Some top executives in DC Mayor Muriel Bowser’s administration appear to be suffering from amnesia. Maybe it’s the stress of dealing with the novel coronavirus pandemic and public health emergency.
How else to explain why they are intent on pushing through a Medicaid contract with a company — MedStar — whose past behavior jeopardized the fiscal health of two other managed care organizations and damaged the entire program? Another company with whom the District is seeking to finalize a contract — CareFirst — owes the city millions of dollars in cash or services; it also appears to be flaunting DC small business certification laws, with tacit support from government officials.
The DC Council Committee on Government Operations, chaired by Ward 4’s Brandon Todd, recently gave preliminary approval to the Racial Equity Achieves Real Change Amendment Act of 2020. The legislation, now known as the REACH Act, was the brainchild of Council Chairman Pro Tempore Kenyan McDuffie, but it was co-introduced by 11 of his colleagues.
As approved, the bill establishes an Office of Racial Equity and requires the mayor to design and implement a racial equity tool to aid in eliminating racial disparities among District government employees. It also requires, beginning in 2021, creation of racial equity-related performance measures in the development of agencies’ annual performance plans and an evaluation of the use of the racial equity tool in their annual performance accountability reports. Further, as explained in the committee report, the measure requires the Office of Human Rights and the Department of Human Resources to develop and provide racial equity training for all city employees and boards and commissions.
It also establishes a Commission on Racial Equity, Social Justice, and Economic Inclusion and creates a DC Council Equity Assessment Program to provide racial equity training for the legislature and to conduct racial equity impact assessments on permanent legislation.
As an indication of the legislature’s commitment, it included nearly $1.8 million in the fiscal 2021 budget to fund the bill. And, circumventing its own legislative process, the council references the not-yet-adopted bill in the local Budget Support Act.
That move was curious, especially since the legislation has been lying around for more than a year. It was first introduced in January 2019. A public hearing was held in April 2019. It sat in committee until the massive protests over George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis ignited a national call to “defund the police” and fueled demands to end “structural racism.”
During an interview with me earlier this week, Todd disputed my assertion that the recent demonstrations led the council to act. “I’m not a knee-jerk reaction kind of guy. I try not to make decisions based on emotions and feelings, but based on data.” He said the intention had been to bring the bill for a vote in March, but the coronavirus interrupted that schedule.
“As our city continues to grow, we have to prepare for a more diverse city and, at some point, for a more diverse city government,” Todd continued, offering his assessment of why the legislation is necessary and important. “We want to make sure there is a path forward to those who want it.”
Does that sound like a reverse version of “The Plan”?
For decades there was a belief among many African Americans in DC that whites were plotting to retake the city. That was when DC was known as “Chocolate City” and Blacks made up at least 70% of the population; today they account for only 46%.
The failure of elected officials to better manage gentrification has exacerbated fears by longtime Black residents, causing some to instigate a different kind of plan where people of color create their own insurance policy against the continued demographic shift and their displacement. Few people will publicly speak about those concerns and whether the equity legislation is really an advance assault.
Media reports quote McDuffie as describing it as “a historic piece of legislation.”
That is an exaggeration, of course. Undoubtedly, institutional racism is prevalent throughout America. Still, there is nothing historic about the Racial Equity Act, either nationally or locally.
It is another piece of feel-good legislation with make-busy work that epitomizes government redundancy. It is an example of costly and wasteful overlaying of programs and processes. Several of its mandates could be implemented almost immediately without spending $1.8 million.
For example: Does the legislature really need a DC Council Equity Assessment Program replete with an equity czar to implement a training program or use a racial lens to examine the proposed impact of legislation on certain populations? Lawmakers could simply amend their rules today, mandating both.
Besides, shouldn’t legislators and their staff members already be alert to the equity issues affecting their constituents? Perhaps their greatest obstacle isn’t the lack of any legal structure but the paucity of diversity in their legislative offices.
Even without the act, over the city’s 45-year history of quasi-political independence, the council has passed laws mandating equitable distribution of government resources and programs. It also has established or approved establishment of various offices and commissions to ensure racial and gender equity.
Consider that by law any District agency must procure “50 percent of the dollar volume of its goods and services, including construction goods and services, with Small Business Enterprises (SBEs).” DC also requires that large developers subcontract with certified businesses. In both cases, many of those businesses are owned by people of color.
The Office on African American Affairs is supposed to “leverage internal and external resources” to improve “access to economic mobility and inclusive prosperity.” According to its website, the Office on Latino Affairs “provides development, training and support for community service agencies to help improve business processes and make it easier for these agencies to serve the Latino population of the District of Columbia.”
Annual reports are supposed to be provided to the public — although apparently not every office has complied. In the 2021 budget, the four agencies have a combined budget of nearly $8 million with more than 25 full-time staff positions, according to government budget documents.
These entities already provide the infrastructure for pursuing racial and ethnic equity. They have the ability to collect data to determine whether the government is engaged in discriminatory practices against people of color, including erecting barriers to job opportunities, social programs, or contracting and procurement.
“They already have pretty big tasks before them,” Todd said of the racial/ethnic quartet of agencies I identified. “It’s important [however] to have a singular focus on how our government prepares, responds and acts using a racial lens.”
He said that the existing offices could “work collaboratively” with the equity commission through the city administrator. “They can help figure out where the gaps are.”
It sounds like, once again, the council has put the cart before the horse, introducing and adopting legislation without fully understanding the needs. Despite this bill’s obvious flaws, who is going to say no to a racial equity act when, finally, a large segment of the country seems focused on ending institutional racism?
With Mayor Muriel Bowser set to begin reopening DC after the city’s weekslong closure amid a public health emergency, there are legitimate concerns about the future of our arts and culture industry, including artists and other personnel. Much attention has been paid during this pandemic to the plight of hotels, restaurants and small businesses. However, for the uninformed, nonprofit arts organizations are also businesses. They seem to have been treated as superfluous institutions or fillers to the economy. They are much more than that, explained George Koch, who has been a leader in the arts and creative economy movement for more than 30 years. He argued the “theater industry” and the “performance industry” are “two important drivers that bring people to a community.”
Perhaps we should have recognized much earlier the large ambitions of Karl Racine. After all, he had been a White House counsel and was one of the first African Americans elected as managing partner of Venable LLP, a top firm in the city. He also spent more than $225,000 of his own money in his quest to become DC’s first elected, independent attorney general.
For much of the past five years, Racine has been praised, including by me, for strengthening the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). He created the Office of Consumer Protection and a Public Advocacy Division, aggressively fighting slum landlords and other predators. As president-elect of the National Association of Attorneys General and chair emeritus of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, he has worked with counterparts across the country to fight President Donald Trump’s discriminatory policies, his violations of the Constitution and his insatiable greed.
Still, Racine’s shine may be fading. Increasingly, some people, including advocates, civic leaders and government employees, are questioning his actions and motives. For example, they wonder about his seemingly growing appetite for executive branch territory like the Office of Human Rights. They also have frowned upon his foray into DC Council politics.
In the June Democratic primary, Racine has endorsed Brooke Pinto for the Ward 2 council seat and Janeese Lewis George, who is running against Ward 4 incumbent Brandon Todd. Racine also jumped out early for independent candidate Ed Lazere, who is vying for the at-large post reserved for a non-Democrat in the November general election. Racine announced that choice before Lazere or anyone else has even qualified for the ballot.
“Is he empire-building?” asked a senior-level government official who requested anonymity.
“I have heard complaints. I don’t think it’s playing well,” DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson told me in a recent interview.
Racine has become a big-game hunter.
When U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris was a Democratic presidential primary candidate, he cast his lot with her, dreaming that her victory might catapult him to leadership of the U.S. Department of Justice. Now, he’s supporting Joe Biden. Racine’s eyes are still on the prize, however.
In March, The Washington Post reported Racine filed for a third term as the District’s AG. That same day, however, he had this to say during an appearance on WAMU-FM’s Kojo Nnamdi Show: “I am not foreclosing going into the federal administration, if there’s a job that’s an important job that can advance the United States.”
If he wants to be U.S. attorney general — and I think he does — he has to demonstrate a broad reach and diverse skills; operating an AG’s office that mimics those in other states and exercising leadership in the national associations are critical. If Racine doesn’t land the federal appointment, there’s always DC to come home to, which is why he’s playing local politics.
“I am not insensitive to concerns,” Racine told me last week. “But I don’t have a team. We don’t have a color. I don’t have a mascot.”
Those comments — veiled references to DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, whose political organization has been called “The Green Team” — exposed where Racine sees his local political competition. He offered no apology, however.
Pinto and George each served as an assistant attorney general in Racine’s office.
“Damn right I am supporting Brooke Pinto. She is tough, and hard as nails,” he said. Last week the Post endorsed Pinto in the crowded Ward 2 race. This week Mendelson endorsed Patrick Kennedy. Former at-large Council member Carol Schwartz has announced her support for John Fanning.
“Janeese is far left. She has been presented as being this wacko liberal, [but] she is evidence-based and a strong criminal justice advocate,” Racine said of his Ward 4 endorsee. The perception of George’s political leanings has come from her self-identification as a “Democratic Socialist.”
“My analysis was that Ed checked more boxes. He also has a pathway to victory,” Racine added, noting that Lazere garnered a significant number of votes in his 2018 campaign to unseat Mendelson.
Racine has already telegraphed his support for Ward 8 Council member Trayon White and at-large Council member Robert White, both of whom, like Pinto and George, previously worked in the OAG. If his candidates win, Racine will hold a chit with at least five members of the 13-person legislature.
“I am not looking to curry favor nor am I afraid to share my views,” he said.
That isn’t the point. Shouldn’t the AG be an honest broker? Shouldn’t he move above the political fray, especially when he is expected to do the legal bidding for the executive and legislative branches as well as all the citizens in the District?
Recently, he announced the creation of a Public Corruption Section, hoping to enhance the criminal prosecutorial authority of his office. The new office could clash with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, the Office of the DC Inspector General and the DC Board of Ethics and Government Accountability.
“The success of those entities at being a deterrent has been mixed,” Racine told me. “There is a need for a prosecutor to [deal with] pay-to-play, campaign finance. There is no better entity than the local prosecutor” to handle that task.
He has accused federal officials of not being interested in public corruption cases or other crimes like campaign finance or financial disclosure violations or even false claims, which is a form of fraud where an individual or company deliberately misrepresents the value of a product or services that may have been delivered to the government. Ironically, under former U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen Jr. and his deputy Vincent Cohen Jr. there was a strong anti-corruption focus, including felony cases against various council members and campaign violations against members of the 2010 mayoral campaign of Vincent Gray. Gray was never charged with any wrongdoing.
Neither the AG’s ambitions nor his opportunism has been sufficiently exposed. Sometimes, in politics, memories are far too short.
Unquestionably, DC should have the ability to prosecute crimes, as every other state does. But, is Racine’s snatch and grab method the best approach for achieving that goal?
A serious examination of his territorial expansion — including his recent hiring of Jonathan Kravis to help develop the public corruption unit — has not taken place. Kravis had been deputy chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section in the U.S. Attorney’s Office; he oversaw the prosecution of Roger Stone for obstruction of Congress and related offenses. Kravis resigned over the U.S. Department of Justice’s handling of the Stone sentencing.
Racine said Kravis, hired under a $58,000 three-month contract, has been asked to explore “what is prosecutable and to see what legislation we might need, see how we might organize ourselves, see how not to be in a conflict situation with cases.”
That seems like a cart-before-the-horse exercise to me.
Nevertheless, Kravis told me that establishing the Public Corruption Section is a “worthwhile project.” He said he has been speaking with attorneys general in other states to better understand how to set up the division and create more cooperative relationships including with the U.S. attorney. “Some of our good cases could come from referrals.” Additionally, Kravis said the pool of people impacted by the division wouldn’t just be elected officials. It could include political candidates and senior government managers.
As he has been reviewing the DC Code, he has concluded that “it would be very helpful for the DC Council and Congress to expand” the OAG’s prosecutorial authority. “There are areas for legislative reform,” Kravis added.
Mendelson seems willing to give Racine the opportunity to create the new division. “I don’t know that I want to second-guess what he’s doing,” he said. “If it doesn’t work out, it could be abolished. And Racine has to stay within his appropriations.”
Well, that sounds easy.
However, given Racine’s propensity for political flexing, he runs the risk of crossing the line in his role as AG, thereby jeopardizing the reputation of his office. He told me if he found himself facing a potential conflict of interest, he would recuse himself. That’s another area where Kravis is focused.
“One thing I have been talking about is how to have a sensible recusal policy and procedures in place,” said Kravis. “It’s important to be thoughtful about it in advance. It’s something that hasn’t been on the OAG’s radar.”
Maybe that’s because Racine has been spending too much time in the mirror.