CFSA---but he has most certainly pushed to get CFSA out of its court oversight as the agency continues to fail to meet its benchmarks.

MAYOR'S SCHEDULE:

10:30 a.m. Remarks
Alice Deal Middle School Ribbon Cutting
Location: 3185 Fort Drive, NW

2:00 p.m. Remarks
Bruce Monroe Elementary School Demolition
Location: 3012 Georgia Avenue, NW

6:30 p.m. Remarks
2014 Gay Games Kickoff Rally
Location: Stead Field
1625 P Street, NW

In our running poll of the D.C. Council's Judiciary Committee members regarding AG Peter Nickles' conduct, we finally reached Councilmember Yvette Alexander.

Nickles has come under fire recently for his office's conduct in a Pershing Park civil suit. District evidence has either been destroyed or lost and discovery continues to be a problem in that case. The discovery process has dragged on for years. The U.S. District Court judge in the case slammed the OAG, ordered Nickles to submit a sworn statement explaining his office's actions, and called on the D.C. Council to investigate the OAG's handling of the case. The issues before Nickles include one very false affidavit.

So far Councilmember Mary Cheh has called for Nickles to resign. Yesterday, Councilmember Phil Mendelson joined Cheh in pushing for Nickles to rejoin the private sector.  Councilmember Jack Evans still fully supports Nickles.

Alexander says she is reserving judgment on Nickles for the time being. She would like to see the council take up the matter. "I wouldn't have a problem with requesting an investigation," she tells City Desk. "You are innocent until proven guilty. I would want to know what happened with the evidence."

If there was purposeful or criminal mishandling of evidence, Alexander says, then Nickles should be ousted.

Alexander says that Nickles still hasn't accepted his role as the attorney general. "I have not seen the distinction in his role as the general counsel and attorney general," she explains. "It troubles me. That was one of my concerns during the confirmation."

*photo courtesy of Alexander's awesome website.

Evans also thinks the U.S. District Court judge's strong recommendation that the D.C. Council should investigate the OAG is misplaced. "I would think that the more appropriate agency would be the inspector general," Evans tells City Desk. "Certainly, someone would have to determine if there was wrongdoing. That's not the city council's job that's the inspector general's job."

Evans is sure that Nickles did not commit any of the alleged wrongdoing. For one thing, Nickles was not in office during the bulk of the Pershing Park case's activity. That fishy affidavit? Well, that's come up under his watch.

Should Nickles resign? "Oh God no," Evans says. "I think Peter Nickles does a great job for the District. This is the first time we got an attorney general that actually defends the city."

On Wednesday, a federal judge weighed in on the Office of the Attorney General's conduct in a Pershing Park civil suit. Plaintiffs attorneys alleged that critical pieces of evidence had been destroyed, doctored and lost as a result of the AG's incompetence or worse.  Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's ruling was clear: he called the evidence problems "abuse" and wondered if residents could even trust the District government.

“It raises serious questions about when, if ever, can anyone trust their government," Sullivan stated.

Sullivan promised that the sanctions he would impose would be painful. He has ordered AG Peter Nickles to submit a sworn statement explaining how the evidence could have gotten lost and turned up severely doctored. The judge also called on the D.C. Council to get involved.

Today, Councilmember Mary Cheh tells City Desk that Nickles should resign.

“I think he should resign," Cheh says. "I don’t think he should have ever been appointed...You start messing with a federal judge in a case where you are hiding evidence or destroying evidence---that’s gone to a new level.”

Cheh would like to see the council investigate the Office of the Attorney General's conduct in this case.

"I had a conversation with [Councilmember Phil Mendelson]  after the judge had his encounter with the AG’s office," Cheh says. " I do believe he is also interested in it. How it will proceed, what we will do I’m not sure. This is a really shocking breach of faith…It’s lawless. I can’t get my jaw up from the ground it’s dropped so far."

When reached for comment, Mendelson says he is "definitely" looking into opening up an investigation.

"The D.C. Attorney General is supposed to be protecting this city not increasing our liability," Mendelson says.

Nickles failed to return phone calls seeking comment.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

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.