Connect with us

Local

D.C. Council reprimands Graham, strips him of committee duties

Gay Councilman expected to seek re-election next year

Published

on

Jim Graham, Democratic Party, Ward 1, Washington D.C., Washington Blade, gay news
Jim Graham, Democratic Party, Ward 1, Washington D.C., Washington Blade, gay news

D.C. Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The D.C. Council voted 11 to 2 on Monday to reprimand gay Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) on grounds that he violated a Council ethics rule in 2008 by improperly intervening in a contract approval process.

In a separate action, the Council voted 10 to 2, with one member voting ā€œpresent,ā€ to strip Graham of his committee responsibilities over the cityā€™s alcoholic beverage regulatory agency and liquor law policy.

The reprimand and sanction against Grahamā€™s committee responsibilities were approved in the form of separate resolutions introduced by Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large). Mendelson argued that action against Graham was needed to maintain the confidence of the pubic in the ā€œintegrityā€ the Council and the city government.

ā€œIt is time to move on,ā€ Graham said in a statement released after the Council session adjourned.

ā€œI have very important responsibilities as chairman of the human services committee and all the responsibility of representing Ward 1,ā€ he said. ā€œGoing forward, I will continue to represent the people who elected me to serve with the same passion and fervor as I have from my first day in office.ā€

Graham and Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) were the only two of the 13 Council members to vote against the two resolutions. Council member Vincent Orange (D-At-Large) voted for the reprimand resolution but voted “present,” which is considered a form of abstention, on the resolution taking away Graham’s committee duties on liquor law matters.

Rick Rosendall, president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, who attended Mondayā€™s Council session, said he is uncertain whether the Councilā€™s action and the ethics board opinion that Graham violated city ethics rules would have a harmful impact on Grahamā€™s longtime support from LGBT voters.

ā€œThis is not about LGBT issues,ā€ Rosendall said. ā€œJim has been a strong and committed ally on that.ā€

Rosendall, as did Mendelson, also noted that the ethics related allegations against Graham do not involve a breach in the cityā€™s criminal laws and no one has accused Graham of such an allegation.

Some political observers note that Council member David Grosso (I-At-Large), who defeated incumbent Council member Michael Brown (I-At-Large) last November following a campaign that attacked Brown on ethics related issues, won in nearly all of the cityā€™s precincts with large numbers of LGBT residents.

At Mondayā€™s Council session, Grosso said he would favor more stringent sanctions against Graham, noting that large numbers of his constituents urged him to push for a censure rather than a reprimand against Graham.

Graham has been highly popular in Ward 1, where he has been credited with playing a key role in improving neighborhoods and boosting economic development, especially in the Columbia Heights neighborhood that has become one of the cityā€™s popular retail and entertainment centers.

The Councilā€™s vote for the reprimand and committee sanction came after a 40 minute debate in which Barry, a former D.C. mayor, was the only member to speak against the two resolutions.

Marion Barry, Jim Graham, D.C. Council, gay news, Washington Blade

Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) speaks with his colleague, Graham, before the session. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

ā€œIā€™m arguing that Jim Graham has not been given due process,ā€ Barry said, adding that he believes Graham was denied his constitutional right of due process under the law because both the Council and the D.C. Board of Ethics and Government Accountability didnā€™t hold hearings to allow Graham to dispute the allegations against him.

Mendelson and Council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), a law professor at George Washington University Law School, disputed Barryā€™s argument, saying Graham was given an opportunity to present his case against the allegations during deliberations of three separate entities that have investigated the allegations.

Mendelson said he was prompted to introduce the reprimand and committee sanction resolutions after the ethics board issued an opinion saying it found a ā€œsubstantial body of evidenceā€ that Graham violated the code of conduct for a city employee or official in connection with the contracting matter.

He noted that the ethics board, an investigation conducted by a private law firm on behalf of the Metro Transit board, and the cityā€™s Inspector General each looked into the matter.

All three entities concluded that Graham acted improperly by allegedly attempting to pressure businessman Warren Williams into withdrawing a bid for a Metro land development contract in exchange for Grahamā€™s support for Williams receiving a D.C. lottery contract.

Graham has denied interfering with the contract approval process. He has said he favored awarding the Metro contract to a competing businessman, but has said he did so because the other businessmanā€™s company was better qualified to carry out the terms of the contract.

Through his attorneys, Graham last week filed a lawsuit against the ethics board on grounds that it violated the city law that created it by issuing an opinion on Grahamā€™s case without holding a hearing in which Graham had the opportunity to contest the allegations and evidence used against him.

Graham told his colleagues during the Council session Monday that he plans to move forward with his lawsuit but hopes to continue working amicably with them on future Council business.

Although he declined Mendelsonā€™s offer to allow him to speak on the reprimand resolution before the Council voted on it, Graham spoke at considerable length on the resolution calling for taking away his committee responsibilities on liquor law matters.

Saying he is ā€œvery proudā€ of what he and his committee have done to improve the cityā€™s laws regulating bars, nightclubs, and restaurants, he urged his colleagues not to strip him of those responsibilities.

ā€œThere is no relationship between my reprimand and the role I play on these committee issues,ā€ he said.

Mendelson told the Blade after the Council session ended that there was ā€œno questionā€ that the decision to strip Graham of his liquor law responsibilities was a form of ā€œpunishmentā€ linked to the reprimand.

ā€œItā€™s a diminishment of his committee responsibilities and goes with the reprimand,ā€ he said. ā€œThatā€™s why they were both on the agenda today.ā€

Gay Council member David Catania (I-At-Large), who voted for both the reprimand and the committee sanction but didnā€™t speak during the Council debate, told the Blade following the Council session that he strongly disagrees with Graham and Barryā€™s claim that Graham was denied due process rights.

ā€œI thought that was nonsense,ā€ said Catania. ā€œThis is a disciplinary proceeding, not a criminal justice proceeding. And the notion of a lack of due process is laughable,ā€ he said.

ā€œCandidly, I think this whole thing could have been handled much differently at the onset if Mr. Graham would have acknowledged that, in hindsight, he perhaps was a little over zealous and perhaps went too far [in the contract matter] and apologized,ā€ Catania said. ā€˜Heā€™s been defiant all along. Had he apologized two years ago we might not be here today.ā€

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Maryland

What Anne Arundel County school board candidates think about book bans

State lawmakers passed Freedom to Read Act in April

Published

on

Parents in some Maryland school districts have organized campaigns to restrict the kinds of books allowed in school libraries. (Photo by Kylie Cooper/Baltimore Banner)

BY ROYALE BONDS | Parentsā€™ efforts to restrict content available to students in school libraries has become a contentious issue in Maryland. Conservative parent groups, such as Moms for Liberty, have been working to get books they believe are inappropriate removed from libraries in Carroll and Howard counties, sparkingĀ protests, new policies, and even aĀ state law.

The Freedom to Read Act, passed in April, sets standards that books cannot be removed from public and school libraries due to an authorā€™s background. Library staff that uphold the standard are protected under this act. The law, however, does not prohibit removing books deemed ā€œsexually explicit,ā€ the stated reason local Moms for Liberty chapters challenged school library books.

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner website.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

D.C. Council member proposes change for Mayorā€™s Office of LGBTQ Affairs

Parker also seeks increased funding for LGBTQ programs in FY 2025 budget

Published

on

D.C. Council member Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5) (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

D.C. Council member Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), the Councilā€™s only LGBTQ member, has asked his fellow Council members to support a proposal to change the Mayorā€™s Office of LGBTQ Affairs to become a ā€œstand-alone entity outside the Executive Office of the Mayor to allow for greater transparency and accountability that reflects its evolution over the years.ā€

In an April 30 letter to each of his 12 fellow Council members, Parker said he plans to introduce an amendment to the cityā€™s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Support Act to make this change for the LGBTQ Affairs Office.

His letter also calls for adding to the cityā€™s FY 2025 budget two specific funding proposals that local LGBTQ activists submitted to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser that the mayor did not include in her budget proposal submitted to the Council. One calls for $1.5 million to fund the completion of the build out and renovation for the D.C. Center for the LGBTQ Communityā€™s new building in the cityā€™s Shaw neighborhood and $300,000 in subsequent years to support the LGBTQ Centerā€™s operations.

Parkerā€™s second budget proposal calls for what he said was about $450,000 to fund 20 additional dedicated LGBTQ housing vouchers as part of the cityā€™s existing program to provide emergency housing support for LGBTQ residents and other residents facing homelessness.

ā€œThe Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs currently manages about 90 vouchers across various programs and needs,ā€ Parker said in his letter to fellow Council members. ā€œAdding an additional 20 vouchers will cost roughly $450,000,ā€ he wrote, adding that dedicated vouchers “play a crucial role in ensuring LGBTQ+ residents of the District can navigate the complex process of securing housing placements.ā€

In her proposed FY ā€™25 budget, Bowser calls for a 7.6 percent increase in funding for the Office of LGBTQ Affairs, which amounts to an increase of $132,000, bringing the officeā€™s total funding to $1.7 million.

ā€œTo be clear, I support the strong work and current leadership of the Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs,ā€ Parker says in his letter to fellow Council members. ā€œThis push for change is in recognition of the officeā€™s notable achievements and the significant demands being placed on it, which require a greater level of accountability.ā€

Parker told the Blade in an April 30 telephone interview that he believes Japer Bowles, the current director of the Office of L|GBTQ Affairs is doing an excellent job in operating the office, but he believes the office would be able to do more for the LGBTQ community under the change he is proposing.

ā€œMaking it a stand-alone office versus it being clustered within the Community Affairs division of the mayorā€™s office, it will get more attention,ā€ Parker told the Blade. ā€œThe leadership will have greater flexibility to advocate for the interest of LGBTQ residents, And we will be able to conduct greater oversight of the office,ā€ he said, referring to the Councilā€™s oversight process.

Parker noted that other community constituent offices in the mayorā€™s office, including the Office of Latino Affairs and the Office of Veterans Affairs are stand-alone offices that he hopes to bring about for the LGBTQ Affairs Office. He said Council member Brianne Nadeau, who chairs the Council committee that has oversight for the LGBTQ Affairs Office, has expressed support for his proposal.

Also expressing support for Parkerā€™s proposal to make the LGBTQ Affairs Office a stand-alone office is the D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commission Rainbow Caucus. Vincent Slatt, the caucusā€™s chairperson, submitted testimony last week before the D.C. Council Committee on Public Works and Operations, which is chaired by Nadeau, calling for making the LGBTQ Affairs Office a stand-alone office outside the Executive Office of the Mayor.

Slatt also stated in his testimony that the office has a ā€œchronic staffing shortageā€ and recommended that at least three additional staff members be assigned to the office.

Daniel Gleick, the mayorā€™s press secretary, told the Blade the mayorā€™s office is reviewing Parkerā€™s budget proposals, including the proposed change for the Office of LGBTQ Affairs.

But in testimony at a May 1, D.C. Council budget hearing before the Councilā€™s Committee on Executive Administration and Labor, Lindsey Parker, Mayor Bowserā€™s Chief of Staff, appeared to express skepticism over making the LGBTQ Affairs office a stand-alone office. Lindsey Parker expressed her thoughts on the proposed change when asked about it by Councilmember Anita Bonds (D-At-Large), who chairs the committee that held the hearing.

ā€œI would proffer that it doesnā€™t matter whether the agency is within the EOM [Executive Office of the Mayor] or not,ā€ Lindsey Parker told Bonds. ā€œThey will still be reporting up into one would argue the most important agency in the D.C. government, which is the one that supports the mayor,ā€ Lindsey Parker said. ā€œSo, itā€™s the closest to the mayor that you can get,ā€ she said ā€œSo, you could pull it out and have a different budget chapter. I actually think thatā€™s confusing and convoluted.ā€

Lindsey Parker added, ā€œThe Mayorā€™s Office of LGBTQ Affairs, with their six FTEs right now, if they were a stand-alone function they wouldnā€™t have all the non-personnel services in order to operate. They need to be under sort of the shop of the EOM in order to get those resources.ā€Ā 

By FETs Lindsey Parker was referring to the term Full Time Equivalent employees. Ā 

Continue Reading

Rehoboth Beach

Former CAMP Rehoboth official sentenced to nine months in prison

Salvator Seeley pleaded guilty to felony theft charge for embezzlement

Published

on

Salvator Seeley (Photo courtesy CAMP Rehoboth)

Salvator ā€œSalā€ Seeley, who served as an official with the Rehoboth Beach, Del., CAMP Rehoboth LGBTQ community center for 20 years, was sentenced on April 5 by a Sussex County Superior Court judge to nine months in prison and to pay $176,000 in restitution to the organization.

The sentencing took place about five weeks after Seeley pleaded guilty to a charge of Theft in Excess of $50,000 for allegedly embezzling funds from CAMP Rehoboth, a spokesperson for the Delaware Department of Justice told the Washington Blade.

Seeley’s guilty plea came shortly after a grand jury, at the request of prosecutors, indicted him on the felony theft charge following an investigation that found he had embezzled at least $176,000 from the nonprofit LGBTQ organization.

ā€œSalvatore C. Seeley, between the 27th day of February 2019 and the 7th day of September 2021, in the County of Sussex, State of Delaware, did take property belonging to CAMP Rehoboth, Inc., consisting of United States currency and other miscellaneous property valued at more than $50,000, intending to appropriate the same,ā€ the indictment states.

ā€œThe State recommended a sentence of two years of incarceration based on the large-scale theft and the impact to the non-profit organization,ā€ Delaware Department of Justice spokesperson Caroline Harrison told the Blade in a statement.

ā€œThe defense cited Seeleyā€™s lack of a record and gambling addiction in arguing for a probationary sentence,ā€ the statement says. ā€œSeeley was sentenced in Superior Court to a nine-month prison term and to pay a total of $176,000 in restitution for the stolen funds,ā€ Harrison says in the statement.

Neither Seeley nor his attorney could immediately be reached for comment.

At the time of Seeleyā€™s indictment in February, CAMP Rehoboth released a statement saying it first discovered ā€œfinancial irregularitiesā€ within the organization on Sept. 7, 2021, ā€œand took immediate action and notified state authorities.ā€ The statement says this resulted in the investigation of Seeley by the state Department of Justice as well as an internal investigation by CAMP Rehoboth to review its ā€œfinancial control policiesā€ that led to an updating of those policies.

ā€œAs we have communicated from day one, CAMP Rehoboth has fully cooperated with law enforcement,ā€ the statement continues. ā€œAt its request, we did not speak publicly about the investigation while it was ongoing for fear it would jeopardize its integrity,ā€ according to the statement. ā€œThis was extremely difficult given our commitment to transparency with the community about day-to-day operations during the recent leadership transition.ā€

The statement was referring to Kim Leisey, who began her job as CAMP Rehobothā€™s new executive director in July of 2023, while the Seeley investigation had yet to be completed, following the organizationā€™s process of searching for a new director. It says Seeley left his job as Health and Wellness Director of CAMP Rehoboth in September of 2021 after working for the organization for more than 20 years.

ā€œMr. Seeleyā€™s actions are a deep betrayal to not only CAMP Rehoboth but also the entire community we serve,ā€ the statement says.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular