Dorothy Brizill, DCWatchComplaint to the Office of Campaign Finance onviolations of the prohibition against a lobbyist giving a gift to an electedofficial, or an official receiving a giftNovember 7, 2003

DCWatch

1327 Girard Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009-4915

202-234-6982, fax 202-232-1215

http://www.onlinesportsbooks.us.com

November 7, 2003

Ms. Cecily Collier-Montgomery

Office of Campaign Finance

2000 14th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

Dear Ms. Collier-Montgomery:

This letter is a formal complaint of a violation of District of
Columbia laws and regulations regarding election campaigns, lobbying, and
conflict of interest by Mayor Anthony Williams and attorney/lobbyist
Vincent Mark Policy.

Background

A political consultant to Mayor Anthony A. Williams, Thomas Lindenfeld,
is currently suing Mayor Williams and Committee to Re-Elect Anthony
"Tony" Williams (hereinafter "the Committee"),
alleging that he had contracted to do work for Mayor Williams, both as an
individual and as a candidate for office, and also for the Committee, and
that Mayor Williams and the Committee have refused to pay debts that they
owe him for his services (Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Case
No. 02CA005119). In this suit, the Committee is being represented by
Douglas J. Patton and the firm of Holland & Knight and Mayor Williams,
as an individual, is being represented by Vincent Mark Policy, of the firm
of Greenstein, DeLorme, and Luchs (see Attachment
A).

To date, this case has required a significant number of hours of legal
work that at normal rates would already have cost tens of thousands of
dollars. Mr. Policy, however, by his own admission in a letter that he
filed as a matter of public record in this case, is representing the Mayor
at no charge and has endeavored to keep secret the fact that he is not
charging a fee for his services (see Attachment B). Mr. Policy is
registered as a lobbyist with the District of Columbia Office of Campaign
Finance, and he represents the Apartment and Office Building Association
(AOBA) and the Washington, DC, Association of Realtors, among others, on
matters before the DC government (see Attachment
C).

Complaint

Mr. Policy’s representation of Mr. Williams at no charge constitutes a
prohibited and illegal contribution to an elected official, and it would
do so even if he were to represent Mr. Williams at a reduced or discounted
fee.

Relevant Sections of the Code and Regulations

DC Code §1-1105.01(5) The term "gift" means a payment,
subscription, advance, forebearance, rendering, or deposit of money,
services, or anything of value, unless consideration of equal or greater
value is received, for the purpose of influencing the actions of a
public official in making or influencing the making of an administrative
decision or legislative action, and shall not include a political
contribution otherwise reported as required by law, a commercially
reasonable loan made in the ordinary course of business, or a gift
received from a member of the person’s household as defined by
§1-1106.01(i)(4)

DC Code §1-1105.06(a) No registrant [as a lobbyist] or anyone acting on
behalf of a registrant shall offer, give, or cause to be given a gift to
an official in the legislative or executive branch or a member of his or
her staff, that exceeds $100 in value in the aggregate in any calendar
year. This section shall not be construed to restrict in any manner
contributions authorized in §§1-1131.01 through 1-1131.02 and
§1-1104.03.

DC Code §1-1106.01(c) No person shall offer or give to a public
official or a member of a public official’s household, and no public
official shall solicit or receive anything of value, including a gift,
favor, service, loan gratuity, discount, hospitality, political
contribution, or promise of future employment, based on any
understanding that such public official’s actions or judgment or vote
would be influenced thereby, or where it could reasonably be inferred
that the thing of value would influence the public official in the
discharge of his or her duties, or as a reward, except for political
contributions publicly reported pursuant to §1-1102.06 and transactions
made in the ordinary course of business of the person offering or giving
the thing of value.

DC Code §1-1101.01(6)(B) Notwithstanding the foregoing, such term
shall not be construed to include:

(1) Services provided without compensation, by individuals (including
accountants and attorneys) volunteering a portion or all of their time
on behalf of a candidate or political committee.

U.S. Code Title 2, Chapter 14, Subchapter 1, §431(6)(viii)(II) [The
term "contribution" does not include any legal or accounting
services rendered to or on behalf of] an authorized committee of a
candidate or any other political committee, if the person paying for
such services is the regular employer of the individual rendering such
services and if such services are solely for the purpose of ensuring
compliance with this Act or chapter 95 chapter 95 or chapter 96 of title
26, but amount paid or incurred by the regular employer for such legal
or accounting services shall be reported in accordance with section
434(b) of this title by the committee receiving such services. . . .

Discussion

Mr. Policy is a registered lobbyist in the District of Columbia, and
Mayor Anthony Williams is an elected official. As such, Mr. Policy is
absolutely prohibited from giving to Mr. Williams, and Mr. Williams is
absolutely prohibited from receiving from Mr. Policy, anything of value
worth over one hundred dollars in any calendar year. This prohibition
includes Mr. Policy’s legal services.

I contend that Mr. Policy’s pro bono representation of Mr. Williams
also violates other sections of the elections and ethics laws and
regulations of the District of Columbia. Certainly, individuals are not
only entitled, but encouraged, to volunteer their time and services to
political campaigns, and such volunteer efforts are not considered
campaign contributions. However, Mr. Policy’s services are not and cannot
be considered volunteer services to the Committee.

First, Mr. Policy is explicitly not representing the Committee, which
has separate representation. He is representing Mr. Williams as an
individual. Therefore, his services do not fulfill the legal requirement
that the volunteer activities be performed for the political Committee.

Second, District and Federal law place special requirements and
limitations on the type of professional volunteer activities that lawyers
and accountants may perform for political committees. While these
limitations are not explicitly spelled out in District law, District
election officials have a well established practice of relying upon
Federal law and regulations in order to interpret District election laws
and regulations where they are vague or incomplete. And Federal election
campaign laws clearly state that lawyers and accountants may volunteer
their professional services to political campaigns only insofar as those
services are dedicated to enabling campaigns to comply with election laws
and regulations.

A lawyer (provided he or she is not a lobbyist) may freely volunteer
legal advice and representation to a committee to keep it in compliance
with election laws or to defend it against a complaint of having broken
election laws. But the Lindenfeld complaint does not involve election law.
It is a matter of contract law. Though some of the services that Mr.
Lindenfeld provided related to Mayor Williams’s reelection, the dispute
over payment of the bill has no relationship to election law. It is
therefore outside of the legal area in which lawyers are permitted to
volunteer their services to a political campaign.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above discussion, I am requesting the Office of
Campaign Finance to investigate whether Mr. Policy’s donation of pro bono
legal representation to Mr. Williams as an individual violates the
election laws and regulations of the District of Columbia — including
whether it constitutes an illegal donation of something of value by a
lobbyist to an elected official, whether services that are explicitly
provided to an elected official as an individual can be considered as
having been provided to that individual’s political committee, and whether
the representation that Mr. Policy is providing in this case falls within
the boundaries of legal services that can legitimately be provided as
volunteer services to a political campaign.

Sincerely yours,

Dorothy A. Brizill

cc: Mr. Benjamin Wilson, Chairman, D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics

Ms. Alice Miller, Executive Director, D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics

Mr. Kenneth McGhie, General Counsel, D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics

Subscribed and sworn or affirmed to by me this 7th day of November
2003.

My Commission Expires: 07-31-05, Sidney W. Williams, III, Notary

Back to top of page

Attachment A

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION

THOMAS LINDENFELD, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 02CA005119

Judge Jeanette J. Clark  

Calendar
14

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

TO THE CLERK:

Please take notice that counsel of record, Robert M.
Krasne and Margaret A. Keeley of Williams & Connolly LLP are hereby
withdrawing as counsel to defendant Anthony A. Williams
("Williams") in the above-captioned matter, and Vincent Mark
J. Policy of Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C. is entering his
appearance as counsel’ of record for Anthony A. Williams. Please copy
Mr. Policy at 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, D.C., (202)
452-1400 with any pleadings, orders, or other documents issued by the
Court in the above-captioned case.

We also enclose a proposed Order for the Court permitting
this substitution of counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

GREENSTEIN DeLORME & LUCHS, P.C. 

By:

Vincent Mark Policy

1620 L. Street, N.W. Suite 900

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Phone: (202) 452-1400 Fax: (202)
452-1410

WILLIAMS &
CONNOLLY LLP

By: 

Robert M. Krasne
(375750) 

Margaret A. Keeley (454962)

725 Twelfth Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Phone:
(202) 434-5000 Fax: (202) 434-5029

CLIENT:

Anthony A. Williams

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 13, 2003, I caused true and correct
copies of the foregoing Defendant Anthony A. Williams’ Notice of
Appearance and Substitution of Counsel to be served by first class mail
upon: 

Sherri L. Wyatt

1825 I St., N.W.

Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 429-2009

Douglas J. Patton

Holland & Knight LLP

2099 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Suite 100

Washington, D.C. 20006-6801

Phone: (202) 955-3000

Fax: (202) 955-5564

Vincent Mark J. Policy

Back to top of page

Attachment B

LAW OFFICES 

GREENSTEIN DELORME & LOCHS, P C.

1620 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 900

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036-5605

TELEPHONE (202) 452-1400

FACSIMILE (202) 452-1410

www.gdllaw.com

September 17, 2003

BY MESSENGER

Sherri L. Wyatt, Esq. 

Sherri L. Wyatt, PLLC 

1017 12th
Street, N.W. Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20005

Re: Lindenfeld v. Williams, et al., Civil Action No.
02-005119

Dear Sherri:

I noted in your Opposition to our Motion to Compel
Attorneys’ Fees that you stated to the Court that my services are being
provided on a pro bono basis. That information was provided to you in
the Mediation and you and Mr. Lindenfeld agreed that any statements made
in the Mediation would not be used in Court or made public. By making
this statement in your pleading, you have breached that confidentiality
agreement.

Sincerely,

Vincent Mark J. Policy

VMP:vjh 215218

CC: Damien G. Stewart, Esq. (by regular mail)

Back to top of page

Attachment C (edited to relevant entries)

Friday, August 08, 2003