Testimony of Dorothy A. Brizill

Executive Director, DCWatch

to the Committee on Government Operations on

Bill 15-183, the "Inspector General Qualifications Amendment Act of
2003"

March 27, 2003

Good morning. I am Dorothy Brizill, a citizen of the District of
Columbia and executive director of onlinesportsbooks.us.com. I believe that my
experience has made me particularly well qualified to comment on this
legislation. I have been concerned about management and corruption issues
in the DC government for a number of years, and have followed the
activities of several DC Inspectors General.

I attended the Congressional hearings that resulted in the adoption of
PL 104-8, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Act of 1995, which amended DC law to create the current form of
the Inspector General’s office. And, since the passage of that law, I
followed, with both interest and concern, the performance of successive
Inspectors General: Angela Avant, who was dismissed by the Control Board
for lack of investigative experience and her performance in office; Robert
Thomas, who was dismissed by the Control Board for lack of auditing
experience and his performance in office; E. Barrett Prettyman; and
Charles Maddox.

I believe that Mr. Maddox’s performance has amply shown his
unsuitability for the office, and I believe that he should be removed from
office for cause. However, I do not support this legislation, for one
reason. The legislation would require the Inspector General to be an
"attorney" or "certified public accountant," with some
additional qualifications. I do not believe that being a member of either
profession is a necessary requirement for being a good Inspector General,
and I believe that this legislation would preclude good candidates for the
office from being considered in the future.

It is laudable to set standards and qualifications for the position,
but the qualifications in this law are too specific. I would support
language more in keeping with the federal standard in Public Law 95-452,
§3(a):

There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the
basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing,
financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or
investigations.

However, the primary argument made by Mr. Maddox against this
legislation carries no weight. In his letter of March 24, 2003, to the
chairman of this committee, Mr. Maddox contends:

. . . it is clear that Congress established [in Public Law 104-8] a
specific framework regarding the qualifications, length of term, method
of removal (by the Mayor for cause), budget approval (by Congress), and
reporting requirements (to the U.S. Attorney General and to Congress),
which may not constitute "local" law that the D.C. Council has
the authority to amend or repeal under the provisions of the Home Rule
Act.

This contention is mistaken in two respects. First, P.L. 104-8 does not
set qualifications for the office of Inspector General; it is silent as to
qualifications for the office. Second, as Mr. Maddox knows well, the
provisions of P.L. 104-8 regarding the Inspector General’s Office amended
the District Code, and the City Council has the authority and power to
amend City Code. In fact, the City Council has amended P.L. 104-8 several
times, sometimes at the request of Mr. Maddox himself, such as when he
asked this Council to give his officers the authority to carry firearms.

However, if this Council does not pass legislation changing the
qualifications of the office, the main problem addressed by this
legislation remains. Mr. Maddox has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks
the integrity, trustworthiness, and ability to perform the duties of his
office. This Council unanimously passed a resolution of no confidence in
Mr. Maddox on February 5, 2002 (Resolution 14-366), and he has since done
nothing to regain the confidence of this body. Instead, he has done much
to destroy any remaining hope in the Council, the public, or the press
that he would perform creditably.

This committee has already compiled a substantial record to demonstrate
that Mr. Maddox should be removed from office "for cause," and
in the past month Mr. Maddox has only added to that record by giving false
and misleading testimony to this committee. As I have testified, within
just the past six years two Inspectors General have already been removed
"for cause," and neither had performed as poorly as Mr. Maddox.
If this committee requests me to do so, I would be glad to supplement the
record that it already has by preparing a report detailing the multiple
reasons why Mr. Maddox should be removed "for cause."

However, under the current law the Inspector General can be removed
only by the Mayor "for cause," and to date the mayor has not
indicated that he is in any way displeased with Mr. Maddox’s performance.
Indeed, it may even be the case that the mayor believes himself to be well
served by Mr. Maddox’s misuse and abuse of his powers. If the mayor will
not do his duty and remove an Inspector General who misuses and abuses the
office, there is still one more recourse.

DC Code 2-302.08(f)(5) requires that:

A peer review of the Office of the Inspector General’s audit,
inspection and investigation sections’ standards, policies, procedures,
operations, and quality controls shall be performed no less than once
every 3 years by an entity not affiliated with the Office of the
Inspector General. Any final report shall be distributed to the Mayor,
the Council and the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority.

No such peer review has ever been done, although Mr. Maddox, in his
testimony to this committee on March 7, 2003, seemed to be under the
impression that the peer review was something that he himself could
initiate and engage outside entities to do this review. This DC provision
parallels, to some extent, the federal provisions contained in Executive
Order 12993, regarding "Administrative Allegations Against Inspectors
General" (March 21, 1996, 61 F.R. 13043). It is clear that the Office
of the Inspector General cannot initiate its own "independent"
review, and it certainly cannot choose and engage the entity that should
conduct such a review.

This committee must insist that such an independent peer review begin
immediately. If the mayor refuses to cooperate with such a review, under
the clear language of the law the City Council can proceed on its own. It
is my recommendation that it do so. Any honest and impartial peer review
of the performance of Mr. Maddox as Inspector General must result in his
resignation or his removal from office "for cause."