Yesterday, Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans lashed out at former Washington Post reporter John Hanrahan, calling him “a f—ing idiot” in an interview with City Paper‘s Loose Lips. Over the years, Hanrahan has raised questions about his councilmember’s dealings, including the day before in an interview with TheFightBack.
Evans is the longest serving DC councilmember and chair of the all-important Finance and Revenue Committee. He’s also on the payroll of Patton Boggs, but it’s unclear what the councilmember does for the powerhouse lobby firm in return for his $240,000 salary. (He earns an additional$125,000 a year as a councilmember).
The councilmember’s Patton Boggs bio used to say, “Mr. Evans advises clients on real estate matters.” However, that sentence was removed shortly after my Jan. 2010 op-ed in the Post which questioned whether Evans’ Patton Boggs duties might present a conflict of interest with his efforts to deliver huge amounts of public land and subsidies to private interests.
In significant part because of Evans’ leadership, the city has forked over $700-plus million for a baseball stadium, $850 million for a convention center (when many made the case that the then-existing one was sufficient), $272 million for a convention center hotel (now under construction), among other public-private partnerships.
It was the convention center hotel deal that led to Evans’ outburst yesterday. Along with others, Hanrahan has called for his councilmember to comply with D.C. law and file a written letter explaining why he suddenly recused himself from voting on the deal in the summer of 2009, but Evans has refused to do.
Yesterday, the Post‘s Mike DeBonis reported that Evans had received an April legal opinion from V. David Zvenyach, the Council’s general counsel, explaining that the councilmember doesn’t have to file a written explanation because there’s no conflict of interest, or even an appearance of one, and Evans recused himself only out of an abundance of caution. Despite Zvenyach’s twisted logic and impressive kowtowing, if Evans doesn’t submit a written explanation for his recusals he’s likely to remain in violation of the law.
Evans has played loose with the law for years. While most reporters have turned a blind eye to his dealings, Hanrahan hasn’t, which is precisely why Evans attacked him.
Related Links:
- StealALittle.com
- Read John Hanrahan’s work at NiemanWatchdog.org
Related Stories:
- Councilmember Evans Represents the 1%, Not the Occupiers in His Ward Oct. 27, 2011
- Is Jack Evans in Violation of D.C. Law? Dec. 21, 2010