jonetta rose barras: The DC Council violates the law to investigate its alleged law-breaking member, Trayon White

When I was growing up in a five-generation household in New Orleans, the elders passed around wives’ tales, family lore, adages and ethics lessons as frequently as they did crawfish bisque or jambalaya. My grandmother often warned that, “If you lie, you’ll steal and if you steal, you’ll kill.” 

That was a slippery-slope exaggeration. However, I understood that she saw lying as a type of mortal sin. Over the years, my eyes have become accustomed to her vision.

I have been incredulous about the DC Council’s handling of Ward 8 Councilmember Trayon White Sr.’s flagrant violation of the city’s Code of Conduct, financial disclosure laws and ethics standards, including credible allegations that he agreed to accept $156,000 in bribes from the manager of a nonprofit organization that had government contracts through the violence interrupters program, as outlined in an indictment filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

Councilmembers and staffers suggested in their responses to questions from journalists, including myself, that they were adhering to council rules in establishing a special ad hoc committee and hiring independent legal investigators as they determine an official response to White’s behavior. However, in reviewing the documents released last month by the secretary of the council, who also serves as the legislature’s procurement officer, and responses from the council’s Office of the General Counsel to a request under the Freedom of Information Act sent originally to DC Council Chair Pro Tempore Kenyan McDuffie, it appears the legislature has breached its own protocols. Moreover, they still have not made clear the source of funding to cover the cost of hiring a private law firm, whose bill may be as high as $400,000. What’s also unclear is what that expenditure will achieve.

“No one is going to talk to the law firm,” said one attorney, who like others I interviewed over the past week requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the conversation about the mechanism established by the council and the potential results (or lack thereof).

“[White’s] lawyer is not going to let him speak with anyone; if he accidentally says the wrong thing, [that] could jeopardize his defense. Plus, the U.S. attorney has indicted him; the lawyers over there are not going to turn over to that law firm the U.S. attorney’s files, documents and information. They are going to protect their own witnesses,” offered another lawyer.

Those comments reflect the general consensus of other knowledgeable sources. Will any of that affect what the council is doing? 

In a statement released after the first meeting of the ad hoc committee, McDuffie made the distinction between its work and the role of federal prosecutors: “The Ad Hoc Committee is not the court adjudicating Councilmember Trayon White’s criminal charges.

“The Ad Hoc Committee is established so that the Council can consider whether there have been violations of our code of conduct, rules or policies that warrant Council action,” McDuffie wrote.

That raises the quintessential question: “To what degree do you even need an investigation?” asked Chuck Thies, a longtime political consultant. He currently serves as director of communications for Ward 7 Councilmember Vincent Gray, but he spoke to me in his individual capacity.

If, in fact, the council is not obligated to uphold the judicial system’s presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why this elaborate setup? Why the need for outside counsel? Why can’t the council use its own inside legal department? Why can’t it use the Office of the Inspector General?

“This is just the council inoculating itself [politically] so they can give the impression they gave [White] a fair trial,” added Thies.

Let’s not pretend this is your garden-variety political inoculation, however. The bulk of White’s supporters are African American. Since his arrest many of them have suggested that he was set up — à la former Mayor Marion Barry — because he is a Black man standing up to the system, trying to protect a community that includes some of the city’s poorest residents. The November election is already underway, and securing the votes of Black residents east of the Anacostia River enables elected officials to claim acceptance among that population. 

Further, some councilmembers are already lining up for 2026. The word being passed around the city is that McDuffie may run for mayor. Mendelson is expected to seek another term. 

Truth be told, I’m confident there will be no inoculation — especially if residents are as concerned about the council’s actions as I am. 

While Council Chair Mendelson has the authority to propose a reorganization of committees at any time, he introduced the resolution to remove White as chair of the Committee on Recreation, Libraries and Youth Affairs prior to formalizing and launching the investigation. By taking that action, had councilmembers already determined that White had, in fact, done something serious enough to be penalized?

Wait. Don’t get me wrong. I do not write in defense of White. I think he should have been escorted out of the Wilson Building long ago. 

Rather this column is about the inconsistent manner in which the council disciplines its members, how it manipulates its policies and practices to suit the moment, and how it plays with facts and information to camouflage its own misbehavior. 

In other words, this is about how legislators and key staffers abet an unethical environment.

Consider that even before the vote authorizing the investigation, Mendelson and McDuffie had already announced that Latham & Watkins had been selected as the independent counsel. The legislature approved the appointment of the law firm through a resolution — not as an emergency contract — contrary to what officials had indicated to me.

Council staffers told me they interviewed eight law firms. However, when I requested by FOIA a copy of the written criteria used for those interviews, David Guo, the council’s assistant general counsel, referred me to the rules governing emergency contracting. 

Among other things, those rules state the contract officer “may issue oral orders or notices to proceed to contractors to provide services or goods to the District; provided, that the directive shall be reduced to writing within 3 business days after issuance and funding for the services or goods provided shall be certified by the appropriate fiscal official.”

I haven’t seen any such certification or fiscal impact statement. Nyasha Smith, who is both the secretary of the council and its chief procurement officer, determined that $400,000, which is an estimate by the way, is “fair and reasonable based on market research for similar services,” according to her written justification for an emergency procurement. (The council paid about $250,000 for the investigation of former Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans.)

When I asked Guo in an email that was copied to Mendelson, McDuffie, Smith and the legislature’s budget director, Jennifer Budoff, about the source of funding, no one provided an answer. Only Guo responded, writing that, “To the extent you are seeking records identifying the specific budget line item that will be used to fund the investigation, there are no such records at this time.”

In other words, the council likely will pull from some other area of its budget to cover the Latham & Watkins price tag.

Emergency contracting also requires the council to publicly post an actual contract. That didn’t happen, either. Smith has asserted in an email to me that the “engagement letter” (dated Sept. 24 in one place and Sept. 11 elsewhere) written by Dannielle Conley at Latham & Watkins is, in fact, the contract. 

It’s clear from reading that document that it is not a contract. There are few protections for the government and the public, as most government contracts seek to provide. Most benefits accrue to Latham & Watkins; for example, the firm noted that sometimes it revises its rates and should that happen, the changes will be automatically applied and “this letter constitutes written notice of our right to make such revisions.” Further, the council will be charged for staff overtime and meals.

Mendelson and McDuffie signed the letter on Sept. 26. 

“That kind of money is a rounding error to them,” Thies said facetiously about the $400,000 expenditure. The city’s fiscal year 2025 budget is more than $20 billion; revenues were generated through a round of new taxes on some residents and program cuts.

Why, you might ask, does any of this matter? 

The public has a right to know. They deserve to understand the behind-the-scenes machinations and to have the information necessary to evaluate the eventual outcome based on what was or wasn’t done. 

Certainly, there is reason to be concerned about cutting corners and misrepresenting the facts. The greater issue, at least for me, is whether the council’s lack of fidelity to its own rules could give rise to legitimate questions about the integrity of the process that is being used to question the integrity of a councilmember accused of accepting cash bribes not once but multiple times over multiple years.

Will there be an opportunity for him to avoid responsibility and accountability?

---

jonetta rose barras is an author and DC-based freelance journalist, covering national and local issues. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.