COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COI THE JOHN A. WILSON BUILDING 1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 November 19, 2010 JMBIA The Honorable Alfred S. Irving, Jr. Associate Judge Superior Court of the District of Columbia 500 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite JM-420 Washington, DC 20001 RE: Banneker Ventures v. DC 2010 CA 006067 Dear Judge Irving: We write regarding a Joint Motion for Consent Judgment that was filed in the above-referenced ‘case on November 16th, a copy of which we received on November 18, 2010. The court should take notice that the Council has voted several times, and legislation has been enacted, that would prohibit the settlement agreement at issue in the Consent Judgment. Because of these actions, the District’s Chief Financial Officer has withheld payment required by the settlement agreement. ‘The Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary recently marked up and presented to the full Council for its approval the “Settlement Payment Integrity Amendment Act of 2010,” Bill 18-889. This bill would prohibit the District from entering into, or making payment pursuant to, a settlement agreement for a claim relating to a contract that has been disapproved by the Council and is the subject of an ongoing investigation by certain agencies such as the Council, ‘The settlement agreement that is the subject of the Joint Motion for Consent Judgment is prohibited by this legislation because the settlement pertains to work done pursuant to a contract that ‘was expressly disapproved by the Council pursuant to its authority under section 451 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act and the contract itselfi the subject of an ongoing Council investigation conducted pursuant to the Council’s authority under section 413 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. ‘The background concerning the disapproval of the contract, the initiation and conduct of the investigation, and the adoption of the legislation by the committee is set forth in the committee report for Bill 18-889 issued by the Judiciary Committee. A copy is attached. Bill 18-889 is having its second and final reading before the Council on November 23, 2010. Importantly, the Council has already approved, and the Mayor has consented to, the enactment ofa temporary version of the legislation. This act (Act 18-562) is expected to complete passive review before Congress and become law by the end of this month. The temporary would be in effect for 225 days after its effective date. Act 18-562 makes the prohibition of a settlement agreement retroactive to June 30, 2010, prior to the date the settlement agreement was signed.‘The Honorable Alfied S. Irving, Jr. Associate Judge November 19, 2010 RE: Banneker Ventures v. DC 2010 CA 006067 Page Two The Attomey General is using the consent judgment to circumvent these legislative acts, as well as the District’s Chief Financial Officer. Given that the Council has voted several times to prohibit the very same agreement that forms the basis of the Consent Judgment, and that the Mayor has allowed legislation prohibiting such an agreement to go forward to Congress (to become law shortly), we do not believe the Consent Judgment is in the public interest. Indeed, the legislative acts are the correct articulation of the public interest. We ask that you withhold granting the Joint Motion for Consent Judgment. Mille SChaarman Jr. Chairman c ‘ommittee on Public Safety Commifftee on Libraries, and the Judiciary Parks, and Recreation Sincerely, an ernment ie Environment ene, (Bill 18-889 Report) ce (without enc.) Peter Nickles, Attorney General Brian Flowers, General Counsel Vincent C. Gray, Chairman